Talk:13 May incident

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

No no I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Gerakan logo.png

File:Gerakan logo.png is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Gerakan logo.png. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Gerakan logo.png

File:Gerakan logo.png is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Gerakan logo.png. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox flags

I just removed the flags of parties/coalitions whose role was not explicitly explained in the article. I also restored the Gerakan logo, since a fair use rationale seems to have been provided. But on second thought, I'm going to remove the logos altogether, because it really isn't at all clear that it is appropriate to portray the parties themselves as "combatants". Dowcet (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 23 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

---

13 May incident (Malaysia) → 13 May Incident – Unnecessary disambiguation, also the word "incident" should be capitalized in my opinion as it is part of the phrase. Timmyshin (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. There is only one 13 May Incident called such. —  AjaxSmack  14:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose "13 May Incident" should redirect to May 13, were many incidents occurring on that date are listed -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There are no other events at the May 13 article called "13 May Incident". Why should it direct there? —  AjaxSmack  00:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - unnecessary disambiguation.--Staberinde (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 12 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED to 13 May incident, clear consensus that this title should be lowercase; though some preferred other titles, there was no consensus for a move to another title. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

---

13 May Incident → 13 May incident – Downcase "incident" as in most book sources. The rationale given to cap it in an earlier RM discussion was lame and contrary to guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 15:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The article title has been moved so many times it is getting ridiculous, and although I don't mind it being changed again to a more widely used title, we'd need to establish first what that title should be. Google Trends shows that the upper case is more common – [1]. Google Books yields different results, but if we are using the Google Books argument, you'd find that it gives more hits for "may 13 incident" (2960) [2] than "13 may incident" (1860). Choosing only those where Google Books highlighted the words, then you'd find the following –

• 13 May Incident – 1
• 13 May incident – 11
• May 13 Incident – 10
• May 13 incident – 17
• May 13th Incident – 11 – [3]
• May 13th incident – 7
• 13 May riots – 10 [4]
• May 13 Riots – 2 [5]
• May 13 riots – 16
• 13 May racial riots – 14 [6]
• May 13 racial riots – 20 [7]
• May 13 Racial Riots – 2
• May 13 race riots – 14 [8]
• May 13th riots – 20 [9] (I stopped searching for variants after this, but you'd get the idea).

It's just a quick count, and a different person may find different numbers, but it does show that there is no clear preference for any particular single title. If you want to play around further with the title search, try Google Scholar – [10][11][12][13], JSTOR – [14][15], etc. (all of which again show that May 13 is more common than 13 May). Trying to change the title without establishing which is the more common one will only lead to endless change. Hzh (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Move to something meaningful such as 13 May 1969 Malaysia riots In ictu oculi (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It is commonly used without the year added (such as September 11 attacks or May Fourth Movement), seems like it would makes the title unnecessary wordy. Hzh (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with these observations. It's clear that there's no "proper name" for this event, so let's fix the caps and use any one of these common names. I agree the year is not typically used. Dicklyon (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Alt support by nom: May 13 racial riots, which is more common and more precise according to reports above. Dicklyon (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Still seem a bit arbitrary though. Perhaps first go through the different sources in Google Books and Google Scholar thoroughly and see. Hzh (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with any reasonably common descriptive phrase for the incident. The objection is to the current pretense that it has a proper name. If you have a preferred alternative, propose it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support downcasing per WP:MOSCAP. Yeah, I'm OK too with that suggestion by Hzh. Tony (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support downcasing per WP:MOSCAPS {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support moving to May 13 racial riots May 13 riots (which is precise enough) per suggestions above and common usage, despite the Malaysian date format following DMY rather than MDY. The editor whose username is Z0 07:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC) The editor whose username is Z0 11:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom, per the MOS, but note what a terrible title it is. It completely fails to describe the topic. The current title does not feature as title for the event in the first references of the current article. "13 May" is no more than an in-context, close-perspective shorthand reference. A better title would be "Malaysia race riots of 13 May 1969. The main incoming link, from Malaysian general election, 1969, is sourced to reference 3, which is titled "The tragedy of May 13, 1969 (part 2)". Whether it is "Tragedy" or "Race riots" is not the point, just that some actual descriptive word for the event is necessary. "Malaysia" was already firmly in context for the reference, the publisher being the newspaper "Malaysia Today". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for the support. I say let's go ahead and close this case-fix discussion, and then entertain a proposal from whoever has a better title to propose based on all this discussion. I agree that almost any somewhat more precise title would be a good idea, though I know there are those who would prefer to stick to the more concise ambiguous title, too. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  On first sight of the title, "13 May Incident", I thought: either a quite inept title decision probably by a one-time contributor, or it is a composition title, a poem or a song or a play, where the author deliberately intended to have a peculiar title, possibly obliquely named after something real. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't really be inventing title ourselves. It is commonly referred to as "May 13 [something]" (sometimes just "May 13"), and everyone in Malaysia would know what it refers to. There isn't really any other significant riots on May 13 around the world, therefore per WP:CRITERIA for title, a concise recognisable name is preferred. Previous discussion moved the title 13 May incident (Malaysia) to 13 May Incident (see above), it's just going to go back and forth endlessly. Hzh (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The mere "May 13" is a common shorthand frequently used within close sources, such as newspapers of the time. It was repeated a lot that year and in the following years that no source from the period gave a true introduction, the context was of common knowledge of the event. These 1969-1970 newspaper sources are not quality sources. Look to quality sources, reliable sources taking a distant perspective, and how these sources introduce the topic. They use "Malayasia" (if not a Malaysian document), "riots" and "1969". Often "race" is used. Trawling the current references, many of them are not so good sources as they are sourcing very specific things. Ref 10 "May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969" is a good example of a whole-topic reference from many years later. I am not seeing any two general references of quality and distant perspective using the same construction to title the event, so it does make a descriptive title more challenging. The current title is quite inadequate for introduction to an international audience. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I would say most of these books are quality sources: [16] But I have nothing against a more descriptive title like 1969 Kuala Lumpur riots. Timmyshin (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Sure, I agree. "Thirteen May 1969" by Graham Brash, 2001, included. This "incident", a funny word for deadly riots that changed Malaysia forever, is so deeply entrenched in the national psyche that it lives by the familiar shorthand. I don't think a viable title can leave out a variation "13 May". I think a longer more descriptive title is needed. 13 May 1955 was also a day of riots in Singapore. At Hock_Lee_bus_riots#Student_Movement we have the prose "This eventually led to the May 13 incident in 1954", in reference to an unrelated 13 May incident, the 1954_National_Service_riots. The current title fails WP:PRECISE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

