Talk:Malaysian Chinese

What should this page be called?

The expression 'Chinese Malaysian' is unknown in Malaysia. This should be moved to 'Malaysian Chinese'. Andrew Yong 13:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It's not unknown. Moreover, Chinese Malaysian is the grammatically correct form with Chinese as an adjective and Malaysian as a noun. It's just that many Malaysians managed to confuse themselves with Manglish. __earth ^(Talk) 14:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It could be that they are seen by Malays as Chinese people who live in Malaysia, in which case 'Malaysian Chinese' would be grammatically correct. 81.98.89.195 16:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It could also be seen as Chinese considering themselves as Chinese first and Malaysian second. After all, MCA is Malaysian Chinese Association, instead of Chinese Malaysian Association. __earth ^(Talk) 02:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What do the Chinese Malaysians prefer to call themselves: Chinese or Malaysian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12:51, 18 April 2006 172.190.139.38 (talk • contribs)

Malaysian Chinese is far and away the most common form. Also contra User:Earth's assertion, it's not Manglish, since a nationality can be used as an adjective (c.f. American cheese) just as well as an ethnic category can be. The question is whether you want the nationality modifying the ethnic group, or the ethnic group modifying the nationality. That's not a question for Wikipedia to decide, since we're supposed to be descriptive and not proscriptive. The preferred form among many various overseas Chinese groups seems to be xyz-Chinese, as in Thai Chinese, Indonesian Chinese, American-born Chinese, etc. Also, it looks slightly odd to have an article entitled "xyz Malaysian" (meaning "xyz type of Malaysian person") when the Chinese text clearly says "xyz-Chinese person" and the BM text clearly says plain old "Chinese Person" with no reference to Malaysianness at all. cab 05:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny though because if you switch the two words, similar arguments that you used could be used against you point. For instance, the word Chinese could be used as an adjective too. And we are not descripting the right group with "Malaysian Chinese". Malaysian Chinese means Chinese citizens of Malaysian descent, which doesn't make sense (i.e. grammatical mistake). With "Chinese Malaysian" on the other hand describes Malaysian of Chinese descent. Therefore, Chinese Malaysian and Malaysian Chinese do not describe the same group. They are not the same. Chinese Malaysian is a Malaysian citizen while Malaysian Chinese is a Chinese (PRC or RC, depending how you want to look at it) citizen.

See how Black in America is described as African American, not American African. The later would mean African of American descent. Or German typy of American, i.e. German American (there's no such thing American German - if there is, then it would be a minority), French Canadian (would there be Canadian French?). Again, it's Manglish, not proper English. Also, notice your American-born Chinese example. That does not goes in line with you argument. In fact, in the article it's linked to Chinese American, not American Chinese Again, Malaysian Chinese is grammatically wrong. It may work in Chinese grammar but not English. __earth ^(Talk) 14:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not gramatically incorrect, as Chinese can be a noun as well as an adjective: see [1]. It is simply a question of perspective - whether you see yourself as an ethnic Chinese who happens to be a Malaysian, or a Malaysian citizen who happens to be Chinese. Historically, the Chinese here have considered themselves to be Chinese first and Malayan/Malaysian second. Until 1974, the PROC considered all overseas Chinese to be Chinese citizens, and I think the ROC maintained this aspect of Sun Zhongshan's nationality law even later. It is POV and contrary to Wikipedia conventions to insist on "Chinese Malaysian" as this is far less common than "Malaysian Chinese" - certainly it is not used in Malaysia.

The xxx-American comparison does not work as it is just one country's conventions. The UK uses "Black British" but "British Asian" and "British Chinese". Most Chinese communities use xxx-Chinese because the Chinese ethnic and cultural identity is so predominant. Andrew Yong 10:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, they're are citizens of Malaysia. So, it doesn't matter what ROC says. They don't even have proper representative in the UNGA. It may be relevant if they quit Malaysia and become PRC or ROC citizens. And why it is contrary to Wikipedia convention? Where is this convention that you talk about? __earth ^(Talk) 11:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things. Malaysian Chinese is undoubtedly more common than Chinese Malaysian, and the latter usage is unheard of in Malaysia, which is the important point. There is no grammatical reason to reject the common usage. Andrew Yong 22:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names)#Don.27t_overdo_it. It says if the common name is misleading, don't use it. The term Malaysian Chinese is misleading because it refers to "Chinese citizens of Malaysian descent" instead of Malaysian of Chinese descent. Morever, it's not unheard of. I hear it frequently. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean unheard of. Do you know where White Wolf in California is? If you haven't heard of it, does that make it a non-existing place? __earth ^(Talk) 08:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

