Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ketuanan Melayu

Ketuanan Melayu

I've been working on this article for several months now, and I think it's at featured level. I'm just putting some finishing touches on it here and there, but otherwise I don't foresee any major changes being made to the article's structure. I think the article might need a couple of extra pictures to break the monotony of plain text (one was removed some time ago for being incorrectly uploaded as PD), but otherwise I believe it meets the requisite standards for writing and referencing (with about 200 footnotes, I think I might have gone overboard). The only major issue I foresee (which was discussed at the peer review three months ago; little has changed since then) is that of size. The article clocks in at about 15,000 words (and this is a conservative estimate, excluding footnotes, section headers, the ToC, etc.). However, I don't think it detrimentally affects the article's readability, which is the main point of our guidelines on article size (although there are also technical issues, confining ourselves to 32kb would mean defeaturing a large number of FAs). The article is so readable that sometimes I find myself caught up in reading it whenever I want to make some formatting change (although I'm rather biased as I wrote most of it). Just in case nobody's noticed, as we always used to say...this is a self-nom. Johnleemk | Talk 19:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral - The article is simply too long. I've helped with some long featured articles, but you're going to need to use summary style here in at least a couple sections. Maybe one on Malaysian independence and another on the new economic policy? The prose is just too much and too unbroken IMHO. InvictaHOG 19:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC) (Have reexamined the article - four days later is still too long and has not begun to utilize summary style. Voting object neutral while awaiting changes. You could make an argument about most articles that use summary style that a nice long well-flowing article could be made without it!) InvictaHOG 16:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

200 footnotes?! wow. . .id take out all the red links but i might do that right now. --Banana04131 19:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that everything ties in so well with the topic (Malay political supremacy/dominance, and the rationales for it). It's hard deciding what to cut. Believe me, if I knew how to implement summary style here, I would. I dislike unwieldy articles as much as the next fellow. Still, sometimes articles on detailed and nuanced topics (especially when it comes to politics) have to be long in order to incorporate multiple viewpoints. Johnleemk | Talk 09:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As a side-note, that's a red herring; I've never suggested that we alter articles which effectively utilise summary style. My point is that there are some articles where the summary style approach can't work as effectively as we'd like. The article is in the process of being pruned, but I believe it is readable in its current state. Johnleemk | Talk 21:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you are addressing me as far as the red herring is concerned? I believe that parts of your article would work well with the summary style and have suggested a few to convert, as have others. It's often the case that a long section flows particularly well but is simply too long and involved for the parent article. My comment was simply to acknowledge how hard it can be to take well-written prose, summarize it, and present the rest in a linked page. I think it is the right thing to do, however! InvictaHOG 01:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Robth suggests below that doing so would be difficult (if not impossible) here because of the tight focus on Malay supremacy. Almost everything irrelevant to it has been trimmed; the problem is that like another long FA, AIDS, some sections are closely related to other articles (I've marked these articles as main ones for the sections in question), but it's impossible to trim them further because everything in the article either deals directly with Malay supremacy, or explains the necessary context for understanding the events. I suppose one could wring a few extra kilobytes from junking some quotes here and there (at the cost of reducing the number of viewpoints on Malay supremacy that are represented; I've tried hard to ensure each quote brings something unique to the table that's directly related to the topic; those that didn't have been cut), but aside from that, I think the 27kb I've cut since this FAC commenced really ought to suffice. AIDS, a similarly complicated topic, also has a number of sections without main articles. I don't think that's a mark against it, and especially not against ketuanan Melayu, since the article on it is so tightly focused. Johnleemk | Talk 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Although this is not a FAC about AIDS, I think it's okay to comment that most sections on AIDS have subarticles and that the two largest without, treatment and "symptoms," would do much better with their own article because right now they are woefully incomplete despite being long. That said, I will reread this article in the next day or so and see how it has changed from 36 hours ago when I last read it. I appreciate the efforts that have been made to reduce length, but I don't think that summary style would fail this article. InvictaHOG 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, I've just spent at least 30 minutes reading the article and really appreciate the hard work that has gone into it. It's well-written and I applaud the main article inclusions of full articles. However, I think that the main article still retains too much information to be considered our best work. You may have to change the sentences or rewrite sections to trim some of the bulk. Large parts of the Malayan Union and Towards Independence sections, for instance, really do not add much to my understanding of the topic. Sure, things are there to be all-inclusive. However, I think that there is an element of the forest for the trees here - far too many trees, too many people, too many organizations which end up clouding the overall move from British rule through today. I wish I felt differently! InvictaHOG 18:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) Thanks, that's really helpful. I tried to cut down the sections you mentioned and clarify the relevance of some events to the topic of Malay supremacy. I think there might be a chance we could squeeze a bit more out of the article and get it below 100kb, but as I said, I have trouble finding things to cut because of my inherent bias. Comments like these are very helpful. Johnleemk | Talk 16:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There's been a lot of great work here and some much-needed paring. I still have concerns about the level of detail, but not enough to object. Great work, thanks for the dedication! InvictaHOG 16:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