This is like arguing that September 11 attacks should be renamed because there were other attacks on September 11, e.g. 2012 Benghazi attack. Only one event is important for which the date is known by. The idea that someone who haven't heard of the May 13 event would be confused by the lack of precision simply does not make sense, they would not be looking for it in the first place. I would agree however that the word "incident" obscures what the event is about (the majority of sources would have the word "riots" in there), although I believe that is close to the official title in Malay. Hzh (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Malaysian May 13 1969 race riots do not compare at all with the international significance of the September 11 2001 attacks. There is basically nothing about this “May 13 incident” that is not already couched in a Malaysian context. There are other May 13 incidents in other years in other countries. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems like you are ignoring the point made. Being internationally significant has got nothing to with title. Only specialists would known about May 4 Movement or February 28 incident (or indeed hundreds of other events) outside of the countries where they happened, that does not they need to have the countries specified. Give other May 13 incidents you are claiming to have happened that are known by that name. Hzh (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems like you do not appreciate the purpose of a title, for the reader, to recognizably and precisely define the content of the article, and are thinking that a title need only be technically unique among existing article? The are many people like that in RM discussions, and none have ever yet given a reader-based reason for not using a meaningful title. Just across the straight, the neighbors have a different May 13 incident in their collective memory. Readers should not be expect to know, when selecting a title of an article for downloading, whether it is possible that similar incidents are under the same name or some other name. Why should a Malaysian have to know that the Singaporeans call their May 13 incident a "bus riot"? And similarly for every other "incident" listed at May 13. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the title is very clear, as already given in the link above (giving reader a recognisable title that is precise, concise, natural and consistent). The Hock Lee bus riots happened on May 12, why you bring that up I don't know, I don't think you read the article properly, and that riot is not called the May 13 incident in Singapore (and the other event on May 13 is titled 1954 National Service riots). It is irrelevant anyway, google "May 13 incident", and it's mostly about the Malaysian event, that is before you google "May 13 riots" (which is the more common choice), and I don't see any links to other events until the seventh page, therefore that is the primary topic per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Hzh (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The Hock Lee bus riots were a series of riots that ran for days, and there were several specific riots, or "incidents", on May 13. Sure, google "mostly" returns Malaysian 1969 hits, but note the proportion of the hits that are embedded in the context of Malaysia or under a heading containing "Malaysia" or "Malaysian". "Malaysia" or "Malaysian" is part of the introduction to the topic, which means it belongs in the title. In contrast, "September 11 Attacks" do not pre-establish a context of the United States. There are too many incidents listed at May 13. September 11 attacks is not unique, others are listed at September 11 attacks (disambiguation), but one has international long term significance dominating all others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The Hock Lee bus riots already ended by the early hours of May 13, see [17], it is hardly a May 13 riot or anything to do with May 13. What other incident on May 13 is called by that date? Hzh (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• User:Dicklyon will you also create RMs to downcase January 28 Incident, February 28 Incident, February 26 Incident, 31 March Incident, May 15 Incident, and May 24 Incident? There needs to be some consistency for these articles. Timmyshin (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing these out. Yes, I'd be happy to take the lead on fixing those, too. Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

  A couple of those appear to be uniformly capped in sources; I move the ones that are not. I believe these are now pretty consistent with the guidance of WP:MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Vibes120519alanthirteen NSTfield image socialmedia.var 1557620155.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Change of importance

I believe for such an important incident in Malaysian history, a riot which effected nearly 40 years of Malaysian politics, it should be a top-importance article for WikiProjects Malaysia (It's instead just a mid-importance article here). Any thoughts? PenangLion (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi PenangLion, I generally interpret "top" to be literally the Malaysia article and its direct sub-articles, although it's not too meaningful a category. I would suggest such questions are better asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Malaysia. Best, CMD (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

An article does not need to be a sub-article of Malaysia to be of top importance. Hzh (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, will do. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It should probably be ranked high-importance, rather than mid-importance. Hzh (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that someone needs to tidy up the importance rankings, really some bizarre ones there, for example, fish cracker is a high-importance Malaysia article?

I've pondered doing it for awhile, but it'd be a lot of work for almost zero gain. CMD (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll make some adjustments later, and leave a note in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Malaysia to see if anyone else want to re-assess the rankings. Hzh (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Avoid adding irrelevant details

The funeral before the election has no particular significance on the riot, it is therefore largely irrelevant to this article and does not warrant an entire paragraph. It is already mentioned in a sentence as one of the events preceding the election, and in reality only the election itself and events after the election is important for this article. Don't use this article to attack any particular group. Hzh (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)