More on the fact that the term Chinese Malaysian is not "unheard of". Malaysiakini uses Chinese Malaysian instead of Malaysian Chinese: According to media reports today, Hee Leong had clarified that Khairy had no intention to hurt the feelings of the Chinese Malaysian community, and that the two of them had agreed to “look forward to the greater interest of the nation”. [2]. BTW, Jeff Ooi uses Chinese Malaysian too [3]. The Star uses Chinese Malaysian. [4]. I repeat, Malaysian Chinese is bad English. In Manglish, it might be right. __earth ^(Talk) 13:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I have reverted to Malaysian Chinese not because I want to pre-empt debate, but because the last edit by earth used "Chinese Malaysian" in parts of sentences where it should have either been "Malaysian Chinese" or "Chinese Malaysians" (with an "s") in the plural and so "Chinese Malaysian" (singular) was gramatically incorrect. It was easier to replace all with "Malaysian Chinese", which can be singular or plural. Andrew Yong 10:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Easier doesn't mean it's right. Moreoever, the usage of singular and plural was right before you moved the original version prior to debate. __earth ^(Talk) 11:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dialects

Dialects and census information

There may be a discrepancy in the article relating to the subtopics of dialect groups, census 2000, and the number of people who speaks the dialects. I suggest this to be amended to clarify which dialect group speaks what dialect, how the census 2000 corresponds with the dialect group. e.g. It was mentioned that "Cantonese constitutes the most populous Chinese dialect in... Selangor" yet the Census shows Cantonese people are ranked 3rd. For an average reader who is not a Chinese or not a Malaysian, I doubt s/he would understand. Dat789 11:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dialect name

• I changed the Chinese dialect Hokchew to Foochow, which is mainly prefered by Fu Zhou group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:45, 27 May 2006 (talk • contribs) 60.50.134.92 (UTC)

• I have moved the 'Chinese educated' and 'English educated' subtopics to a new heading called Education. Education does not fall under the dialect heading.Dat789 09:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Malaysian Chinese vs. Chinese Malaysian

Hi all, I found this page very interesting. Do you know what Malaysian Chinese & Chinese Malaysian is/are?

• Malaysian Chinese is Malaysian citizens (regardless of ethnic origin) who migrated to China (after year 1990), they gave up Malaysian citizenship, they are known as Malaysian Chinese.
• Chinese Malaysian is Chinese citizen who migrated to Malaysia (from 14th century to 21st century, including Badminton World Champion, Han Jian and other new immigrants from China), they gave up Chinese citizenship, they are Malaysian citizens, non-Bumiputra, and they are known as Chinese Malaysian.

Same goes for American Chinese & Chinese American. American Chinese is American/Yankees migrated to China, while Chinese migrated to America is called Chinese American.

Anyway, I do not want to fix anything, this topic is open for discussion.

--L joo 08:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That is one interpretation, and perhaps when there are more Malaysians moving to China the distinction will start to be made, but for now the common meaning of Malaysian Chinese is ethnic Chinese living in Malaysia. But judging from past experience, when Malayan/Malaysian Chinese moved to China in previous decades they considered themselves to be moving "back" to China, and and considered themselves to be simply "Chinese". Andrew Yong 10:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

---

As this topic is opened for discussion, consider the position of ethnic Chinese abroad just as L joo has considered because the Chinese ethnic group in Malaysia were immigrated nonetheless.

• • While we are familiar with the terms ABC, BBC, CBC, etc. Therefore, we have here American Born Chinese, British Born Chinese, Canadian Born Chinese, etc., it only suggests where the person was born, and borned into which ethnic group.
  • the basic formula is XBC where X denotes the person's nationality of the country where s/he is resides as home country).
  • The best and closest next example I can relate to help come to a closure on this matter is looking at the African Americans people in, of course, USA.
    • When you read the first line, you'd pick up keywords like descendants of a nation, that they moved/brought over from that nation.
    • Therefore, I concur with __earth where the notion of the person's origins should first be described and conclude the matters of whether it will be Chinese Malaysian or Malaysian Chinese, the appropriate formula should be
      • [/Ethnic or Nationality of Origin] [Nationality of country of residence]
      • It should then be conclusive that it should be classed as Chinese Malaysian.
      • This should also apply to Chinese Canadians, Chinese British, Chinese Norwegians, Chinese Kenyans, Chinese Africans, Russian Chinese (if he is originally from Russia, and his children and his children's children still lives in Russia), etc.
      • There are many Japanese in Brazil or South America and they are known as Japanese Brazilians. Once mentioned, you would immediately know this person is of Japanese heritage, and not vice versa. Bumiputras living in America will be known as a Malay American although as we all know that that term is not even used or heard of.
      • Just because Malaysian Chinese is popularly known and is common, we should take this opportunity to re-educate ourselves.

