Talk:Bugis

message: Unlike Indonesia, in Malaysia, there're two types of Bugis people, which the first one is officially recognized as Malays by the Malaysian federal gov. (as well as the Singaporean gov.) and residing in the Malay peninsula while the second is classified as the Bugis itself by the state of Sabah, (thus most of them residing in the state of Sabah). The population of the malay Bugis is around 3.5 million while the Sabah state Bugis is around 0.5 million.
The different between these groups is that the first one migrated to malaya during or before the British era, while the second one is the recent migration and most of them are concentrated at East of Sabah.
It's very hard to define whether the malay peninsula Bugis is Bugis or Malays. Some of them (although not many) still speak Buginese and most of them are prefer to be called as Bugis in stead of Malays.141.213.178.161 22:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first number added in this diff from October 2005, by User:Zaidpjd~enwiki, 194 edits, included the broader definition: 3.5 million in Malaysia. Do we have a sourced number for this? Wakari07 (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bugis people in Malaysia 

message: The Joshua Project website certainly has a particular slant. However the statistical information it collects comes from reputable sources which they cite along with the statistics. These include the CIA World Factbook, the Ethnologue, maps from the UN and University of Texas, etc. They provide a compilation of these statistics in one convenient place as well as a collection of other links that are often useful. I disagree with the opinion that Joshua Project is "not a reliable source" and advocate re-including the Joshua Project link: http://www.joshuaproject.net/peopctry.php?rop3=101703&rog3=ID Duane Frasier 17:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal of the Joshua Project's ref. Instead, you could perhaps use some of the other links you've mentioned. --Merbabu 23:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Further, it is inappropriate to spam (refactor) a link the same or similar links (end refactoring) across multiple articles while making no other contributions. --Ronz 01:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that these links are not the same link, but rather meticulous linking to specific articles on specific groups. As for no other contributions, please note that this linking is an extension of much work I did on the article: List of ethnic groups.  Duane Frasier 14:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are all links to the same domain.  Sorry if I wasn't clear.  As I pointed out on your Talk page, please see See Wp:spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer. --Ronz 16:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid that the Joshua project is not a reliable source: they are not recognized as being authoritative for the type of information they provide. They are a Christian mission organization, with all the inherent biases that it implies. There is no information Wikipedia should be citing from the Joshua project, nor should we be linking to them. Wikipedia does not need to link to an external source which isn't recognized as being authoritative, when our own articles attempt to provide the same type of information, but from reliable sources. (Caniago 09:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, the Joshua project even has some wacky ethnic groups listed which don't exist in reliable academic sources. For example: Jawa Pesisir Lor. It shows that the information from their site can't be trusted. (Caniago 14:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki has no policy on the Joshua project in particular. The policies it has regarding NPOV and OR apply favourably to its inclusion. It is a notable organization that publishes its results and so are critised and supported as other publications are. At the very least it reflects a notable point of view worth documenting, even if only to criticize its data in this particular area. In the absence of reliable published criticism of Joshua project, removal of a link to their data on the Bugis is contra Wiki policy on several grounds:
#removing Joshua project is OR, it is done on the say-so of an editor, or editors whose opinions are not reviewed by experts
#removing Joshua project violates NPOV, which requires that any published opinion should be represented in terms holders of that opinion would accept
#finally, it is a basic principle of Wiki that sources are not removed, nor the text they support, unless those sources fail a reliability test, that has nothing to do with editors opinions regarding what is reliable or not.
This is not my area exactly so I won't get involved. However, I'm leaving this note so that anyone who wants to include the Joshua project link understands they can do so, and others are violating Wiki policy to remove it. Alastair Haines 14:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems the "evangelical-Christian" Joshua Project was a source used at least since September 2016 to justify the currently published number of 300,000. Now they say 141,000, with 98% islam. What authority do they have to publish this type of "numbers"? Wakari07 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of external link 

message: An anon user dumped text in the wrong section. Looked odd, perhaps it came from here. Someone should investigate. It might not have been all nonsense. Alastair Haines 14:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent editorial activity

message: ..is this sailors' word for (caribean & other) pirates eventually derived from "bugis man"? --80.145.188.125 (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Bogeyman"

message: With regards to Edgards recent additions, I've pointed out a number of problems in the edit summaries. However, he has reverted my clean up and asked for talk page discussion. The issues are:
* He provides two pictures that have no permissions. Thus, they are copyright violations
* He provides unreferenced info.
* He removes citation needed tags
* He's added unecyclopedic tone and unverifiable comments. Eg, "the Bugis are brave warriors".
His justifications are that it's translated from INdonesian wikipedia (which is not referenced) and wikipedia cannot reference itself, and cites other articles as having similiar problems so that it's thus OK here. Both justifications are false justifications. --Merbabu (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't keep reverting all my changes. Also, I am concerned about your level of English. Your talk page comments are not clear at all. You need to add references at the same time you add the info. Why do it later? --Merbabu (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

