Jump to content

Talk:Murzyn/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV

I took out most of the NPOV stuff which was sourced to a letter to the editor or some right wing blog from the article. I'm going to leave the tag in for now, because the "In phrases" part is still problematic though I don't have time at the moment to work with it. And also, once again, we get that huge block quote from Pirog. Undue. Volunteer Marek  18:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Please don't just delete to be disruptive. Delete things which need to be challenged. Did you have to delete the bit about 'sto lat za murzynami'? Have you never heard the phrase? Controversial material needs great sourcing, but something as well-known (by Poles) as that phrase and the definition given were uncontroversial. You seem to be deleting anything you don't like. That's not helpful at all.
I'm not "just deleting to be disruptive", I'm deleting because you based most of this article on unreliable sources (letters to the editor). Personally, I've never heard the expression myself. Volunteer Marek  22:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And what was wrong with a right-wing writer's view? :

Regarding the film The Ghost Writer by Polish director Roman Polanski, journalist Remigiusz Włast-Matuszak writes that the Polish translation of the title, Autor Widmo (literally: Author Ghost), in a "normal country and in normal times" should have been "Murzyn premiera" ("The murzyn of the Prime Minister"), "Pisząc jako murzyn" ("Writing as a murzyn"), or "Robiąc za murzyna" ("Working like a murzyn").[1]

You say you want NPOV then remove someone who thinks 'murzyn' is an ok word! Are you saying these phrases do not show the use of the word 'murzyn'? Again, you seem to be trying to be disruptive, in my view. Malick78 (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Te straszne słowa: Żydówka, murzyn!, Prawica.net
Again, I removed it because it was sourced to an unreliable source. Whether I like it or not has nothing to do with it. Volunteer Marek  22:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, what do you currently see as being NPOV? Can we remove the tag now? There seem to be plenty of mentions of people who see the term as being neutral. Malick78 (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
It still relies heavily on unreliable sources and serves as a coatrack for random usages of the term found somewhere on the internet. It's not encyclopedic. Volunteer Marek  23:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
How is it un-encyplopaedic? The AfD has said the article is ok. Perhaps it's time to give up on that spurious claim? As for it "relying on unreliable sources", we mention PWN a lot... you've deleted all the sources you don't like. I think that claim is old-hat and no longer accurate (though in fact I think it never was, actually) - and other editors are not backing up your claim. It's perfectly NPOV now. If it's not, please list the sources that give you concern, below.Malick78 (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
No, the AfD, which looks like it's going to end "keep" did not say "the article is ok". What a "keep" vote says is that the subject is notable. It does not in any way judge as to whether the article is NPOV. "Other editors" are not backing your use of sketchy sources either.
While the article has become better there are still problems. For one thing it continues to use sources which just use the word in passing rather than sources which discuss the usage of the word in a particular context. As I said before, why not track down the sources that were mentioned before which look like they might be reliable, rather than just relying on random stuff from the internet? A little bit more work is required, you can do it.
  • The use of less than perfect sources doesn't imply NPOV problems. Those are two different things. Please list the NPOV problems individually so they can be addressed. And finally, if we're to move on, as Piotrus has asked, without personal attacks, then perhaps the sarcastic phrase "you can do it" is inappropriate.Malick78 (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, don't just remove the POV tag because the month changed from 30th "September" to 1st of "October" and suggest that that means the tag is old. Volunteer Marek  17:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Another problem: this "examples in Polish culture". Frankly the whole idea is sort of ridiculous - since this is the Polish word for "black person" there are obviously going to be millions of examples of its usage out there. Malick78 is going around and picking out particular examples for, hell, I don't know why. If we are going to have a "examples" section (which I DO think is a stupid idea to begin with) then how about putting in usages from Polish literature or something, like, for example, the usage in Norwid's poem I mentioned below. Volunteer Marek  23:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Include Jan Brzechwa, for this poem. Include Afric Simone, too. He used to be very popular in Poland. --Lysytalk 06:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Murzynek Bambo is the most famous example of the word murzyn in Polish culture. Kropka i koniec (fullstop). That, hell, is why I've mentioned it. Because it's mentioned every time the subject of the word 'murzyn' comes up in the articles I've read. Nothing else I've seen is mentioned as much, though Sienkiewicz's book (In the dessert and wilderness) comes a distant second. Obviously, if you know of other things of note, please include them. Malick78 (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

