![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
There is no such classification as "ethnic Bugis" in Malaysia's constitution, and Bugis is not recognized as "indigenous people" either in Sabah or the peninsular. Such classification might have confined to personal declaration only. While maybe some of them still retain their Bugis identities (mostly the elders), most of them however have largely assimilated into Malay society and no longer called themselves a "Bugis". If some have to identify their Bugis heritage, they would simply refer to themselves as "Malays with Bugis ancestry". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.94.20 ( talk) 04:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
..is this sailors' word for (caribean & other) pirates eventually derived from "bugis man"? -- 80.145.188.125 ( talk) 13:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
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:
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)
egard89 ( User talk:egard89) 14:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
I'm not a native speaker but as I understand it, the Buginese words are NEITHER 'sex' nor 'gender'. Very very very roughly, they're four permeations formed from combinations of physically 'strong' or 'small' and social-role-wise 'in-charge' or 'follower'. They don't match to "sex" because (for instance) a particular male child might be classed as 'small' and not 'strong', and, because of his kingly lineage 'in-charge' even though he's four. This is an incomplete description; the four categories have many connotations specific to Bugis culture (vaguely like the way we might associate 'male hairdresser' with 'gay'). The fifth category is the neutral, vaguely like the way English-speakers may now use "Them" to avoid a gender-linked Him or Her. Rather than associating this condition with being castrated or inferior because it lacks something, the Bugis perception is of something that has the spirit power of both sexes combined. So Bissu is "unsexed" the way many Westerners might consider "God" to be without gender, not robbed of power like a gelding horse. My (very very limited) understanding of the terms is that they reflect actual social roles in ancient Bugis society. -- Talzhemir http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Challenging-Gender-Norms/Sharyn-Graham-Davies/e/9780495092803
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
Very unfair Bugis people have to share history with a small tribe like Makassar Pinisiberjaya ( talk) 14:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Makassar is just a small tribe in Indonesia less than 1 million , they are very marginalized, they are an unknown tribe in Southeast Asia even in Indonesia Pinisiberjaya ( talk) 14:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
In accordance to the recent edits on the Islamisation of the Bugis, there are four references sourced for the statement:
There are four versions on the statement:
1. Pursuant to the submission from the Bugis state of Bone in 1611, most of the South Sulawesi Peninsula (with the exception of Toraja highlands) have accepted Islam. (ref The Bugis, Christian Pelras) - original version
2. Pursuant to the submission from the Bugis state of Bone in 1611, most of the South Sulawesi Peninsula (with the exception of Toraja highlands) were forcefully converted to Islam. - 26 July 2022 (ref: Makasar and the islamization of Bima)
3. Pursuant to the submission from the Bugis state of Bone in 1611, most of the South Sulawesi Peninsula (with the exception of Toraja highlands) were converted to Islam. - 31 July 2022 (ref: Islamic Cultural Transformation in the Kingdom of Bone in the 17th century and The influence of the Bugis philosophy towards the Islamisation of the Bugis Makassar in South Sulawesi)
4. Pursuant to the submission from the Bugis state of Bone in 1611, most of the South Sulawesi Peninsula (with the exception of Toraja highlands) were "in the next four years forced...to accept Islam one by one". 1 August 2022
I'm quite concerned with the almost consistent tone by one of our new editor @ Josepherino, he expressly stated his preference towards Hinduism-Buddhism (and against Islam) in his original user page (which has since being removed), which can be seen throughout his recent edits (on Islam, India, the Indian people and Southeast-Asian related articles). Some of editors also noticed and commented his biasness and favourable wordings (based on the history section of his talk page). I started to noticed the different tones on his edits on the Dayak people.
I would love to invite @ the bangsawan, @ Austronesier, @ Jeblat, @ Gunkarta, @ Xcelltrasi
Native99girl ( talk) 13:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Kudos Wikipedia editorial team, I'm proud to see how you guys managed to handle this situation well. د بڠساون ( talk) 00:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The Makasarese king understood the meaning of this and began what is known as the Islamic war, in Makasarese bunduq kasallannganga, by which he succeeded in the next four years in forcing the major Buginese kingdoms to accept Islam one by one, Bone as the last in 1611.