Dat789 12:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The American standard of naming is not the one that applies world wide. Americans didn't invent the concepts of immigration or minority identity. Further, Chinese in Britain are never referred to as "Chinese British" or "Chinese Britons" (try Google; Chinese Britons has no hits and "Chinese British" is usually referring China and Britain, not Chinese people in Britain), but as "British Chinese" (you want to argue that a name invented by people in the UK is incorrect English and people who use it need "re-education"?). And "Russian Chinese" doesn't have any fixed meaning at all because no one actually uses this term either for the Russians in China or the Chinese in Russia. Your opinion on what "should" apply to ethnic groups worldwide or what is the "appropriate" formula is just that: an opinion not backed up by cited sources. In the end, I don't see any new argument here, just the same thing that's gone on in the archives forever. cab 13:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

For all purposes and intentions of this article within Wikipedia, I must assert that I did not intend to establish that the "American standard of naming" is "the one that applies worldwide". That was merely an illustrative example. My main point is such as __earth has said and I agreed to. I, however, intend to establish for the purpose of this article within Wikipedia that this issue should abide in what I have called the formula (the 6th point above) specifically for common sense reasonings.

What is commonly known as Malaysian Chinese can, perhaps, fall under the category of colloquialism, which I think is more appropriate because it is an informal way of speech or writing. I meant "re-education" not in a wide sense but for only for the purpose of this article. Sure we can go introduce ourselves as Malaysian Chinese. Again, for the sake of this article, I do suggest the adoption of [Ethnic origin] [Citizen of country of residence] -- Chinese Malaysian, Korean Malaysian -- if we want to be formally specific about ethnic minorities in the country of their residence. At least for now, we can treat it as common sense approach while leaving time for anyone of us to substantiate it by appropriate sources.

There may not even be Russian Chinese etc. but we both know that I mentioned it only to give examples. I am aware there is no "fixed meaning".Dat789 14:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

First, read WP:ENGVAR and change "laborer" back to "labourer". Second, stop trying to insert the change by stealth in the middle of the article. If you want to "prove" that Malaysian Chinese is a colloquialism, give reliable sources, not internet bulletin-board style argumentation. I for one highly doubt that "Malaysian Chinese" is incorrect given that, for example, that the BBC uses "Malaysian Chinese" [5] four times as often as "Chinese Malaysian" [6] and the articles using the latter term are much more informal (a large proportion of entertainment, "Talking Point", etc.). Also, see Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names for the guideline on this kind of dispute. The criteria are:

1. Most commonly used name in English - proven below by Google searches to be "Malaysian Chinese"
2. Current undisputed official name of entity - on .gov.my, which may be taken as a reasonable sample of official usage, Malaysian Chinese gets 5x as many hits as Chiense Malaysian
3. Current self-identifying name of entity - most Chinese in Malaysia call themselves "Malaysian Chinese", not "Chinese Malaysian". For example, names of groups like the Malaysian Chinese Association, etc.

Regards, cab 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read and understood the preceding response of cab. I agree. My points are as follows:

• First, when considering the use of UK spellings or American spellings, the Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names article has also cleared up much of this issue as International English words are also spelled similar to that of the UK's English.
• Second, there is no such thing as "insert the change by stealth in the middle of the article." Whatever changes everybody makes (even those who did not log in) will show in the article's history. The contents I have added or subtracted merely intend to give more relevant information to the general worldwide audience. Corrections as to our everyday use of colloquialisms and/or Manglish have to be made and/or explained. I have also left other statements as they are.
  • One bizarre statement in which I read with full suspicion is found in the THIRD SENTENCE "The British used drug to attract more Chinese to migrate to Malaya to work in the mining sectors". Is there a source for such assertion? Although this may be true (my jaws dropped to the floor), unless proven this sentence may be very sensitive to some locals and/or even the Britons. Because this sentence could also mean that your forefathers or mine were drug addicted slaves!! We will clean up as we go along.
  • I've asked 4 people and friends yesterday. Be patient to read all through.
    • (Person 1: British girl, have families residing in Australia, have dual citizenship) She'd described herself as British Australian. I asked why not Australian British? She agrees it could have been the other way but may raise confusion as to where she comes from originally.
    • (Person 2: Zimbabwean gentleman, started families in the UK) He'd still describe himself as a Zimbabwean. That is the country he is from. As for his children, and his children's children, he said they will be British. I asked if they can be called British Zimbabwean OR Zimbabwean British, which of these two would make more sense. He chose the latter.
    • (Person 3: Malaysian Chinese born in America, but living in UK, holds British passport). He'd still describe himself as Malaysian because his parents are both Malaysian Chinese. He thinks British Malaysian should properly describe him as he's been living in the UK since the age of 4. He'd tell he's borned in the US.
    • (Person 4: Chinese nationale, married to a male British Caucasian) She insists that she's still Chinese even though she's holding British passport for 4 years now. Her daughter, age 3, is (she hesitated for a moment) British Chinese. When her daughter marries a British male Caucasian and have a kid, the kid will British. From here, I realized why some people said they are 1/4 Japanese, 1/4 Chinese, 1/2 British, etc. Whichever percentage you are made up of, you will be known as that. My guess is that as long a the Malaysian Chinese don't inter-marry, they will always be 100% Chinese!