In literary translation

Unfortunately I don't have access to the Polish Review and it doesn't go up on Jstor till next year (or 2013) but this looks interesting: [1]. It specifically states that the translation of "Murzyn" to "Negro" is incorrect and that this has been corrected - I'm guessing that the reference is to the poem "To Citizen John Brown" by the Polish poet Cyprian Kamil Norwid which has the line "Noc idzie - czarna noc z twarzą Murzyna!"" in it ("Night falls -- a black night with the face of a Negro!" in the translation of Walter Whipple [2]). Unfortunately the snippet view cuts off just before it lets you know HOW this mistranslation was corrected. Volunteer Marek  18:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, one dissenting voice does not mean the translation is always wrong. How would you translate negro into Polish? Sometimes it would be appropriate to equate the two, but sometimes not. It's a grey area. Malick78 (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

How would you translate "black person" into Polish? Careful here. Volunteer Marek  22:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
As a non-Pole, it's not my place to say. But, if I had to, I'd go for 'czarnoskory'. As for negro... that'd have to be 'murzyn' :) Malick78 (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
But Murzyn doesn't have that negative connotation as Negro today. I'd rather think that Murzyn is the equivalent of black. For an offensive term, perhaps czarnuch? There's a good reason this page shouldn't just redirect to Negro or another term; those things are not easy to translate. Oh, and ending on a not-so-politically-correct-note, enjoy (that song is probably notable, to...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Ditto. "Czarnuch" is offensive, surprisingly "czarny" (black) is neutral, "murzyn" is neutral. You can offend a person addressing him "ty czarnuchu" but not "tu murzynie". --Lysytalk 07:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Racism is, as we know, in the eye of the beholder :) Once upon a time, say in the 1950s or before, 'negro' was seen by white Americans as neutral, and the then neutral word at that time - to translate it - would have had to be 'murzyn', not 'czarnuch'. So, it is fair to say, that when negro is meant to be neutral, it's translation is murzyn. Malick78 (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
In the 1950s you mean. The process in Poland is much slower for obvious reasons. Personally, I expect "murzyn" will get pejorative some time. For now it is in a some sort of transition. Currently, if you consider "murzyn" offensive, "Żyd" would have to be offensive as well. (an idea for another article ;) )--Lysytalk 17:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Not just in the 1950s. A historian talking about the 19th century can in certain circumstances use the word 'negro', even when writing now. The context makes it neutral. Hence, a translation of that would probably use 'murzyn'. As for your other suggestion... I'm happy with an article on Żyd. I know little about its use (other than that the Russian equivalent, 'zhid', is highly offensive - 'evrej' being preferred), so can't help much as it is. But I'll support it being written ;) Malick78 (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Here Wojewodzki jokes on the radio about Rihanna being offended by the use of the word "nigger" to translate the cake name 'murzynek'. Just thought people might find that interesting :) Malick78 (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic ?

