Talk:Bugis

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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))

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:

1. removing Joshua project is OR, it is done on the say-so of an editor, or editors whose opinions are not reviewed by experts
2. removing Joshua project violates NPOV, which requires that any published opinion should be represented in terms holders of that opinion would accept
3. 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)

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)

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)

"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)

Egard's recent edits

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)

• ok, i was wrong on the pics, so, yes, i should have to be removed. and i do accept your justification.
• the infomation was from a legitimate source: the bugis written by christian pelras which was published on 1996 (i will add on the reference page later)
• ok, my error, i would add the bugis are "known" as brave warriors.

egard89 (User talk:egard89) 14:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

OK - then the copyrighted images need to be removed. --Merbabu (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Genders in "present lifestyle".

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)

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)

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

Improving the references for the "Bugis" article

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)

(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)

Improving the article

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)

External links modified

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/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 {{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).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Riau.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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)