1. This quid pro quo arrangement is usually referred to as the social contract.

   Make it known that the social contract is one unique to Malaysia, not what we think of as a social contract.

2. The first germ of Malay nationalism appeared in the early 1900s

   Change "germ" to something else, doesn't sound right in this sentence.

3. The locally-born Indian community — comprising 20% of the Indian population — was likewise largely ignored.

   Is it possible to flesh out this section? Give background on Indian presence in Malaya?

4. Kesatuan Rakyat Indonesia Semenanjung (KRIS)

   Is the abbreviation KRIS a coincidence with kris?

5. etc... etc... 30 more pages of stuff...

   And I stopped reading when Tunku was introduced. Too darn long.

-- Миборовский 23:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to address your concerns, but I don't know whether the coincidental resemblance between KRIS and kris was intentional. In all likelihood it was, but I'm not sure if it's worthy of comment in this article; perhaps in their own, when we get around to writing it. Johnleemk | Talk 09:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Support excellent read. Just two minor comments on some text:

• In the article, it says "British at the same time ... involving only the Malay ruling class in government and administrative issues." . I believe this extends to military as well. The British failed to arm the non-Malays, in order to "preserve the position of the British" by putting one race over the others. The consequence was that the Chinese (who were staunchly anti-Japanese) were not mobilised to defend against the Japanese in WWII, until the call-up of a multi-racial Singapore Volunteer Corp in December 1941; but it was too late. The Malay Regiment fought bravely, but had the non-Malays also been mobilised, armed and trained, the Allied would have a much better chance to defend Malaya and Singapore. The article Royal Malay Regiment mentions some related issues.
• In the article, it says "Eventually, the Tunku — fed up with all the politicking — decided to ask Singapore, ... to secede from Malaysia." I don't know what exactly was Tunku's reason for making that fateful decision, but I hope it was more than just being "fed up" because it changed the destiny of 2 million people and I had to give up 2.5 years of my life to the SAF as a result, ;-). Could you elaborate further on that sentence? --Vsion 06:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your first concern is that it seems to be a bit of a novel interpretation of historical events. All the sources I looked at for this article cite only the British policies of segregation by geographic locality and profession; there's not much mention of the military (although I might try to go through Roff's book again and hunt for some reference to it, generally most scholars don't make much of the military - at least not until post-May 13). And as for the defense of Malaya and Singapore, I'm not sure that's entirely appropriate for this article's scope. I've tried to make the Tunku's stand clearer, but for a more nuanced view of the situation, I recommend the books by Patrick Keith and Noordin Sopiee (the latter may be hard to find, though) cited in the references. The article focuses on separation with a lens geared towards how ketuanan Melayu influenced events; as a result, a more complete perspective the topic warrants can only be found in a treatment with a specific scope limited to separation. Johnleemk | Talk 09:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice job in clarifying the "secession" sentence. For my first point, on WWII preparation, it is not really an "actionable" comment, rather just for infor. I read it from Frank Owen "Fall of Singapore" (1972). I don't have the precise quote, but basically it said that the British were hestitant to allow non-Malays to carry arms and fight as it would legitimise their stake in Malaya and erode the Malay "supremacy", and would make it more difficult for British to rule. Many factors led to the Fall of Malaya and Singapore, so we can't draw conclusion on that. Nonetheless, prior to Japanese invasion, the infantry regiments raised from the local population were either of European descents or Malays. Note that these regiments could be used for internal security operations as well, and that they were exclusively Malays was symbolically significant. --Vsion 04:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