How does this belong to the English wikipedia ? Anyway, is this encyclopedic, at all ? Rather a wictionary entry ? --Lysytalk 21:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between it and the pages Negro and Sambo (racial term)? Malick78 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not used in English. It's a Polish dictionary word. It does not even have an entry in the Polish wiki. Can I PROD it now ? --Lysytalk 22:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what PROD it means, but we have plenty of foreign words in WP, see Category:Words and phrases by language. Why shouldn't English speakers read about the use and connotations of foreign words? Malick78 (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Lysy here actually. Volunteer Marek  22:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
And the quick answer to Malick78's question "Why shouldn't English speakers read about the use and connotations of foreign words" is that, sure, they should, but in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Volunteer Marek  22:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
See here. It meets criteria for notability, sources, etc. If you don't like it VM, just go to another page, stop tormenting yourself ;) Malick78 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
No, no it doesn't. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary "the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote." belongs in Wikitionary. And please keep this kind of advice like "stop tormenting yourself", which is essentially a personal attack, to yourself. Volunteer Marek  22:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Please, guys, do not get personal, will you ? :) --Lysytalk 22:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Since Malick78 is obviously going to contest the PROD it's probably best to go straight to AFD. Volunteer Marek  22:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, we do not have a single universal wikipedia, but have national versions in different languages. I don't know why, but let's follow this for now. Can we agree to delete the article here now, or do we have to go through the afd ? --Lysytalk 22:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
If it belongs to wikipedia at all, then certainly to the Polish one, not English. Let's discuss this in the ADF page. --Lysytalk 23:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Murzyn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murzyn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murzyn until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Lysytalk 23:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Apteka pod murzynami

I take that back. Here's what google said:

  • Apteka "Pod Murzynem", ul. Wrocławska 27/1, Dzierżoniów
  • Apteka Pod Trzema Murzynami, ul. Kiełbaśnicza 32, Wrocław
  • Apteka "Pod Murzynem", ul. Piastowska 6, Pszczyna
  • Apteka Pod Murzynem, Rynek 28, Ząbkowice Śląskie

So indeed, they're not as uncommon as I thought. --Lysytalk 20:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Junk sources

Malick78, look. This is a potentially controversial article and it discusses some real life persons. Hence BLP applies, as does the fact that you shouldn't use junk sources, or sources which barely refer to the topic. The fact that someone somewhere translated the word in a particular way says absolutely nothing. What next, Urban Dictionary? Don't accuse me of being disruptive. Either find actual reliable sources or cut this nonsense out. Volunteer Marek  21:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but controversial stuff needs good sources. Uncontroversial stuff doesn't. If someone demanded a special source for the fact that Obama is a man, then, that would be disruptive. You want a source for the fact that 'sto lat za murzynami' is a Polish phrase? Don't you believe it? I'm sorry, but if you want a source that is solely devoted to that subject, then you are being unreasonable and disruptive. A) no source solely devoted to it would exist... b) why waste our time demanding that we look for it? EVERYONE in Poland knows the phrase. We could be improving the article in other ways not going on a wild goose chase. As you've seen at the AfD, the consensus is that the article is fine. It's only you still fighting against it, and now you're unreasonably demanding sources for uncontroversial stuff. And mentioning BLP is a joke! Who are the real life people mentioned? The people quoted? We've quoted people's own words from their own articles.
Furthermore, as Verifiability says:

"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable."

And later in the "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" section:

"Exceptional claims require high-quality sources.[5] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;"

Now, are you telling me these are surprising claims? That "Sto lat za murzynami" exists? That a cake called 'Cycki murzynki' exists? You're challenging them just because you want to delete something in an article that you've taken a dislike to. Please, let other editors get on with proper editing. Not these games of yours. Malick78 (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I want a reliable source for the fact that the phrase "sto lat za murzynami" is a widely used phrase. I've never heard it. If it is a widely used prase you should have no problem finding a RELIABLE, RELEVANT source to that effect.
The fact that "no source solely devoted to it would exist" (not exactly sure what the "it" refers to here) then that sort of highlights the problem with this article doesn't it?
EVERYONE in Poland knows the phrase. - you keep making these assertions (sort of like your claim that this article has "dozens" of reliable sources, whereas it has something like ... one). If so, back it up with evidence - RELIABLE, RELEVANT sources.
the consensus is that the article is fine. - no, the consensus seems to be going so far that the article should be KEPT. That's a very different thing from "the article is fine". It isn't - at least not with the junk sources you keep putting in.
And you quote policy at me - "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. " - but repeatedly fail to observe it yourself. The info is challenged. You need a reliable published source. NOT a letter to the editor, or somebody's personal webpage, or other stuff like that.
And let me quote this back at you: ""Exceptional claims require high-quality sources.[5] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;"". You keep claiming "everyone knows this" or "this exists" but continually fail to properly source it. Who's playing games?