• • Kudos on using MCA as example.

• As with the term Malaysian Chinese to fall under the category of colloquialism, I withdraw my suggestion in the light of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names article. It is commonly known among Malaysians to be called as Malaysian Chinese. Although search engine results have proven this point, I am still inclined to invoke a subsection in the article explaining the differential meaning of the two controversy terms. Malaysian Chinese and vice versa, as Talk described at 08:46 18 August 2006 (UTC) (above), as having connotation to the person's origin. This can be a subtopic.
• As diplomatic approach, please vote/nominate. All those in favor to start a subtopic explaining "Malaysian Chinese vs Chinese Malaysian" respond in bold with Support; or Oppose then period. Explaining your reason. This poll will open for 3 months.
• Support. To say 'Chinese Malaysian' as oppose to saying 'the Chinese population in Malaysia' does not mean the same thing. There is a need to explain the distinction as with 'Malaysian Chinese' and 'Malaysians who are Chinese'.Dat789 09:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dat789 09:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Popularity & widely accepted (Google & Yahoo search results)

Google:

• • Results 1 - 10 of about 266,000 for "malaysian chinese". (0.47 seconds)
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 72,600 for "chinese malaysian". (0.25 seconds)

Yahoo

• • 1 - 10 of about 101,000 for "malaysian chinese" - 0.19 sec.
  • 1 - 10 of about 58,700 for "chinese malaysian" - 0.20 sec

- Others -

MSN

• • Page 1 of 19,713 results containing "malaysian chinese" (0.21 seconds)
  • Page 1 of 9,226 results containing "chinese malaysian" (0.08 seconds)

Go.com

• • 1 - 10 of about 102,000 for "malaysian chinese" - 0.13 sec.
  • 1 - 10 of about 59,100 for "chinese malaysian" - 0.11 sec.

Netscape

• • Results from the Web: 1–15 (of ~22000) "malaysian chinese"
  • Results from the Web: 1–15 (of ~5630) "chinese malaysian"

Lycos

• • Web Results: 1 thru 10 of 21,192 (Info) "malaysian chinese"
  • Web Results: 1 thru 10 of 9,295 (Info) "chinese malaysian"

From lead section: The term Chinese Malaysian is rarely (if ever) used in Malaysia.

i think this is misleading. there are chinese in msia using the term Chinese Malaysian. google search for:

• "i'm a chinese malaysian" - 105 hits; "i'm a malaysian chinese" - 665 hits

in fact:

• "is a chinese malaysian" - 280 hits; "is a malaysian chinese" - 143 hits

furthermore:

• "Malaysian Chinese Association" (MCA) - 56,700 hits (boosting "Malaysian Chinese" stat above)

I think the second data above proves that the term "malaysian chinese" as being more popular is inconclusive, and deserve a move, as "Malaysian Chinese" seems more ambiguous gramatically and globally. Or at least mention "Chinese Malaysian" in the first sentence of lead section (eg British Chinese) kawaputra 16:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Put move debate in a separate location

The move debate is getting so enormous that it dominates the talk page and makes it difficult to find discussion about the actual contents of the page. Though the debate is not yet closed, it seems to have died down --- anyone object if I move it to Talk:Chinese Malaysian/Move debate, then prominently link to that page from here? (Please note that location of debate does not indicate endorsement of either name =P). cab 11:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Went ahead and did it since no comment or activity for almost a month. At Talk:Malaysian Chinese/Move debate. cab 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Famous Malaysian Chinese

This section is getting very long; most of it should be split out to a separate List of famous Malaysian Chinese and only a few of the most prominent examples retained. The question, of course, is which ones --- comments? cab 11:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Also went ahead and did it. Actually List of Malaysian Chinese. Retained Jimmy Choo (designer), Chin Peng, and Michelle Yeoh as being the most famous or historically significant on that list. cab 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination

how about the affirmative actions limiting the number of ethnic Chinese into top Malaysian universities?