1. This is a remarkably comprehensive article, but the length is a problem. I found it quite difficult to read, even though I am interested in the topic. Perhaps a few of the many quotations could be removed or reduced in length?
2. In the opening sentence "the racialist belief that the Malay people are the "tuan" (masters) of Malaysia or Malaya" the use of the word "racialist" so early in the article carries a hint of POV. Would supporters of the policy agree that it is racialist? It might be better to drop the word and let readers decide for themselves.
3. With nearly 200 footnotes, it is difficult to find the note which gives the full details of the work being cited. A separate alphabetical list of "References" would make this easier.Rhion 12:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree the length is an issue, and I'll go over the article again looking for quotes. However, the problem is that unlike more fact-based articles, ketuanan Melayu is a very heated and opinionated topic which cannot be treated comprehensively without referring to the variety of opinions related to it. We discussed cutting quotes at the peer review, but it was just too hard to find more than a couple to remove. Still, I suppose one or two can go, although I find most of the lengthy quotes help provide an insight into the viewpoints of ketuanan Melayu's more extreme attackers and defenders (the quotes from Lee, Mahathir, and the anonymous UMNO Youth leader are what I have in mind here). As for racialism, the anonymous UMNO Youth leader quoted in the Bangsa Malaysia subsection specifically refers to UMNO Youth's ideals and actions as racialist ("we [UMNO Youth] have to be often seen as a very racialist political group fighting for the Malay interests"). Racialism is different from racism, as the latter advocates discrimination on the basis of race, while the former merely implies that there are differences between racial groups. And the idea for a general references section is a good one; I'll go ahead and implement it. Johnleemk | Talk 12:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I liked this when it was on peer review, and I like it now. 131 kb is a lot, but I think it's justified by the subject matter, which demands that the article make forays into a broad range of topics. I was involved in the effort to cut the size of this on peer review, and was surprised to find that there was very little fat to trim. The article is quite readable, despite its length, in large part thanks to a considered and cohesive narrative structure--a rarity in articles of this scope. Beyond that, it's impeccably referenced, well written, and an engaging read. Support. --Robth^Talk 18:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been asked to go into a little more depth on why I don't feel that summary style is appropriate here, so here goes. Summary style is perfect for certain types of articles; Music of the United States is a great example of a relatively recent FA in which it was exactly the right thing. Summary style works well there because the article contains a number of topics for which the section in the article should be a shorter version of the main article. Ketuanan Melayu is a different type of article. This article covers a number of topics, but focuses on the aspects of those topics that relate to Malayan racial politics, and limiting that specialized discussion in exchange for links to more generalized articles doesn't strike me as a good trade-off. I suppose you could chunk off awkward articles with titles like "Racial politics in Malaya, 19XX-YY", or something, but I'm not a big fan of unnatural breaking points of that sort. It's good to keep articles short where possible, but the available methods of shortening this have serious downsides, and on the balance I think that the best way to present this information is in the form of one big article. --Robth^Talk 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object Overall size of 131KB is not a problem. The real problem is the extremely large prose size, at 109KB. The article needs to make use of