Talk:Illegal immigrants in Malaysia/Archive 1

Failed Good Article
This article was just created. Information about illegal immigrants is insufficient. A picture or something else is needed. joturner 22:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Move
Illegal immigrants in Malaysia -> Illegal immigration in Malaysia. Does that sound more proper? It does to me... immigration includes immigrants, of course. gren グレン ? 05:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * yes. that sounds better. but im not sure if the page creator wanted to solely discuss about the immigrants only, or the whole issue and system in the country. if it was the former, then maybe Illegal immigrant should be ok. kawaputra  11:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

terminology
There is a terminology dispute ongoing which primarily involves U.S. participants, but might benefit from the involvement of people knowledgable about immigration politics in other countries. Usage on Wikipedia is inconsistent between undocumented immigrant, illegal immigrant, and illegal alien. A central guideline should be adopted. A proposed one, with different versions recommending "illegal" and "undocumented," is at Naming conventions (immigration). Kalkin 18:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sabah immigration
i was actually planning to write an article roughly about Illegal immigration and naturalization in Sabah, see here. since sabah is worst affected. then i found this page. should i just contribute here. or start a new one? kawaputra 08:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Multiple neutrality issues
This article suffers from multiple neutrality issues:


 * Title/subject matter: The article is titled "Illegal immigrants in Malaysia", yet the article does not discuss the the causes and consequences of immigration from the immigrants' point of view. This article discusses the immigrant as the object, not the subject. It would be more appropriately titled "Illegal immigration in Malaysia", since it seems to be discussing the issue of illegal immigration, not illegal immigrants.

[Note that the BBC article given in the reference ("Malaysia suspends migrant sweep") achieves both of these goals] --Zahzuhzaz (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this article worthy of inclusion at all? As it is currently written, it is merely using Wikipedia to promote one side of a domestic debate of Malaysia, and fails to illuminate the significance of the issue. An encyclopedia article should summarize the issue (i.e. government's stricter enforcement of immigration laws, its effect on domestic politics and foreign relations), while providing perspectives of those affected (e.g., views of governments and advocates of migrant workers, and their human rights).


 * As in other countries, in Malaysia there is more than one view to the immigration debate. Some question whether it is a problem at all. Others feel the only problem is the illegal status of workers, and so long-term workers should simply be legalized. Still others do not object to the policy, but are concerned with the standard of enforcement (using poorly trained volunteers, and inhumane detention e.g.). None of these views are presented in this article.

In addition the cited source of two significant claims are dead links, so they are unverified. The cited source of two other significant claims is questionable: a published opinion piece of "a retired accountant" - no claim of expertise in the subject. I removed a section that cited as its source the blog of "just an ordinary Penangite" (as the blog states). In any case, the blog post did not even mention the claim that referenced it.

--Zahzuhzaz (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Revamp
I will assist as much as possible to clarified and rectified this post as much as possible. I believe as a foreigner to Malaysia, not link to any political party or having any agenda, I can be as much as possible be neutral in all my POV. I am more than happy to enter to any discussion with any party regarding the illegal problems in Malaysia. I am also open to views and critics on my contribution. Given time, I will slowly clean up or support by link on this article. However, being new to editing in Wikipedia, I ask for excuse and forgiven in any error that you may encounter in my contribution. Spawn (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have revamp and contribute as much as possible. I will continue to contribute whenever I find new information, records and also reliable links. Spawn 15:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Assistance required
Please assist in nominating Wikipedia:Do you know? Spawn 16:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Original research?
Only 2 of the 16 sources cited actually support the text. The others are dead links, broken citations, biased source (crusading politician), or simply contain nothing relevant to the citing text. In addition, of the 11 sections, 3 contain no citations at all while 4 contain only faulty citations. Yet this article is long and detailed. That strongly suggests the possibility of original research. If better sources are not produced, then this article should be removed. --Zahzuhzaz (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ball On Your Hand Now
Now most people in this industry or those who involve in it is busy doing the Amnesty and Legalization program (Please don't ask base on who). Once free, we will put in more effort in contributing. When I started most article or citation are already outdated. However, no one should question 5 years later about broken link on citation. It's just like trying to finding chicken bones in the egg. It would be nice if you would have perform your comment to the original author, 5 years ago, rather then commenting on broken or missing citation now. One should not expect ever online resources would be lying around 5-6 years later hoping for someone to question the reliability. As a Malaysian, wouldn't it be better if you start contributing rather than blank comments? If the 5 million foreign workers walking everywhere is not an iconic prove to you, than I do not know what is. As you may have read the article, you would see that not all are new but yet you start pinning on the article as a whole and expect everything to be your liking, I find that impossible. As you may or may not have read my previous post, as time past I will perform more research and fine tune the article. I do not wish to delete any old article, until I can find a better and latest replacement for it, as I find that rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spawn1971 (talk • contribs)