More explanation about this topic please. [13 November 2006]

Or, I dunno, the systemic discrimination of the chinese minority by the racist malay state? Malaysian Chinese are a textbook definition of second class citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.175.202 (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page belongs here

I've edited out the redirect to Talk:Chinese Malaysian. The article's name is Malaysian Chinese. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The share of Chinese economic dominance in Malaysia may have been eroded, but they can still continue their businesses as they please so long as they do not breach Malaysian corporate law (e.g. no fraud, illegal money lending business etc.). The government doesn't restrict the Chinese to build as many establishments as they want to generate national the economy. Never have I heard anywhere on the news or on the constitution that discourages specific ehtnic groups in Malaysia to do business. --211.24.155.43 12:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Food and Culture

I have inserted 2 headings to the article. This article, on first instance, tells about the history of Malaysian Chinese e.g. where Malaysian Chinese originates, where they were educated, what dialect groups they belonged to, etc. However, I do feel a strong need to inform general readers that there is somewhat a difference in terms of what they eat and practices from that of China. The article has successfully mentioned that Malaysian Chinese originates from China -- an undisputed fact. But unless we describe, non-Asians might think we are like them in all ways including the way we think, eat, sleep, educated, speak, etc. We have the -lahs while they don't. So, please elaborate on these two subtopics in anyway you see fit. --User:Dat789 13:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

History

A brief history of terms use:

• Orang Cina - In use since 100 bc (Langkasuka days) until today, roughly 2000+ years.
• Tang Lang - Used by the Chinese (mother tongue), 1000+ years.
• Malaysian Chinese - Created by British politicians, some 50 years ago (after 1957).
• Chinese Malaysian - Invented by Americans, some 20-30 years ago.

Feel free to edit/comment. L joo 00:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why Wiki Project China?

Malaysian Chinese are ethnic Chinese, but not Chinese (it refers to citizenship)

It should be in Wiki Project Malaysia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobk (talk • contribs)

Many of the articles on diaspora populations are monitored/worked on by members of the WikiProject pertaining to the ancestral country. It's just a system for projects to keep track of articles their members may be able to help in, and doesn't have anything to do with citizenship. Also, there is no Wikipedia:WikiProject Malaysia; the closest thing available at the moment is Wikipedia:WikiProject Southeast Asia. Cheers, cab 06:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Culture Differences

Who came up with the stuff there? It's unverified information at best and seems more like POV. - Bob K 08:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to trash large portions of this article and start over. Long paragraphs of unsourced material are useless for encyclopedic purposes and inhibit real encyclopedic writing on the topic; in my opinion, it's an improvement to replace such material with even a single short sentence which is cited to a reliable source. cab 06:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I've edited some sections of the article in the limited time that I have with some added references. Will have a look again at this article when I have more time. - Bob K 08:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Chinese name

I have a comment about the name infobox on the right side of the page. It currently reads "马来西亚唐人" (Mǎláixīyà Tángrén， literally "Malaysia Tang people") for the Chinese name. Well it is an acceptable form to refer to ethnic Chinese in Malaysia, it is not in common usage in Mandarin. The terminology usually used in Mandarin is "马来西亚华人" (Mǎláixīyà Huárén, literally "Malaysia Chinese people"). However, the former is more commonly used in other Chinese dialects such as Hokkien (Minnan), Cantonese, etc. Should we add a small note to explain this situation? --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What have I done?} 11:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Intra racial fights among ethnic Chinese in Malaysia (mostly about English Educated vs Chinese Educated issue)

(Removed content as per WP:FORUM)

This article has become a racist joke

This article has become little more than a reinforcement of popular myths and is highly patronising to many people around the globe as a result. In particular, this article:

1.Falsely implies that most Cantonese, Hainanese, Hokkien and Teochew peoples are of Chinese ethnicity. In fact nothing else can be further from the truth. In fact, their ancestors were the victims of one of the worst genocides in world history at the hands of various Chinese armies. Once subjugated, the existences of distinct Cantonese, Hainanese, Hokkien and Teochew ethnic identities (as opposed to 'regional' identities) were 'conveniently' forgotten by most people in the world (and tragically to this day). Thus from this point of view, the label of Han ethnicity was a brutal imposition upon the Cantonese, Hainanese, Hokkien and Teochew peoples against the wills of the said local peoples.