Sumary Style: I haven't even looked at the references, because there is too much content. I didn't look at the prose either, because first it needs to be cut down. The images don't appear to be in the clear; JKelly should have a look. Sandy 18:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Changing to strong object, much too long, detail overburdens the reader, and not enough has been done to fix this. Sandy 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Tell me what to cut into a subarticle, and I'll cut it. I've worked with FAs that needed subarticles before, and have been responsible for chunking off a number of them (Theodore Roosevelt, Coca-Cola, and Mozilla Firefox come to mind). I can't find anything here that can be dumped into a subarticle without upsetting either the balance or flow of the article. As Robth notes, we discussed this in the peer review because I knew this would be a major issue. The problem is that there's just no way at present that this article can be summarised without hurting its comprehensiveness or flow. Try reading the prose before issuing summary judgements about it. And as for the images, I'm not one to abuse fair use or play tricks with copyrights. Three images in the article are public domain, cropped from larger photos produced by the U.S. Federal Government. One image is public domain because it was published before copyright law was extant in Malaysia and/or the U.S. Four images are copylefted because they were produced by Wikipedians. Four images are fair use, and I'll address them one by one because each case of fair use must be examined individually. The lead image depicts Hishamuddin Hussein's infamous brandishing of the kris; this is discussed in the section on Meritocracy, with even specific reference to the symbolism of the kris according to Hishamuddin. The second is fair use because it depicts a Malayan Union protest (these protests are discussed by the article in the context of how they were meant to defend ketuanan Melayu) and a famous slogan of the Malay nationalist movement which is also discussed by the article. The third fair use image depicts opposition politicians celebrating their victory in the 1969 election; these celebrations are also discussed by the article in the context of the May 13 Incident. The last fair use image (which may be questionable; I would not object if we removed it to be on the safe side) depicts an advertisement for a million-ringgit condomonium bearing a note in fine print remarking that Bumiputra will receive a certain discount. This is part of the pro-Malay affirmative action policies implemented by the government, which are also heavily discussed by the article. I don't see how the images are suspect, to be honest. Johnleemk | Talk 18:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I normally don't do this, but I'd like to suggest that this objection be ignored, since the objector: 1) Never read the article in full; 2) Hasn't returned since I pointed out that the article is being pruned. To resolve the question of the images, I've contacted Jkelly personally. Johnleemk | Talk 21:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Now I've returned. The article is too long, the amount of detail is too much and could be easily dealt with in Summary Style, several editors have said same. The authors of the article may be too close to the topic to understand that the prose is over the top and too much detail is given. Sandy 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Authors? Robth hasn't made any edits to the article that are more substantial than formatting changes. Johnleemk | Talk 11:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, Sandy's right, the length is a problem. (1) Go through the whole text and remove anything that looks extraneous. (2) Isolate which whole sections are candidates for daughter articles; create those daughter articles and dump the text in them; summarise it in this article. "Pre-independence is a candidate for this. So is "Abdullah Ahmad Badawi"—oh, one of my heros, he's AWESOME! Does he have an article of his own?