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
There is no such classification as "ethnic Bugis" in Malaysia's constitution, and Bugis is not recognized as "indigenous people" either in Sabah or the peninsular. Such classification might have confined to personal declaration only. While maybe some of them still retain their Bugis identities (mostly the elders), most of them however have largely assimilated into Malay society and no longer called themselves a "Bugis". If some have to identify their Bugis heritage, they would simply refer to themselves as "Malays with Bugis ancestry". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.94.20 ( talk) 04:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
..is this sailors' word for (caribean & other) pirates eventually derived from "bugis man"? -- 80.145.188.125 ( talk) 13:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
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:
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)
egard89 ( User talk:egard89) 14:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
I'm not a native speaker but as I understand it, the Buginese words are NEITHER 'sex' nor 'gender'. Very very very roughly, they're four permeations formed from combinations of physically 'strong' or 'small' and social-role-wise 'in-charge' or 'follower'. They don't match to "sex" because (for instance) a particular male child might be classed as 'small' and not 'strong', and, because of his kingly lineage 'in-charge' even though he's four. This is an incomplete description; the four categories have many connotations specific to Bugis culture (vaguely like the way we might associate 'male hairdresser' with 'gay'). The fifth category is the neutral, vaguely like the way English-speakers may now use "Them" to avoid a gender-linked Him or Her. Rather than associating this condition with being castrated or inferior because it lacks something, the Bugis perception is of something that has the spirit power of both sexes combined. So Bissu is "unsexed" the way many Westerners might consider "God" to be without gender, not robbed of power like a gelding horse. My (very very limited) understanding of the terms is that they reflect actual social roles in ancient Bugis society. -- Talzhemir http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Challenging-Gender-Norms/Sharyn-Graham-Davies/e/9780495092803
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
Very unfair Bugis people have to share history with a small tribe like Makassar Pinisiberjaya ( talk) 14:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Makassar is just a small tribe in Indonesia less than 1 million , they are very marginalized, they are an unknown tribe in Southeast Asia even in Indonesia Pinisiberjaya ( talk) 14:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
In accordance to the recent edits on the Islamisation of the Bugis, there are four references sourced for the statement:
There are four versions on the statement:
1. Pursuant to the submission from the Bugis state of Bone in 1611, most of the South Sulawesi Peninsula (with the exception of Toraja highlands) have accepted Islam. (ref The Bugis, Christian Pelras) - original version
2. Pursuant to the submission from the Bugis state of Bone in 1611, most of the South Sulawesi Peninsula (with the exception of Toraja highlands) were forcefully converted to Islam. - 26 July 2022 (ref: Makasar and the islamization of Bima)
3. Pursuant to the submission from the Bugis state of Bone in 1611, most of the South Sulawesi Peninsula (with the exception of Toraja highlands) were converted to Islam. - 31 July 2022 (ref: Islamic Cultural Transformation in the Kingdom of Bone in the 17th century and The influence of the Bugis philosophy towards the Islamisation of the Bugis Makassar in South Sulawesi)
4. Pursuant to the submission from the Bugis state of Bone in 1611, most of the South Sulawesi Peninsula (with the exception of Toraja highlands) were "in the next four years forced...to accept Islam one by one". 1 August 2022
I'm quite concerned with the almost consistent tone by one of our new editor @ Josepherino, he expressly stated his preference towards Hinduism-Buddhism (and against Islam) in his original user page (which has since being removed), which can be seen throughout his recent edits (on Islam, India, the Indian people and Southeast-Asian related articles). Some of editors also noticed and commented his biasness and favourable wordings (based on the history section of his talk page). I started to noticed the different tones on his edits on the Dayak people.
I would love to invite @ the bangsawan, @ Austronesier, @ Jeblat, @ Gunkarta, @ Xcelltrasi
Native99girl ( talk) 13:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Kudos Wikipedia editorial team, I'm proud to see how you guys managed to handle this situation well. د بڠساون ( talk) 00:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The Makasarese king understood the meaning of this and began what is known as the Islamic war, in Makasarese bunduq kasallannganga, by which he succeeded in the next four years in forcing the major Buginese kingdoms to accept Islam one by one, Bone as the last in 1611.