2.Fails to make any real distinctions between the concepts of ancestry and ethnicity whatsoever. There is more to ethnicity than simply being descended from a particular ancestor. Naturally, ethnic identities evolve and may even change over time (but not counting genocides). One could even argue that the concept of ancestry is nothing more than a political and social misconstruct since a recent scientific study has proven beyond reasonable doubt that all modern humans were descended from Africans.

The above points, in particular, MUST be taken seriously. Someone who is an expert on the subject matter of this article must edit this article IMMEDIATELY to remove the blatant biases in the article (including population figures).

Note: I would have attempted to correct some of the biases in the article, but owing to the fact that most of the required references are very difficult to obtain (and generally not found on the internet), I have called for an expert to fix the article instead.122.105.145.169 (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has responded to the above concerns in a meaningful way, I have flagged the article as biased and inaccurate. 122.105.149.241 (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You come in with no identity bar an IP address and expect folks to take you seriously? - Bob K 16:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is willing to see it they can find some indirect evidence at the Wikipedia article Yue (peoples) that the Chinese were responsible for some of the world's worst genocides directed against the Cantonese and Hokkien peoples. Of course, the Cantonese and Hokkien peoples were not annihilated; however, their native cultures were almost completely destroyed and they now have to suffer the indignity of being associated with the Chinese ethnicity on a regular basis just like how ethnic Egyptians and ethnic Lebanese today have to put up with being labeled 'Arab' on a regular basis. It is hard to believe that many people are simply unaware of the genocides I have just alluded to. Obviously, some of us need to have a long and hard look at some of the disgusting acts carried out against other peoples throughout world history by the genocidal Chinese.
Please note that the ancient Cantonese and Hokkien peoples did NOT speak a language from the Sino-Tibetan family; they spoke languages from a diverse range of other language families such as Hmong-Mien, Tai or Austronesian. Also note that genocides do not necessarily result in the extermination of targeted groups; what does happen, however, is that the cultures of the affected groups are severely damaged or even destroyed.
By the way, can user Bobk - or indeed any other user - prove that the aforementioned allegations (very serious) are false? If that happens, then this section can disappear into oblivion; otherwise, we will keep talking about the allegations until we reach consensus. 122.105.150.183 (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Provide the write up by all means. Just make sure you include the proper citations and references as per WP:VER, which mentions among other things; The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Even if the references cannot be found on the internet, you can still cite the publications in which they're published in. Otherwise expect any edits of such nature to be reverted - Bob K 06:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the burden of proof lies with the IP and not us. This claim, really can't go under negative proof. To quote,

X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven.

Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 07:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity is generally a construct anyway. I don't doubt that indigenous cultures were assimilated by the migration of a larger group of Han migrants. Even the Han themselves are an amalgation of different cultures. The fact remains that it really doesn't fit into this article and it is well documented elsewhere in Wikipedia (Han Chinese for example). We could dig back further and consider theories and hypotheses like the Recent single-origin hypothesis but that would defeat the whole point of this article .. which is to give an overview of Malaysian people who can trace immediate ancestry to relatively recent immigrants from China and their contemporary circumstances. - Bob K 08:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the problem with the article is that parts of it may be considered offensive to some people, e.g. some people may find the label 'Chinese' offensive for the reasons I have described above. It is also unclear whether 'Malaysian Chinese' as used in the article is just a civic identity (which is somewhat acceptable) or whether it is also an ethnic label, which immediately leads to various issues such as whether we should speak of 'Malaysian Cantonese', 'Malaysian Hokkien' ethnic-wise etc etc and reserve the term 'Malaysian Chinese' to describe the civic identity only.

And by the way, everyone needs to be careful when dealing with terms such as 'assimilated', 'absorbed' and 'integrated'; these terms are often euphemisms that suggest something far more unpleasant.122.105.150.183 (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for proof that the Cantonese, Hokkien, Hainanese and Teochew aren't of Chinese ethnicity. Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 10:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm .. and terms like genocide and extermination are any less offensive? Anyway, my posit on this is straightforward. Your contributions will be retained IF it meets with the criterias of WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. Otherwise I'd view it as merely disruptive and plain vandalism. - Bob K 11:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be virtually impossible to prove with certainty that the Cantonese, Hokkien, Hainanese and Teochew peoples are not of Chinese ethnicity; however, the converse is also virtually impossible to prove with certainty. The point being made is that there are strong arguments for avoiding the concept of 'Chinese ethnicity' where ever possible in an article like this one. Many people would say that it is more accurate to speak of Cantonese, Hokkien, Teo Chew or Hainannese ethnicities rather than trying to impose the label of Chinese ethnicity against these peoples (some of whom would strongly object). Indeed, in Taiwan, it is usual to speak of Hakka and Hoklo ethnicities; the label 'Han Chinese' is used as an ethnic label by Taiwanese officials to describe 'native Taiwanese' (a practice despised by many ordinary Taiwanese) only because not doing so is either against their political views or they are pressured into doing so in order to avoid potential military action from the PRC.