 Volunteer Marek  02:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Actually, only you have complained about these sources, no one else. That leads me to think that you're being disruptive. "Sto lat za murzynami" gets 260,000 hits (and that's not counting related phrases like "20 lat za...". That you've never heard of it suggests that either your Polish isn't so good, and/or you've been out of the country too long. Either way, it's existence is beyond doubt. No article specially devoted to it is needed. As for your quoting of BLP, how can it be a problem when we're quoting the guy's own words? That's nonsensical. Malick78 (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
These terms are in common use indeed, however they do not have any significant pejorative implications. They simply indicate that the black people are known to have been discriminated in the past ("murzyn zrobił swoje, murzyn może odejść", "jestem murzynem" = I'm being discriminated), or that we are lagging behind the developing world ("jesteśmy sto lat za murzynami"). There's certain auto-irony load in both phrases. As to the sources I second that they are poor, but I could not find any better. --Lysytalk 08:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Now, refuting myself, check this video out: http://www.klikplej.pl/film,3430 --Lysytalk 08:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Two more links, maybe of some use, both in Polish, alas: Afrykańczyk nie jest Murzynem, Afrykańczyk. --Lysytalk 11:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

@Malick, and you're the only one who insist on putting them in here. Find sources, then we'll talk. Or are you really going to insist that a letter to an editor or somebody's online recipe constitute reliable sources, because, according to you, "everyone knows this"? @Lysy, ok look, I'm getting tired of having to deal with people who are playing games. I agree with your interpretation of these statements, but let's all leave our personal experiences and opinions out of it. So yes, I'm going to insist on actual reliable sources. Particularly because I have a feeling that if we let it slide on the inclusion of one sketchy source/information, then that will just provide a hook to include many other sketchy sources/information.

Like I said, at the end of the day this is a potentially controversial article. Which means it needs quality reliable and relevant sources. Volunteer Marek  15:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough the only reliable sources which you can add to this article appear to be ... dictionary entries. Which sort of suggests that the original AFD nomination was right all along. Volunteer Marek  15:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

At the AfD Piotrus brought up this source [3]. Now this actually looks like potentially a real reliable source. How about instead of running around the internets and trying to pull random shit from various random websites to slap into this article, somebody actually goes out and tries to get access to this serious source?  Volunteer Marek  16:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

  • How about you improve your attitude? Call things 'shit' and saying it's 'slapped into' the article isn't civil. As for this being a 'controversial article', yes it is. But so is George W. Bush. But only the controversial things in his article need amazing sources, not the obvious things (he's a man, American, married, etc...). Try to differentiate these things as the guidelines say: according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, in the intro,

    "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything."

    [My bolding]. Now, why must I attribute a statement that a phrase exists ('sto lat...'), when every Pole knows the phrase? If you doubt it exists, google it. Then you'll know it exists. The fact that you won't do this simple thing shows a)that you don't (or don't want to) understand how WP works, or b)that you're just trying to be difficult. Really, only strange/unusual claims need cast-iron sources.
  • An example :) You yourself wrote an article about Tadeusz Adamowski that said:

    "He was the son of Polish musicians Józef and Antonina Adamowski nee Szumska, who with Józef’s brother Tymoteusz Adamowski made up the Adamowski Trio. He was the brother of Helenka Adamowska Pantaleoni, film and stage actress and humanitarian associated with the founding of UNICEF. He was also a cousin of the Polish pianist and diplomat Ignacy Paderewski.[2]"

    This was your source but actually, the relevant paragraph (correct me if I'm wrong), says merely:

