Talk:Bugis

Neutrality

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)

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)

And peace be upon you too, thank you for the kind words sir. :) --د بڠساون (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

UNFAIR

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 IndonesiaPinisiberjaya (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Islamisation of the Bugis

In accordance to the recent edits on the Islamisation of the Bugis, there are four references sourced for the statement:

• 2 university journals, concentrating specifically on the Islamisation of The Bugis - Transformasi Budaya lslam di Kerajaan Bone pada abad ke-17 (Islamic Cultural Transformation in the Kingdom of Bone in the 17th century) and Peranan Nilai Philosofi Bugis Terhadap Proses Pengislaman Kerajaan Bugis Makassar di Sulawesi Selatan (The influence of the Bugis philosophy towards the Islamisation of the Bugis Makassar in South Sulawesi)
• 1 book, The Bugis by Christian Pelras
• 1 journal, Makasar and the islamization of Bima, concentrating on the Islamisation of Bima, but page 316 did mentioned on the Islamisation process though politics and war.

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)

The wording I use I more or less copy exactly from the sources I use. The one for the Bugis is copied directly from the article I sourced. I can't imagine that's a crime. you stated that you were "rewording it for bias" but youre the one who changed it from the statement a scholar made to your own pro-islam version, its very easy to make the argument that youre the one with a preference for islam. I don't see much reason to argue over this though, there is an easy solution, we can just include both, we can say something like some "some scholars say x, while others say y", how does that work? Josepherino (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

First, about the article and its content, mention should be made of reasons for the campaigns against the Bugis by Gowa other than the religious factor. Religion was very much a important motive and should be there, but it should be mentioned that scholars believe that the conquest of the Bugis states may have been also been more secular and partly related to pre-existing conflicts in the area. (pages 31-32 of this book succinctly covers the tip of the iceberg). I also think the information I added on the "Islamic Wars" section on the Sultanate of Gowa can be tweaked somewhat and added for context of the conquests.

As for POV concerns, it may be a problem if the editor has a past of misinterpreting sources by selective sourcing, editorializing or doing synth or original research which may allow bias or a POV to arise. If we stick to the sources, then we can easily find an academic NPOV or at least context to events that may deter claims seen as exceptional or biased. For reasons I will soon explain, I believe concerns over bias and poor editing from Josepherino due to different factors make me hesitant to say that their edits are completely neutral or accurate in relation to what the sources state.

So many of the sources are reliable and do to an extant back the text but needs context and going through the sources more closely to root out possible problems. I've had issues with this several of Josepherino's edits. Their past edits like in the Sultanate of Gowa (where I aired my issues with their then existing edits on the talk page), Rejang people, Aceh, Gayo people, and much more make me think that they often misinterpret sources and leave out vital historical, political, and economic contexts to anything relating to Islam or Muslims in Southeast Asia. I will not say anything about any pro-Buddhist or pro-Hindu bias from the editor as that's subjective. However, I do notice that most of their edits that touch upon Islam are disproportionately negative in tone and seem to be read like a coatrack piece compared to his edits revolving around other topics. This is even worse considering that the editor often misinterprets, omits context and cherry-picks info from multiple sources to make it read like that. (see this edit that I later revised] for example). Other times, the sources blatantly contradict the content they place in the page.

That religious rulers pressured their subjects to convert to a religion or the aftermath of a conquest eventually leading to the population adopting the religion/beliefs of the winning ruler or state is hardly unique. We need to add context to those events and phenomena so readers can get an accurate and nuanced portrayal of it. Often, conquests and wars undertaken by sultanates were at least partially based on raids and invasions that occurred regularly in pre-Islamic Southeast Asia. This background often already exists in the sources Josepherino cites but seems to omit it in place of a one-sided polemic. Leaving out context makes it seem like Muslims just wanted to be intolerant or violent for no other reason than because they are Muslim and that Hindu-Buddhists/others were peace-loving entities living in bliss when they also engaged in battle and socio-political supremacy for the area before and after the growth of Islam (and as if the Christian Portuguese, Spanish and Dutch in the area or said Hindu-Buddhist states of the past didn't engage in conflicts that eventually led to their power and beliefs spreading).