Perhaps it would be also be appropriate to emphasise the fact that 'Malaysian Chinese' is more of a civic identity rather than an ethnic one. 122.105.144.181 (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone want to see further indirect evidence of the fact that the ancestors of modern Cantonese peoples were subjugated, they can read Nam Viet. Note that contrary to what some seriously ignorant people believe, 'Viet' is NOT a synonym for 'Vietnamese'; so please don't try searching for 'Viet' and expect much information about Canotnese peoples as doing so will lead you to the wrong page. 122.105.144.181 (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)So let me try and follow this. What you are saying is that people (not necessarily you or me), potentially find the notion offensive that the Cantonese, Hokkien etc are being implied as ethnically Chinese. The offense stems from the fact that many years ago, southern China wasn't part of China, and thus the people there don't identify as Chinese? Am I following right thus far?
From there I'd also like to point out that I'm still waiting for proof and references. Burden of proof lies with you on this because while we can say that we can't prove it either way, it seems quite established that the likes of the Cantonese, etc are Chinese. Now, I'm not saying that just because it seems established it is right. For all I know they're just lumped as Chinese because they, I don't know, happen to come out of a landmass that is known as present day China. The gist of what I'm trying to say is that what you ask for is to challenge the paradigm that the people in the area of south China are Chinese. This paradigm, as near as I can tell without actually doing any real research, is what you would call a theory. What you wish to do is upend the old theory with your theory that the Cantonese, Hainanese etc are not ethnic Chinese. Until substantial proof arises otherwise, I see no reason why there would be a paradigm shift. Personally, I'm waiting for you to dig this rabbit hole as I'm interested to know rather than refute. Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 13:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Impossible to prove would make the hypotheses untenable and unverifiable. So it doesn't fit in Wikipedia. We have enough inter-ethnic issues here in Malaysia to deal with. I don't think we need to get bogged down by revisionist anthropology and history (not that revisionism is necessarily untrue) just to score points for the Pan-Green agenda. - Bob K 13:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Could Bob K explain where he got the idea that someone here is trying to 'score points for the Pan-Green agenda' please? If he is referring to the pro-Taiwan independence agenda, then I have to say that I can not find any part of this talk page that is actually promoting it; there is only a small section that states the ROC government's official position regarding the Hoklo and Hakka people in Taiwan.

Also, when I raised the point about parts of the article being offensive to some people, I was actually talking about the distinction (or lack thereof in the article) between 'Malaysian Chinese' the civic identity and 'Malaysian Chinese' the ethnic identity. There is nothing wrong with the concept of the civic identity as put forth in the article; the problem is that the article makes it look as though that the ethnic identity actually exists as well when there are arguments against the existence of the later identity. I could direct you to two more sources that explicitly state that the Cantonese and many other peoples were forced into submission centuries ago (they are both listed together in Talk:Han Chinese, i.e. forced to identify themselves as part of an ethnic group that they despised; unfortunately, both of these sources are from the World United for Formosan Independence website, which would stir up many editors here. So I will not list them here.

By the way, does anyone know what is the predominant position (if any) of Malaysian Chinese (in the civic sense of course) with regard to whether Taiwan is part of China (in this context, 'China' does not have to mean either the PRC or ROC) and the ethnic identity of 'native Taiwanese'? I ask this because if the answers are 'yes' and 'most Taiwanese are Han Chinese' respectively (or variation thereof), then it says something about their attitudes towards notions of Chinese ethnicity (i.e. if they claim that native Taiwanese are ethnically Chinese, then they will invariably claim that Cantonese and Hokkien peoples are ethnically Chinese too). 122.109.121.8 (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just edited the article so that its main body does not imply that Cantonese, Hokkien or other peoples within the Malaysian Chinese community are ethnically Chinese. If everyone agrees with this change, then the templates should be cleaned up in the same manner as well.