It's not badly written, I must say. A few things, though:

• • The first auto-formatted date isn't working. I don't mind if you unblue all of them, but if they're blue, they should work.
  • "and an increased emphasis on the Malays being the "definitive people" of Malaysia — i.e. a Malay being one and the same as a Malaysian." Can you reword this to make it crystal clear. Does "definitive" mean "original"? For people who aren't aware of the distinction between Malay and Malaysian in the first place, it's hard to comprehend.
• "The National Culture Policy, also introduced in 1970"—where is the other thing that was done in 1970? Mention beforehand, or remove "also". Please go through and see how many "alsos" can be removed.
  • "prior to"—There's a lot of this term on WP—it's creeping in. Please consider using "before".
  • Much prefer roman rather that italic face for your quotes: italic is harder to read, which is why it's normally reserved for short highlightings. Looks messy on the page, too.
  • "However, the local-born non-Malay communities soon began"—Perhaps avoid starting a para with this. Can "however" be simply removed? It's a fresh start in a new para, after all.

After slimming it down, the prose will need a run-through by a copy-editor. Not bad, though. Tony 03:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Pre-independence has its own subarticle now, although I wasn't able to prune much from the article. And if you actually read the section on Badawi, you'd know that there's nothing that can be cut - in the first place, it's already the shortest in the article. I don't know what's wrong with the date - it works fine for me. I've tried to clarify the meaning of definitive, but I don't see how the distinction between Malays and Malaysians can be made clear when the very first sentence of the article mentions Chinese and Indian Malaysians and their relationship with the Malays. The National Culture Policy and NEP were both introduced in 1970 - I thought that sentence was fine. (At the very least, I've seen such construction used without much issue before.) I'm not sure what's wrong with "prior to", unless somebody changed the rules of English and I didn't get the memo. I've removed the italic face, and tried to prune extraneous "however"s. Johnleemk | Talk 10:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - quotes should not be in italics, per the MoS - its makes the text hard to read. Malaysian Malaysia already has an article, so some of that content could be moved out of this article, Bangsa Malaysia appears to be waiting to be written and could be provided with text from this article. The independence seaction is also really long - not sure what to do in that case. Unless quotes are really vital many could be shortened or cut all together.--Peta 04:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've really thought long and hard about how to shorten the sections on post-independent Malaya and Malaysia, but it's really difficult, especially because most of the content that would go in any article about a Malaysian Malaysia is also relevant here. The Malaysian Malaysia campaign is the only direct political challenge ever towards Malay supremacy in Malaysia, so it's pretty difficult to exclude content there, although I suppose we could shorten one or two quotes. It's also difficult to trim the Bangsa Malaysia part because the policy represented a near total repudiation of Malay supremacy, so it's again a very important topic. Johnleemk | Talk 10:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course they are important, but you seem to be overlooking the usefulness of summary style to make an article more digestable.--Peta 10:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • My main concern is that the article may not be sufficiently comprehensive; one could summarise the Malaysian Malaysia campaign and the Bangsa Malaysia policy in two sentences, but this would be by no means proportionate to their importance in the history of Malay supremacy as a political ideology. Johnleemk | Talk 13:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object - controversial topic, article seems to be slightly biased. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please let me know how it's biased so I can fix it. Simply saying it's biased won't solve anything when we don't know how it's biased. Johnleemk | Talk 07:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've taken the approach of pruning quotes which serve minimal purpose, as opposed to a full-scale summary style approach, simply because (as Robth noted) it would be difficult to do so without harming the narrative flow of the article. Additionally, as mentioned above, there are issues with comprehensiveness that make it difficult to decide what's worth summarising and what's worth keeping. The present situation may not be desirable, but it's difficult to summarise without omitting one side's view, or cutting the views of both sides down into a couple of sentences (that would be exceedingly easy to do, but I doubt it would bode well WRT comprehensiveness). I've already cut 11kb from the article. Johnleemk | Talk 20:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Um ... I did read the section on Badawi. Like the other sections, you need to retain just a summary here. A text can be reduced as much as you like using summary style: to 500w, 200w or 20w; you simply lower the threshold for detail. The level of detail is unsatisfactory in most of the article in this linguistic register. "The riots caused a major change in the government's approach to racial issues, and led to the introduction of an aggressive affirmative action policy strongly favouring the Malays, the New Economic Policy (NEP). The National Culture Policy, also introduced in 1970." Now, contrary to your rejoinder, "also" is a problem here: it indicates that something else was "introduced in 1970". Riots are not introduced; they occur or happen. So the reader still won't know that the riots were in 1970. Seeing a construction elsewhere doesn't at all mean that it's a good one. Please fix it. "PRIOR TO"—What is wrong with it is that it's unnecessarily elaborate, since there's a good, short, plain Germanic alternative: "before". What's wrong with "before", the way we've always done it? Date formatting: it works now, you're right. "Prior to" is an attempt to sound technically or legally precise (we all get sucked into that without realising it—"in order to" is another, where two words should be removed); the occasions when it's desirable rarely occur. Please use plain language: two syllables, not three; one word, not two; usually avoid Latinisms. You're right about the "definitive people" issue, now that I've read it again. There's another "However," starting a para. Please just remove it: it will be stronger and smoother. In fact, start with a more effective back-link by putting "At the same time, " first.

