This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofSoutheast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofMalaysia andMalaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofBritish Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofgeography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
This article can still be further improved for it to be of GA standard. Will get to it soon. In the meantime, any form of assistance or suggestions from editors are greatly appreciated.
Based on other articles on sub-division level territories, such asHong Kong,Sabah andSarawak, the content on NGOs, military installations, galleries and even the state's firsts are not an absolute requirement for a GA.Vnonymous (talk)10:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The "International honor and utilities" section is mostly, but not entirely, terrible. Most entries are low-effort tourist pablum list-of entries from random newspapers, websites, and magazines. These "list of places with the best street food" or "best places to retire that you've never heard of" listicles are throwaway filler that newspapers pad their pages with to sell travel ads. There's no honor to be had from being listed there, and none of these entries should be listed here. They are factually and encyclopedically worthless. But there's a few entries in this list thatare notable - really the two UNESCO entries. That's all, really. And neither has a reference. I'm inclined to just remove all the rest, source the UNESCO ones, and I think the article would be entirely the better for it. --Finlay McWalter··–·Talk20:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The GA review in 2018 was conducted byUser:Semi-auto, a sockpuppet of the nominator,User:Vnonymous. Because self-reviews of nominations are not allowed at GAN, the original review has been invalidated and the GA status stripped from the article. This does not prevent the article from being nominated again at some point in the future, and an independent GA review being conducted at that time. (Discussion about this was brought to ANI, and also atWT:GAN.)BlueMoonset (talk)01:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Summary for the benefit of 3O and other editors: Original sentence (which had been approved under the last GA review): "Between 2015 and 2016, Penang had the highest migration effectiveness ratio among Malaysian states, due to the state's diversified economy." IP's revision: "In 2020, Penang recorded negative migration rate with more people leaving the state than it received. However, between 2015 and 2016, Penang had the highest migration effectiveness ratio among Malaysian states, due to the state's diversified economy."
Same old beahviour again, what happened to you in the end? Get blocked and scolded by the admins. As you never focus on discussing the correct things155.69.182.1 (talk)05:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what is latest data? DOSM (exact same publication as the 2015 data) has already released its latest edition to cover its old edition, so why should we stick to the old one?155.69.182.1 (talk)05:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More allegations, more bad faith, yada yada... Who was the one edit-warring in all these instances? Look at your ownbehaviour that led to the 3R report. I rest my case.hundenvonPG (talk)05:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HundenvonPenang, isn't it clear that you were also doing the same thing as mentioned by admins? Why make it so convoluted when what other editors did, were just updating the statistics from the old ones? What is going on with you? This is Wikipedia, old data should always be updated when they come from the same publication. 2020 data is always more updated than 2015's one.155.69.182.1 (talk)05:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you have not been edit-warring? Living in denial much?
To reiterate, using IP's own words, it is okay to use "past info as long as you use correct tenses".
I came here through the third opinion list, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what the dispute is, at least not by reading this thread. Full protection? What happened here? Also, please stop insulting each other.Dege31 (talk)22:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there secondary sources commenting on the migration rate (and its inversion between 2016 and 2020), or is the raw survey data used as a primary source?ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)22:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my slow response,Dege31 andChaotic Enby — other priorities are keeping me away from WP. That said, I think it necessary to clarify with you, rather than engage in what is becoming yet another unproductive back-and-forth with IP in question.
The sentence in dispute is at the top of this section. It was originally based on data from theDepartment of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM), corroborated by a few news citations. The original sentence was part of the article's GA review that passed last year.
Said IP unilaterally altered the sentence, first to a grammatically-incorrect version and next, to one with a more negative tone, implying a narrative of an exodus from the state. IP alsoaccused me of bias, clearly made inbad faith and with no proof whatsoever.
There had been several incidents of the IP'sedit-warring behaviour to enforce their edits, as highlighted above, often without consensus and akin to a 'my way or the highway' attitude. Hence, my requesting a 3O for more input and consensus, rather than yet another time-wasting, goalpost-shifting debate with IP alone.
On your question about sourcing: DOSM is the primary source here, but domestic migration arguably receives not much coverage nor exposition from news agencies or other secondary sources.hundenvonPG (talk)05:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know the definition of 'bias'? Who accused you of being biased? I only said that particular sentence contains temporal bias as it is an outdated edition published by the DOSM between 2015 and 2016? In the latest publication by the same gov agency, Penang was found to have more poeple immigrated to other states than it received? So tell me, did I accuse you of anything?
So are you saying that we should use past info as long as we use correct tenses? Is that how you edit Wikipedia. Nobody has done that before.155.69.192.66 (talk)09:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just wonder why this article was approved as GA when much of the info here has not been updated for years. It is ridiculous when data published in 2014 is still present in this article, more so when the government has been regularly releasing the latest data or publication, and 2014/15/16 data are still there, instead they are never replaced by reports published in 2020/21/22/23 or later.155.69.192.66 (talk)09:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked atTalk:Penang/GA2, and that specific paragraph wasn't mentioned in the GA review, although that could just mean that the reviewers didn't see any objections with it. Regarding the sourcing, it does make sense to have more up-to-date data, although I invite both of you to look for secondary sources if you want to draw any inferences from it – such a big change in the migration flux has likely been discussed somewhere, even if only in local newspapers.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)09:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to correct meChaotic Enby. This essentially means IP's sentence is completely moot.
DOSM's latest migration survey wasin 2022, not 2020 as claimed by IP.
Tangible inferences are difficult to obtain thus far, from the little news coverage available. If that is the case, this leaves only raw numbers from DOSM's 2022 report that could be included in the article.hundenvonPG (talk)12:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, DOSM's 2020 data is the most comprehensive one, unlike 2022, where you can see 404 not found error. Moreover, Penang's data is nowhere to be found in 2022 data (DOSM only covered certain states in 2022), so we should stick to 2020's data for consistency.155.69.192.66 (talk)14:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chaotic Enby, the 2020 data was impacted by the COVID pandemic, acknowledged as much by DOSM themselves ([3],[4]). Survey duration, up to end-2020, was whencountrywide lockdowns were in place.
Arguably, a more representative reflection of migration trends would have to come from the pre-pandemic years: in this case of migration surveys, from2018.hundenvonPG (talk)00:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That does make sense to some extent. It's a bit tricky, as states were affected differently and the DOSM doesn't specify whether the pandemic was the main factor for the change in Penang – of course, it is very plausible, but it might just be a bit over the line of OR to draw that inference.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)02:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that an inference could be drawn hereChaotic Enby, but rather, DOSM acknowledged that COVID influenced the 2020 findings.Crossing state lines were off limits for some time, as were international entry points.
To more accurately capture migration trends, it makes far more sense to refer to the 2018 report, the last before the pandemic, rather than the 2020 survey which was affected by extraordinary circumstances.hundenvonPG (talk)04:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That could work – or, even better, give both and mention that the 2020 report was affected by the COVID pandemic? It shouldn't be OR to mention that provided we don't make the claim that the pandemic was the only (or primary) reason for the change.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)04:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have issues comprehending the original prose: "Between 2015 and 2016"?
Above was the version that went through the last GA review and was accepted as such. If you are still unsatisfied and adamant about changing the prose to a more "biased" version, take it toWP:3O.hundenvonPG (talk)04:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, can you clarify how is the action of updating stats considered 'biased'? I would like to know more. Isn't using old data considered 'temporal bias'?155.69.182.1 (talk)04:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is ratedGA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