Some dubious statements have also been deleted (especially statements that are undecipherable due to poor grammar). 122.109.121.8 (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point I believe if you're about to change the paradigm of what constitutes a Chinese ethnically, I suggest you do so at the relevant pages. The notion of these people not being ethnically Chinese on this page only arose when you raised the issue, I've yet to see any hard references explicitly saying they aren't ethnically Chinese, and trying to change the notion here to suit your view that they aren't ethnically Chinese without consensus will only bring us further into dispute. Hard verifiable reference or no go. Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 07:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that when I edited the article that I actually avoided the concept of Chinese ethnicity altogether; I did not attempt to implicate a definition for the concept of Chinese ethnicity itself. I had simply altered the article so that 'Malaysian Chinese' is used in a civic sense only, some statements that lack citations no longer appear in the article, the clarity of some sentences are improved and the article uses the expressions 'Cantonese ethnicity', 'Hokkien ethnicity and so on in place of '...dialect' and the like. Note that the use of terms such as 'Cantonese ethnicity' does not imply that a particular people are not ethnically Chinese; it just simply reflects the fact that such a group (or sub-group) meets the criteria to be considered an ethnic group. In summary, I was trying the make the article more neutral by avoiding contentious issues whenever possible.

... or may be one of the transliterations in one of the template boxes already implies that 'Malaysian Chinese' are ethnic Chinese in which case we are stuck with it for good or for bad. Someone needs to check this.

Yes, I am well aware that the word 'Chinese' itself is subject to linguistic problems. For a real-world example of just how muddled things can become, one can investigate the two different interpretations of 'Chinese' in the term Chinese Taipei. 122.109.121.8 (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

...still waiting for information about the transliterations. I am quite sure that someone out there can tell everyone here precisely what they actually mean. 122.105.147.157 (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The transliterations are generally self identification labels used by Chinese Malaysians and they imply a Chinese ethnicity. While the question of the viability of ethnicity as a unique identifier is still up for grabs, I believe it is safe to assume that the identification goes beyond civic identity but also a cultural one. The Malay labels are even more specific, identifying Chinese Malaysians as China People (a literal transliteration of Orang Cina). The alternative term Orang Tionghua used by some quarters, seeks to classify Chinese Malaysian as a cultural entity (ie. Zhonghua minzu) but it has not caught on in official or non-official usage whether among Chinese Malaysians or Malaysians of other distinguishable cultural identifies. - Bob K 00:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

.. Some references would be The Chinese in Malaysia (ISBN 9835600562), China and the Ethnic Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia, 1949-1992 (ISBN 8170271967), Chinese Adaptation and Diversity: Essays on Society and Literature in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore' (ISBN 9971691868) and Histories, Cultures, Identities: Studies in Malaysian Chinese Worlds (ISBN 9971693127). - Bob K 00:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Chinese

Just a bit of researches of the word CHINESE. The word Chinese derived from Chin which was the name of Chin Dynasty (modern People's Republic of China's pinyin: Qin Dynasty)

Qin (modern pinyin) or Chin (Wade-Giles) (778 BC-207 BC), the unification of China in 221 BC under the First Emperor Qin Shi Huang (Wade-Giles: Chin Shih Huang) marked the beginning of Imperial China.....

Read carefully the Wade-Giles pronunciation of Chin, is Cheen, not Tchai. This Chin emperor united/conquered 7 states, the southern Yue state was conquered by Chin, and thus they were assimilated by the Chin and thus they became known as Chinese.

The word Chin was first introduced to the ancient Indian, Persian and Roman traders, such as: Cina, Zhina, Shina, etc.

Parameswara himself visited Cina 2-3 times and he brought back the yellow regalia stuffs, thus the name Orang Cina appeared in Malaya.

Teoh SK 60.48.230.117 (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This discourse on the word chinese is interesting, but probably better off elsewhere. Chinese People, Zhonghua Minzu or something. Probably not here though.Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My reverts regarding "Victims of inherently undemocratic restrictions"

As I understand, an IP believes I'm out to make a point while disrupting this article. I've been meaning to discuss the revert but it's a different IP everytime so let's just get down to the gist of it. It looks like I'm moving the goalposts a bit but the whole section isn't just reverted because it's got no citation. I didn't want to go and write a whole paragraph on the edit summary so I just tossed up ONE reason for why the section shouldn't be there. Anyway, the issues;
1. The citation. Can we at least properly put it down to the right page of the book? My apologies, you did your work.
2. WP:WEIGHT. It feels like not all POVs are being represented.
3. Tone.

The gist of what I'm trying to say here is, I have no inherent issues against it. What I do not agree with is how the section is presented in a sensationalist fashion over a plight that some of the minority written about in that book isn't even aware of. I'm sure what you want to put into the article has a place somewhere, I'm just not sure it's deserving of a place in it's current state until it comes off a little more NPOV. Feel free to disagree. Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 13:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)