text: OK - then the copyrighted images need to be removed. --Merbabu (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Egard's recent edits

message: The "present lifestyle" section contains no references at all.
The paragraph on genders also apparently misunderstood the word "gender", which is a concordial noun-class, that is, a classification of nouns such that other words in a sentence about that noun must agree with that noun's class.
The paragraph as previously written referred only to people.  No known language has nouns only for people and not for any inanimate objects or non-human animals; so that paragraph is probably almost entirely wrong, and it had no references at all.  So I removed most of it.
The paragraph also included a philosophical remark, "that are necessary to keep the world in balance and harmony."  I believe this remark, even if it were sourced, could only have been sourced from partisan sources.
The paragraph also included interpretations of the gender names; "feminine woman", "feminine man", "masculine woman", "masculine man", and "embodying both male and female energies".  These labels clearly represent the cultural biases of the person(s) who labeled them, rather than of the Bugis. "Masculine" and "feminine" are genders; "male" and "female" are sexes, not genders; and using "energy" that way is a recent English neologism that is not universally understood even in the Anglosphere, much less world-wide.
I changed the word "culture" to "language".  The new statement may be in error and is clearly unsourced, but it's less dubious than the version with "culture" in it.
Are makkunrai, calabai, calalai, oroané, and bissu in fact genders? Or are they something else? 
Eldin raigmore (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: as a general comment, I'm supportive of removing anything immediately that's unsourced, nonsensical, and/or dubious. As for items with only 1 source, I'm not so sure. I am not aware of any policy that requires us to have two reliable sources. --Merbabu (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genders in "present lifestyle". 

message: as a general comment, I'm supportive of removing anything immediately that's unsourced, nonsensical, and/or dubious. As for items with only 1 source, I'm not so sure. I am not aware of any policy that requires us to have two reliable sources. --Merbabu (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (I quoted Merbabu at the top of this topic; I hope that's alright.) I re-read Wikipedia:Citing_sources and didn't see the "two source" requirement that has been "quoted" to me in the past; maybe it's changed or maybe whoever "quoted" it to me was wrong or maybe my memory was wrong. (Or maybe it's still there and I just didn't see it.)  The notion that "every major fact" should be sourced is also not there. Citations are required for quotations, articles, lists, captions, sections of articles, and images; and for statements which have been challenged "or are likely to be challenged".  The WP:CITEBUNDLE and WP:CLUTTER pages seem to say that the cites should be bundled at the end of the paragraph, or at least at the end of the sentence; and that it is not recommended to give more than three sources for a given fact. Or at least that's how I interpret it.  But in this article several paragraphs have no source for the whole paragraph, and at least one section has no source for the whole section. Eldin raigmore (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the references for the "Bugis" article 

message: This is a terrible article. It says nothing about the civilisations of the Bugis for example the impact they had on the Sultanates of Johor and Riau. Juicebaby (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bugis. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728104208/http://www.insideindonesia.org/edition-66-apr-jun-2001/sulawesi-s-fifth-gender-3007484 to http://www.insideindonesia.org/edition-66/sulawesi-s-fifth-gender-3007484
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bugis. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080430182411/http://www.malaysia.or.kr/frame2.htm to http://www.malaysia.or.kr/frame2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Greetings Emir Shane, I noticed that you have set a new template on the Bugis people article.
Any helpful suggestions and feedback on how to neutralized the section? :) --د بڠساون (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Peace be on you @The Bangsawan, as I pondered over the article and saw a lot of contributions coming from you, I reckoned you might have a close connection with the subject and so I added the COI tag. But after reading the article, going through your contributions and seeing your zeal to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, I don't think any cleanup is required. I am removing the tag as it isn't needed. Have a good one! Emir Shane (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And peace be upon you too, thank you for the kind words sir. :) --د بڠساون (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality  

message: Very unfair Bugis people have to share history with a small tribe like Makassar Pinisiberjaya (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bugis and Makassarese are undeniably shared many common traditions and history. Kindly refrain yourself from radically blanking verified references and academic sources on various stable articles and pushing your ethnocentric POV. This is a neutral educational platform, you have been warned several times on your talk page for such actions; if continued, you may be blocked accordingly.--د بڠساون (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

text: As far as (political) history goes, some form of overlapping with the Bugis people is unavoidable. There is a separate article for the Makassar people, currently exists that you can contribute there. Fill free to do a write up on cultural and linguistics aspects that are uniquely Makassarese and that are distinct from the Bugis people. Don't forget to cite sources, preferably scholarly ones. Look forward to your contributions there. Thank you. - Jeblat (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: UNFAIR