This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Malacca Sultanate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
I have just modified one external link on Malacca Sultanate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Where is the source for 1262 as the date for Malacca's founding? The source cites The Malay Annal (Sulalatus Salatin), but it doesn't look true. There are a lot of dubious stuff in this article. Hzh (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After looking into it, it appears that scholars have debated the question of Malacca's founding for a long time. A discussion here - [1]. Suggestions for the date of its founding from various sources (early writers and later proposals) include:
8th century (Gasper Correa)
earlier then 1400 (Gabriel Ferrand) - argues that Malacca was named Malayur but the argument has been rejected
first half of 13th century (Joao de Barrios)
c. 1250 (Malay Annals)
1252-53 (Francois Valentjin)
14th century c. 1350 or c. 1384 (Diogo de Couto)
last quarter of 14th century (Otto Blagden)
1403 (Ming dynasty annals)
early 15th century (Tomé Pires)
1411 (Manuel de Erédia)
1420 (Brás de Albuquerque)
1425 (Ludovico de Varthema)
Some scholars have rejected the earlier dates because Malacca was not mentioned by people who passed through the strait in the 13th and 14th century, for example, Marco Polo, Odoric of Pordenone, Ibn Battuta, and not in other sources like the Javanese Nagarakretagama. It is also argued that the history of Malacca is closely linked with that of Singapura, and an earlier dating would separate the two. It doesn't look like the earlier dates are widely accepted, but it can be mentioned that others have proposed earlier dates, given that a number of authors appear to indicate that Malacca may have existed before 1400, but possibly was not a significant place. Hzh (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the only acclaimed historian I can find so far using the term empire to Malacca is Peter Borschberg from NUS. So while I think we can use the term, it should be used sparingly as its still not a conventional term in books/journals. Its usually called Malacca Sultanate and not Malaccan Empire even though I think its still technically correct. I changed the short desc since the editor is still correct in saying that it's not just on the Malayan Peninsula, just my thoughts on this. I removed bits that mentioned empire but I won't be averse if someone would include it sparingly and in the correct context Danial Bass (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone here kept adding what they think was the flag of Malacca Sultanate, but has not provided independent sources for the suggestion. Looking at the source of that flag, which is given in Cantino planisphere, it appears that this is a generic representation of an Islamic state because you can see the same crescent symbol on a red background on flags all over the map. The only main difference with the other flags is the shapes of the flags (the Malacca one is in the shape of a swallowtail pennon, others has one to 6 tails, what the tails and number of pennons represent I don't know).
You can tell the flag is generic because you have mainly two different types of designs in this map outside of Europe - crescent on red background (occasionally partly blue), and blue rectangle with what I assume are stars and a red fringe. Given the number of flags there, it is unreasonable to think that they are mostly of only two main different types, and with only two different background colours (red and blue) if they are real representation of the actual flags. Other than the shape (number of tails and pennons) of the flags, there are just a couple that look different.
The Portuguese also hadn't arrived in Malacca yet in 1502, so how would the creator of the map know what the flag looked like? They couldn't even represent the saltire of Scotland properly (should have a blue background), so how they could represent a flag accurately from somewhere so far away that they hadn't visited is dubious at best. Hzh (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Hi. I just designed the flag based on this Cantino map. Check it out. File:Malacca Sultanate Flag.pngThis flag is based on the Cantino planisphere (1502) map which displays the flag of the Malacca Sultanate from 1502. Let me know if you want it changed. I used a transparent background but I can change it to white or something -- I think transparent is better because it appears to be a Swallowtail (flag) style. LMK if you have any comments! DivineReality (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no independent verification in reliable sources that this was the actual flag of the Malacca Sultanate, so don't use it. Hzh (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image has already been previously removed from Commons by their admin on 25th October due to the misinformation. Even at that time it was already renamed to "Islamic flag as shown in the Cantino Planisphere (1512) which is a more accurate description.
Once again, as I have iterated before in the deletion nomination and in other platforms, this is not the flag of the Malaccan Sultanate and the map is not reliable.
Please note how the map uses the same exact design (minus the swallowtail) for the flag of the Ottoman Empire. We all know that they had a star and both the crescent and the star were white. Goodness knows what else could be on the Malaccan flag and what the black colour could've actually been, so it is not as simple as simply taking this rough design and making quick conclusions without thinking. This same design of black crescent on red flag is used for multiple Muslim kingdoms, not just Malacca and Ottoman. Although it is true that the Malaccan Sultanate flag was reported to be red by a few sources, but they never specified the colours. In fact, in Malay vexillology, black on red is either almost non-existent or non-existent entirely, and it is more common for it to be white on red instead (which makes sense if the cartographer substituted white for black due to the lack of a white paint).
Even so, I would say it is not conclusible to say that such is the design of the flag, no matter how it is, since as what @Hzh mentioned there's no independent verification from a reliable source. If we want to use this flag, then I would say that the flag of the Ottoman Empire on its page must also be changed to adopt the design from this map. And I mean that sarcastically. EmpAhmadK (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