The biggest issue with the edits of Josepherino is that it can be difficult to sort through them to see how accurately they interpreted and paraphrased the sources. The issue is their edits often don't accurately reflect what the sources say and they often get a lone paragraph of the source out of context so they can then write down and quote it within the source to make it seem like it supports a more sweeping or possibly pre-conceived claim they're making. They also engage in Synth or original research in general and editorializing from the sources to make conclusions and claims not actually mentioned in the source (this edit being one example). This is why many of their edits to this topic often contradict what the sources the editor uses because it's often nuanced unlike the simplistic version Josepherino seems to add instead. It wouldn't surprise me if their edits on this article may have similar issues.

In conclusion, I believe we need more context to these conflicts between Gowa and the Bugis as there are clearly additional non-religious motives behind it. We also need to stick to what the sources. This will make the event more nuanced and may reduce concerns over POV. The editor in question has also made edits which I believe are of dubious quality so I would be hesitant about the idea of keeping their edits intact without any revisions. Also, @Native99girl, I believe you meant to ping @The Bangsawan to get his opinion on the matter. SlackingViceroy (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

" conquest of the Bugis states may have been also been more secular and partly related to pre-existing conflicts in the area. (pages 31-32 of this book succinctly covers the tip of the iceberg). I also think the information I added on the "Islamic Wars" section on the Sultanate of Gowa can be tweaked somewhat and added for context of the conquests"

As far as I recall, there wasn't even a section in the Gowa Sultanate article about the Islamic wars before I added it. Fascinating how quickly experts on it were conjured! What I think happened was you saw my edits, then quickly scuttled to google scholar or jstor and tried to find something that supports the opposite claim (even though my source was very widely cited and probably the dominant viewpoint) and then injected it into the article as if it were reality. your need to delete any reference to Islamic violence and "secularize" the Islamic wars is a genuine academic concern that we need to discuss. Its a joke that I'm the one being accused of bias in this situation. I suggest you stop trying to whitewash what was obviously a very violent event because of your political opinions. Josepherino (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

By WP:CHERRYPICKING sources and information to impose his point of view, his edits are extreme pro-Hinduism alone with an extreme antipathy for anything associated with Christianity and Islam. Most of his additions do not reflect the sources, and he occasionally fills in the gaps with his own analysis. I also discovered that he cites very poor sources in a number of his edits. Many of his edits are WP:NOTNEWS. This WP:AGENDA-driven editing, combined with synth and source misreprestation, is disruptive and should be directed to the attention of an administrator at ANI or AE before it does further harm. 194.147.114.145 (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you SlackingViceroy, Josepherino and other ip user for the feedback. My main concern is the overemphasis on the similar tone (while ignoring other relevant factors) throughout his past edits, not only in Bugis people article but throughout other articles as well. Native99girl (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2022‎

@Native99girl: I have little to add to what @SlackingViceroy has written above. I refrain from speculating about @Josepherino motives, sympathies and antipathies, but many of their edits distort the actual content of the sources, resulting in a simplistic uniform (almost template-like) narrative about the introduction of Christianity and Islam into the Indonesian archipelago. The best thing to do is what @SlackingViceroy has done so far: inspect the undoubtedly valuable sources used by @Josepherino, and correct the inserted text in every article accordingly – if salvageable – or WP:TNT-delete it and carefully rebuild it from scratch.

Btw, It's a good thing to see that the WP community still has a healthy response against poor editing. Kudos, @Native99girl and @SlackingViceroy! –Austronesier (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights and lovely suggestion Austronesier. Native99girl (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

As anticipated, Josepherino is a sockpuppet of someone from India with the same doctrine of current government which is intolerant toward Muslims. By Wikipedia regulations at Wikipedia:Dealing with sockpuppets#Cleaning up after a sock puppet is blocked, all of his significant content updates can now be deleted because practically all of them contain errors, source misrepresentations, editorialization. If not, he will continue on with a different account. The edits I make will be reversed because I am an IP (my last edit was reversed for unknown reasons). Can you folks help reverting the edits?

@SlackingViceroy, Native99girl, Austronesier, and Iskandar323:

176.124.192.32 (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@176.124.192.32: Just specify in your edit summary "revert edit by block evading sock of indefinitely blocked User:Arohan19". If you see anything useful in their edits (usually the sources they used are good), you might also consider amending the edit, or replacing it with a better rendering of the content of the source. But you don't have to if it's beyond repair or actually out of place in the article.

Btw, if you only engage in reverting the edits of a single blocked sock, this might throw a bad light on you. Every editor, including IPs, is expected to by here to be here to build an encyclopedia. Of course, many editors are handling the abuse by block-evading socks, but it shouldn't be a single-purpose agenda –Austronesier (talk) 09:26, 6 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)