I like this artice: it's reasonably well written and covers an important story that needs to be known more widely. But it still needs work on the prose and severe pruning. Here's a random example that I copy-edited from the middle of the article to show that there's considerable wordiness to rationalise. Why not gut the paragraph by removing from "Even so" to "Nevertheless,": the tussle over the name is secondary, here, and belongs in a daughter article. You'll engage more easily with readers by giving them just a summary—go through the whole text and identify the secondary, less important stuff that, when removed, won't damage the overall story. Tony 02:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? The riots weren't introduced (I never said that in the first place); the NEP was. And as for what's wrong with before, the point of using synonyms is variety. I was working on tightening the writing for the past couple of days before your edit, and I've cut 23kb from the article since this FAC began.

The problem with summary style here is that because of the nuanced nature of something this political and controversial, it's important to avoid oversimplifying or misrepresenting or simply omitting particular views. By removing a few quotes and improving the writing, I got rid of 17.6% of the article. Summary style has been mainly utilised in the Pre-independence section, but as I said, it's hard applying it anywhere in the article. I'm thinking about pruning the Malaysian Malaysia debate, but I can't figure out how. The NEP sections are also a prime choice for trimming, although I'm not sure what details ought to go. Johnleemk | Talk 21:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)]

• Support, extremely comprehensive and well-written. I must say though, that content-wise this is enough to fill up 3-4 featured articles, and have significant improvements on other history articles (such as Singapore history itself) with this prose. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, article is long and good, many sources to cite, the content is excellent. I shall read it further. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 15:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• More than a fifth of the article has been pruned since the nomination, most of it consisting of unnecessary verbiage or duplicated quotes. Those objecting to length ought to take another look. Johnleemk | Talk 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support: it reads much better now and is still comprehensive. Rhion 14:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Shouldn't this actually have some statistics in it? For something that is a belief, shouldn't there be information on how many or what percentage of people actually agree with it? I find it hard to believe that everyone or no one agrees with it. Other than that the article is very good. Robert Foley 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • After further thought, I feel that while statistics should be included, the excellent quality of this article makes me think that the rest of this article outweighs the fact that statistics aren't present. Im trhus weakly support in its current form. If statistics are added or a compelling reason why they should not be present is provided here, consider this an ordinary support. I don't think that it is too long. Robert Foley 23:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • There are no surveys on how many people agree with or oppose the principle, otherwise I would have included them. Johnleemk | Talk 12:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object At 86KB of prose, this still needs to make more effective use of Wikipedia:Summary style. That guideline caps article prose size to 50KB for almost all cases (things like world wars are the main exception). Also, the longer the article, the better the writing needs to be to maintain the interest of the reader. It is generally bad summary style form to have main article links in subsections - the entire level two section should first have a daughter article. --mav 15:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the article focuses tightly on aspects of Malaysian history related to Malay supremacy, and that's all - as a result, some subsections have no corresponding main article, while some do. It's hard to fix this without creating subarticles that wouldn't exist otherwise except for the sake of being subarticles (as Robth said). That's the only conceivable way (e.g. Ketuanan Melayu in the 1960s, etc.) we could have subarticles for main sections. And even then, it would still be a fact that subsections such as those on constitutional provisions, etc. would have main articles like Constitution of Malaysia. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Support This article is biased. I do not have the time to wholly review it and pick out every single nuance, but it quite obviously leans against the policy (which is no doubt a form of supremacy and racism). It spends much time displaying good, reasoned arguments against it by ethnic Chinese opposition, and, in comparison, presents poor justification for the Malay point-of-view. I doubt that without significant input from those who are 'on the other side of the fence' (half the support voters appear to be Singaporean) it can be neutral.

