Talk:Bugis

Indonesia Start‑class High‑importance

	Indonesia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-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.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Malaysia Start‑class High‑importance

	Malaysia portal 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 articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bugis people in Malaysia

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)[reply]

Removal of external link

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I read the article on spam but still respectfully disagree that my linking should be considered spam. In my opinion the links were a good addition to Wikipedia because:

The content is specific.
The website sells no product.
It offers research from respectable sources in a very easy-to-navigate way--the best organizational system for ethnic groups I have ever seen.
I know of no other source with as extensive a list of ethnic groups on the Internet which would really enrich a project such as WikiProject Ethnic groups.

Having said that, I agree that external links are so often abused and will comply with the suggestions made here. I am removing the links at the other ethnic group pages as well. Duane Frasier 00:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

Recent editorial activity

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)[reply]

"Bogeyman"

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