    "Liderem hokeistów AZS był Tadeusz „Ralf” Adamowski, który gry nauczył się w Stanach Zjednoczonych, gdzie na tamtejszym Harwardzie kończył studia. Adamowski, był kuzynem Ignacego Paderewskiego i zrobił tyle dla polskiego hokeja, ile jego wujek dla polskiej polityki. Gdy w 1923 powrócił do ojczyzny, przywiózł z sobą nowoczesne łyżwy, stroje i kije hokejowe, a także reguły gry w hokeja. Szybko do Adamowskiego dołączył inny reemigrant z Kanady – Wilhelm Rybak. Obaj stali się nie tylko najlepszymi graczami, ale i pierwszymi trenerami. Największy sukces (organizacyjny i sportowy) hokeiści odnieśli w 1931 roku podczas Hokejowych Mistrzostw Świata rozegranych w Krynicy. Zajęli IV miejsce za Kanadą, USA i Austrią, co oznaczało, że Polska była II w Europie. Nic więc dziwnego, że aż trzech Polaków grało w reprezentacji Europy przeciw Kanadzie. Byli to Tadeusz Adamowski, Aleksander Tupalski i bramkarz Józef Stogowski."

  • I won't translate it for non-Polish speakers (since there are few involved in this discussion at this point), but let's just say that V Marek used this source for the last part of his paragraph ("He was also a cousin of the Polish pianist and diplomat Ignacy Paderewski"), but it did not even refer to the facts in the first two sentences about Adamowski's parents or his sister.
  • Now, why are your standards, V Marek, lower than those you expect of me? At least I have sources... even if you don't like them. You use sources to cover info which they don't even contain. Please, start being fair with your fellow editors here on WP and don't demand of them that which you don't even do yourself. Malick78 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I really don't know if you are being dishonest here or you're just really really... sloppy. First what the hell does Adamowski have to do with anything here? You're struggling to find some less-than-perfect edit of mine somewhere to excuse your own sloppy sourcing on this article or to somehow justify the use of junk sources here and ... epically failing (just like with you bringing up Muttawmp on my talk page [4]). Now, I'm sure there are many imperfect edits I've made over the years so the fact that you can't even find one says something. In this particular case, please note that the paragraph that you citing (as an example of my "low standards) has TWO citations at the end. The second citation sources that he was Paderewski's cousin. As is obvious if you actually bother to read the source or the citation. Additionally this isn't even my article but another persons and my work on it consisted mostly of helping him out because he asked me for help.
So here's lesson #1: read before talking, particularly if you plan on making this "talking" a bunch of baseless accusations and personal attacks
Here's lesson #2: If you ask someone nicely to help out, they're usually happy to help, even on a controversial subject. However, if you go in with insults, insinuations and personalize any disagreements, they're not going to end up with a very high opinion of your edits or your person. That's not just Wikipedia, that's how it work in life generally.
You've begun to make this disagreement more and more personal. You began by making spurious accusations that my removal of junk sources was "disruptive". You then followed it up with personal comments like "go somewhere else and stop tormenting yourself". You then followed that up with an insult at the AfD, apparently questioning my educational credentials (or something equally obnoxious). You then start pouring through my past contributions, going to articles I edited like two years ago and trying to find something wrong with them (and failing) and then going around talking about my "lax standards".
Cut it out. Focus on content - and sources! - not the editor. Volunteer Marek  18:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
BTW, in addition to personalizing the discussion and making personal attacks, what you're doing now is bordering very closely on wiki hounding and stalking which is a form of harassment. Volunteer Marek  18:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, it's nothing of the sort. I'm not stalking you. I just wanted to show you the standard you demand here is too high, and inappropriate, by showing you your standards regarding articles you like. I chose the first two articles I happened upon. Didn't take much time :) And you really did start this all off by deleting fine content, so don't pretend you're a martyr. As for Adamowski, the link to the article I used showed a moment (19 Aug 2010) when the paragraph had just one ref on it. I wasn't commenting on the current version. I thought it was your version (I went to the bottom of the history, where your name was the first, but didn't realise there was a second page ;) ), but whether it was or not your version, the fact is you'd made many edits without complaining about the inaccurate ref there. Now, why was that ref's inaccuracy not a problem, while the 'junk sources' here are? There is a double standard going on here.
I asked politely about your PhD because your argumentation was the least logical of anyone on that page, as far as I could see. But really, were you involved in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list

