Talk:Sri Lankan Malays

Do SL Malays use Tamil as a language to communicate ?

Recently someone has added, Tamil as a language used by SL Malays,but to the best of my knowledge they dont,I want to clarify this - Are they ? MediaJet talk 07:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religious makeup of Sri Lankan Malays

I have reinstated deleted information about the religious makeup of Sri Lankan Malays. On Page 12, of the source cited, it explicitly states that the religious makeup of the Malay population in Sri Lanka was varied and consisted not only of Muslims but also of Christians and Hindus. Please do not remove the information. 2403:5801:98D4:0:373A:BEE9:219D:6B3E (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't it says eastern immigrants like the balinese and moloccans varied in religion it doesn't say they identified as malays Fazzyk (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan Malay is a term to describe people from all of Indonesia. Please read the source. 2403:5801:98D4:0:1563:4A6A:6A84:8ACC (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reference doesn't state that malays are muslim but the source says the hindus come from the balinese immigrants while moloccans were religiously split between muslim and christian:

Most of the nationalities present in Batavia were Muslims, but not all of them, as Hussainmiya (1987:58) states:

In Dutch times, not all the easterners who came to Sri Lanka were the followers of Islam. It is particularly difficult to establish the religious background of the Amboinese [sic], Balinese, and even Javanese, because among the first group, there were a considerable number of Christians, while most of the Balinese belonged to Hindu Religion [. . . ] Neverthe-less, it is quite clear that a large majority of the early Malays were fol-lowers of Islam. (Hussainmiya 1987:58) The number of Malays serving varied in function of the military needs of the Dutch.

Under normal conditions, there were 800 men in service, divided into 10 com-panies. But sometimes the Dutch need for soldiers was so dramatic that the kampungs were virtually depopulated (Hussainmiya 1987:56). In 1764 the number of Malay soldiers rose from 800 to 2500 in anticipation of a war with the Kandyan king. In 1795/6 there were probably around 1400 Malays serving, comprising recruited civilians.

For 1800, Hussainmiya (1990:49f) estimates the number of Malays in Ceylon at around 2400, possibly their highest figure (Hussainmiya 1987:54) because the Dutch were anticipating a British attack and had stocked up

It doesn't say balinese and moloccans adopted the malay ethnicity. Fazzyk (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you "Sri Lankan Malay" is an identity that encompasses multiple groups who originated in Indonesia. You have to stop conflating ethnic Malay with Sri Lankan Malays. They're two different groups. Sri Lankan Malays descend from many different ethnic groups but share the same culture and speak the language (Bahasa Melayu Sri Lanka). The very source you use against me, even though it supports what I am saying, clearly says that this book is about Sri Lankan Malays and then goes on to explain where Sri Lankan Malays came from and the historical terminology used to describe Sri Lankan Malays such as "Easterners".

I have quoted a piece of text from the source. You need to learn about Sri Lankan Malays and who they are, not impose your view because you want to claim all Malays are Muslims. No, not all Malays are Muslims. You have to accept that. You're POV editing and it's problematic. We have to come to the decision that we reinstate the information because that is the truth.

"In this grammar, I use ‘Sri Lanka Malay’ without ‘n’, but I have no strong preference. The ‘Malay’ part is more problematic, since the immigrants belonged to a large variety of the ethnic groups of what today is Indonesia, and only a minority were Malays. The Dutch actually referred to the immigrants as Oosterlingen ‘Easterners’ or Javanen‘Javanese’, the latter because the portof departurewas Batavia in Java. This reference to Java is still found today in the other Sri Lankan languages, which use J¯ aMinissu (Sinhala), C¯ avakar (Tamil) or J¯ av¯ a Manusar (Moorish Tamil) (Hussainmiya 1990)" 2403:5801:98D4:0:1563:4A6A:6A84:8ACC (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Find a current source that shows religious diversity among sri lankan malays its dishonest to say otherwise as they are regarded as muslim.

Not all balinese aee hindu why did tbe assume balinese immigrants were hindu then? Moloccans are split between Islam and christianity so how do we know the faith of those who migrated to sri lanka?

Fazzyk (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it dishonest when the source, from 2009, literally explains the religious diversity of Sri Lankan Malays? I think the reason why you're pushing back against this is because you want them to all be Muslims but that's not the case. Who said all Balinese are Hindus? This is about SRI LANKAN Malays and the Sri Lankans with Balinese heritage are Hindus. You need to understand this in the context of what we're talking about: Malays in Sri Lanka. Please read the article. You're clearly responding with emotion by asking such questions like "how do we know the faith of those who migrated to sri lanka?". Why ask such a question when the very passage on page 12 that speaks about the religious diversity of the "Easterners" is about Sri Lankan Malays, the people that migrated to Sri Lanka? It's not about people in Indonesia, it's about Sri Lankan Malays. That passage is about the religious diversity of Sri Lankan Malays of whom descended from various groups like the Javanese, Ambonese and Balinese. As I said before, we have to come to the decision that we reinstate the information because that is the truth. Mass deleting information with a clearly cited source just because you don't like what it says is not the right thing to do. 2403:5801:98D4:0:8104:2B13:C66A:4C91 (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why use a source that doesn't clarfiy the religious make up of these eastern immigrants?