I do not want to object, as the article is of high quality. However, I would like further changes to be made and the article re-nominated at a later date. I commend John for putting such an effort into this. michael ^talk 05:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I also wonder about the ethnic Indian perspective. There's not as much about it as from the ethnic Chinese side. InvictaHOG 05:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the Indian community is marginalised in Malaysian politics, and as such tends to shy away from such issues. Since independence, the Chinese have dominated the ranks of the opposition; the DAP/PAP and Gerakan were/are both Chinese-based parties (although an argument can be made that Gerakan was multiracial). As such, all but a handful of works turn this into a polarised issue between Malay and Chinese. Those who do include the Indian perspective (such as Ongkili) don't have much to go on because the Indians have never been a force of their own in Malaysian politics. Even today, politics is often discussed in terms of Malay and Chinese (there's a joke which goes that "A Malay problem is a national problem; a Chinese problem is a racial problem; an Indian problem is not a problem!" which sums up the situation). Johnleemk | Talk 11:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there are very few justifications provided for these policies beyond affirmative action and the historical Malay claim to the land, both of which are covered by the article. Practically all defences of Malay supremacy/the NEP use these two arguments; the article merely quotes and cites the most famous and/or eloquent ones. Otherwise, there isn't really much that can be said. There has never been a real attempt locally to discuss these issues since the 1970s, and most foreign sources are critical of the government stance; I suppose you could say the article suffers from a systemic bias in favour of published views. Where there are justifications for the government stand, I have tried to include them; the article covers a number of the NEP's strong points often overlooked by its attackers. The analogies of the mason and guest lodger, which are fairly commonly used to defend Malay supremacy, have also been included where appropriate. Aside from those, and Mahathir's seminal work, there isn't much to go on. Johnleemk | Talk 11:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Is there a chance that a degree of the commentary you're offering me here could be integrated into the article? You've given near-perfect reasoning for the qualms I brought up, and if such information was included I would change to a support vote. michael ^talk 11:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would normally be fairly reluctant to do so, because that commentary is more of my own inferences based on my reading of the sources, rather than any statements made by the sources themselves. I prefer relying directly on sources for controversial topics like these. I'll see what I can do about it tomorrow, though. There should be a remark somewhere on the lack of public discourse about Malay supremacy, and I suppose it is an accepted fact by all that foreign sources have generally been critical of Malaysian racial policies. Finding a source remarking on the lack of Malay arguments favouring these policies, though, would be a bit harder, I think. Johnleemk | Talk 16:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not advocating original research or the disuse of sources, but I would still like to see a degree of explanation. If it is absolutely impossible to find such a source, I may consider a support vote in lieu of the information you have provided me with. michael ^talk 05:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I hope this will do. Johnleemk | Talk 17:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you — I've changed my vote accordingly. Knowing your position as a Chinese (well, sort-of) Malaysian I admire you for writing these articles; they're certainly the most easily accessible and comprehensive on the subject. michael ^talk 08:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support Long, but also very informative and scholarly. More FAs like this, describing popular conceptions and attitudes, would be nice. Good job.UberCryxic 15:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support — Extremely comprehensive and informative, as well as thoroughly referenced. The length is no issue with me, though I am surprised that it was 27kb longer than this when it started. It seems quite detailed right now, and it's absolutely wonderful the work that's gone into this. Although, to be honest, I'm not an expert on this subject at all, so I might not be able to determine where things could have — or should have — been summarized further. As it stands, I think it's a fantastic article and I honestly don't have any suggestions for improvement for you. It's a political article, which typically will require that it be nuanced and long-winded anyway, so for all I know, the article might be lacking something with the trimming that's been performed. As, once again, I just don't have enough familiarity with the subject to say either way, I'll just say that I appreciate the article's current level of detail, as well as the effort put into addressing concerns others brought up about it being long-winded (27kb is a whole hell of a lot to cut from an article). So, in conclusion: great job with this thing. That's some dedication right there, and a quality article to show for it. Ryu Kaze 20:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support- Ryu Kaze speaks truth. Stilgar135 02:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral - I like the article, but the length does worry me. I feel someone should try and produce a ruthlessly shortened version in a sandbox somewhere, just to see what might be possible. Another thing is that the lead section doesn't really summarise the article. They is no mention of the early history, for example. And one minor point is that one of the daughter articles (Malaysian_Malaysia) doesn't have a link to Ketuanan Melayu, though it does link to social contract (Malaysia). Carcharoth 00:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I fixed the latter two concerns (hopefully). The problem with the lead is that much of it was written before the pre-independence sections were fleshed out. Malaysian Malaysia itself had some minor inconsistencies, so I corrected those and added a link to the article. I'm not sure about the sandbox - it's a good idea, but I don't think I'd be the best guy to start it off. I'm quite confident that it would be possible to write a concise 32kb article about the subject, but the problem is that all or most of the detail making the article interesting to read would be gone. The hardest thing to do would be to get it somewhere in the middle - around 60kb or 70kb - because one would have to be very very selective about what detail to include; as I stated earlier, I'm doubtful this could be achieved because of neutrality concerns in a very political and controversial topic. One would either have to include substantial detail, or none at all, making it difficult to further slim down the article to a reasonable size while preserving neutrality and comprehensiveness. Anyone who thinks it's workable is free to take a shot, though; I'd be glad if we could achieve this, as it seems to be the main sticking point. Johnleemk | Talk 05:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Personally, I don't think it's worth trying. The article has already been trimmed drastically, and I'm concerned as to how one who isn't an expert on the subject (as an example of a non-expert for this subject: me) could cut it further without losing something of the comprehensiveness and without compromising neutrality by way of exclusion. If the only expert on the subject in attendance is already concerned about those things, then it's probably not a good sign. Ryu Kaze 13:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reluctant Oppose I really like JohnLeeMK's work, and if there is a good article on Malaysia somewhere on WP, odds are it's from him. The problem with featuring controversial articles like this is that in order for it to be acceptable to all parties, bloat is pretty much unavoidable, and use of proper summary style pretty much impossible (echoes of the Terri Schiavo nominations). As comprehensive as this is, I believe articles like these, resulting from Wikipedians' failure to compromise- do not demonstrate the best of wikipedia. An unreadably long article does not represent the project well at all. Borisblue 02:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I know this isn't my article to defend, but I find it odd — especially since you seem previously familiar with the subject, unlike me — that you'd say that the article's length is required in order for it to meet neutrality requirements (an actual Wikipedia policy), but that this makes it unworthy of being FA on the grounds of a few guidelines (which are flexible, unlike the neutrality policy). Obviously policies have to be met before any of the guidelines. Even so, though, if bloat is required in order to meet the neutrality policy, then the concept of summary style can still be met by simply adding just enough to satisfy all sides. "Proper summary style" doesn't have a description set in stone, after all. It can be different on every article. Ryu Kaze 03:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The main thing is, I disagree that the article has to be this long to maintain NPOV. Plenty of more controversial topics with a lot more scholarship dedicated to them have been made into readable NPOV wikifeaturedarticles- Katyn Massacre for example. So it is wrong to say that we are forced to choose between NPOV and readability. We can have both, and an article that represents the best WP has to offer must have both. As it is, this article fails WP:WIAFA, point 4 and is not FA-quality just yet. Borisblue 23:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I see. I'd taken your comment that "in order for it to be acceptable to all parties, bloat is pretty much unavoidable" to mean that the article needed to be as long as it is to maintain NPOV. As I said, I'm no expert on this subject and can't say how much is required to do that sufficiently. I can only say that I think the article is a great piece of work, meeting NPOV and comprehensiveness as it is right now. Ryu Kaze 00:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The article currently covers at least 80 years' worth of history. Katyn massacre deals mainly with the prelude to the massacre, the massacre itself, and what happened afterwards - despite this spanning a substantial (~60 years) length of time, the article has a limited scope. The article we are discussing currently has a rather wide scope, as Malay supremacy has been a feature of Malayan/Malaysian politics since the early 20th century. It will inevitably be much longer, even if we scrimp on detail. Also note that the Katyn massacre, due to its very limited scope, does not need to apply summary style, nor does it have many associated articles, unlike Ketuanan Melayu. Johnleemk | Talk 14:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)