The source is from 2009 but the data isnt its from colonial times when they intially migrated to sri lanka we know from modern source they identify as muslim only unless you can find a source of notable amount not sharing the faith in current times.

Fazzyk (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source explicitly clarifies the religious makeup of Sri Lankan Malays. I don't know why you think it doesn't. What modern sources are you speaking of? Sri Lanka doesn't collect data on the religious make up of different ethnic groups, they only collect religious data on the country as a whole. We don't know how many of those Sri Lankan Malays are actually Muslim. One of the most celebrated and famous singers in Sri Lankan history is a Sri Lankan Malay woman and she is a Buddhist. So we already know that they belong to different faiths. As I said before, we have to come to the decision that we reinstate the information because that is the truth. There is nothing wrong with the information provided and nothing to contradict it. POV editing is not acceptable. 2403:5801:98D4:0:8104:2B13:C66A:4C91 (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No the reference said not all eastern immigrants were muslim but there was no census to clarify that the author made assumptions about the balinese and moluccans.

Your using colonial data to make assumptions so again provide recent data on the religious faith of sri lankan malays. Fazzyk (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He did not make assumptions. You are deliberately trying to misconstrue facts to POV edit despite the fact that the source explicitly states that there was religious diversity. I cannot believe you are claiming the author is making assumptions, he is a historian. The fact of the matter is that the source explicitly says that there was religious diversity among Sri Lankan Malays. They are not all Muslims. Whether you accept it or not is beyond the point because the source explicitly states that there was diversity. There is no need for another source because this source is sufficient. So do not repeat the same words, when I have already given you an explanation as to why this source is sufficient and as to why no sources on religious diversity in 2024 are present. You are POV editing to push a belief that all Malays are Muslims. That is not true. The source clearly says that. If you still cannot accept this then I will seek administrator intervention to solve at dispute resolution. 2403:5801:98D4:0:8104:2B13:C66A:4C91 (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a assumption if he based on his views on what these balinese and moluccans follow the dutch colonial sources he mentions don't mention the religion and the amount that canw and how many immigrated to make a impact on the malays of sri lanka.

All I asked was for a recent source if you can't do that then your POV pushing now. Fazzyk (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now you're just making stuff up. Nothing he has stated is an assumption. You speak of "Dutch colonial sources" and yet they don't exist on page 12. So what are these "Dutch colonial sources that don't mention religion" that you speak of? The author quotes a quote from Hussainmiya dated 1987 (the title of Hussainmiya's source is " Lost Cousins: The Malays of Sri Lanka" which was published in a series on the Malay world at the National University of Malaysia in 1987), who has done research on the Sri Lankan Malays. So how can you say that is an assumption? You're trying to gaslight me into thinking the source is incorrect when it's not. Who are you to say it's an assumption? Are you Hussainmiya? If you're not Hussainmiya, how can you claim it's an assumption? Per your logic, we cannot trust anything because according to you everything is an assumption unless you have verified it yourself.

I'm not POV pushing, you're the one who's doing that. You keep talking about a recent source and yet I have already told you TWO times that there are no recent sources and I gave you a reason why. It's getting increasingly hard to communicate with you now since you're not only POV pushing, you're also trying to find faults with the source and gaslight me into thinking the source is incorrect. I think the best option now is to seek administrator intervention to resolve this issue. I await your reply. 2403:5801:98D4:0:6C0D:89F3:5633:6574 (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is POV pushing your using outdated data from the dutch times and how else is hussainmiya making his claims that balinese and molouccan immigrants also migrated to sri lanka during the dutch times and took the malay identity how else is he getting his data so of course he is basing them around the dutch colonial times.

Anything recent only refers them as muslim there is no mention of sri lankan malays having minority christian and hindu members. Fazzyk (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said that Hussainmiya made that information up but he didn't. That's my point. No, I am not POV pushing. I'm merely using a source to explain reality.

Okay, since you can't agree with me I'll take this to Dispute Resolution so we can get help in trying to solve this issue. I'm hoping it'll result in either reinstating the information or coming to a compromise in which this information is not deleted. Before I do open the case, would you be willing for this information to be included in a paragraph to explain the religious diversity of Sri Lankan Malays during the colonial period or do you not agree? If it's the latter, then please explain. 2403:5801:98D4:0:6C0D:89F3:5633:6574 (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said he based it on outdated dutch colonial data and based some of it on assumption as no religious demography was done on the immigrants that landed in sri lanlan today they are refered to as muslim and you yourself said you can't find a source from modern times that says otherwise what you are doing is then POV pushing.

I am okay with you adding it on the page but not in the infobox. Fazzyk (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]