EEML]? If so, you really shouldn't be surprised if people are suspicious of you. Malick78 (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

My standards are just fine. You haven't shown any problems with either article. And no, you didn't "ask politely", you made a unnecessary obnoxious personal attack - it doesn't help your case that now you're lying about it. You're basically trolling right now.  Volunteer Marek  23:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

I'd humbly contend that their use to prove the existence of words and demonstrate linguistic usage, is not making "contentious claims about third parties". These sources are ok.Malick78 (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
This is an article about a word in Polish. What you did to write it is went on the internet and just found some random instances of this word being used and slapped these internet sources together to make it look like an article. The first problem with this is that many of the sources are not really relevant to the word but just use it in passing. They are examples of usage, at best, rather than sources on the usage (as such these sources can be considered as WP:PRIMARY sources - again, not used for anything that is disputed). I've repeatedly suggested tracking down several sources which look like they are in fact discussing the general usage of the term but this has been ignored. I guess it's too hard as one would have to get up from the computer and go to a library or something. Second, we have a related problem: the fact that the article consists essentially of slapped together instances of usage on the internet shows in how it's written, horribly. I'll address that separately. Volunteer Marek  18:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I offered a truce at the top... it's a shame you didn't want to accept it. As for not spending time searching for articles... well, if I wasn't having my time wasted with the absurd AfD I might have put more effort into the article. Also, if I didn't feel my efforts were being deleted for non-valid reasons, I'd also try harder. As for the style - well, it doesn't have to be perfect straight away. It'll exist for eternity and I presume someone will add to it during that time. There's no rush. Malick78 (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
You *just* left that comment so the use of past tense in the word "offered" is a bit much. Anyway, of course I'd like it if, um, "we", moved past personal comments. There was no sarcasm in the "you can do it" but rather just a spur to action. Unfortunately in this THIS comment you basically just make a series of excuses (it's the AfD's fault, others are criticizing me, it doesn't have to be perfect (no, it doesn't - let's start with decent first), it'll exist for eternity, someone else will fix it etc.) How is that a basis for anything productive, or for removal of a warranted tag? Volunteer Marek  20:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, you're commenting on me rather than the content. Btw, what are the non-NPOV parts you object to? Could you list them clearly so they can be addressed? Malick78 (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm just responding to your comment and the specific, er, issues, you raised in that comment (AfD, etc.). Volunteer Marek  21:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Anywho, the use of WP:PRIMARY only relates to interpretation. If I say that a cake called 'cycki murzynki' exists, that is covered by:

"Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. [...] A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." [my bolding]

Saying that something exists, is basically descriptive, not interpretative. It's therefore not even close to being a novel interpretation. That's what the rule refers to and why it exists. I see know reason why to dismiss (as said below), over 400,000 hits showing the cake exists. This argument also applies to the existence of phrases.Malick78 (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Cycki murzynki

This cake gets 463,000 hits. Apart from VM, does anybody else object/support it's mentioning with a reference like this, for instance? I don't think we can really doubt the cake's existence, but unfortunately Polish academics haven't bothered to write about it yet. Malick78 (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many people object. NPOV and RS are cornerstones of Wikipedia, and hence non-negotiable. Find. Reliable. Sources. Or. Stop. Volunteer Marek  23:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Style

Because this article consists mainly of instances of usage found on the internets, stitched together it ends up very badly written. The fact that this is sort of a COATRACK shows in the writing. There is no flow, no narrative, not even anything longer than two sentences on a particular theme. The whole article is basically:

"Here this word is used this way. Here the word is used that way. And here the word is used another way. Here is a dictionary definition of the term. Here is a related dictionary definition of the term. Here is a long block quote because somebody doesn't feel like paraphrasing".

Putting aside the POV problems, the article is simply horribly written. It's like an outline for a paper yet to be written by a junior high student that's gonna end up getting a C- anyway. An encyclopedia article is not just a "mishmash of stuff I found on the internet". So even ignoring the POV problems, this article is simply not encyclopedic. Volunteer Marek  18:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Extensive quotations

Wikipedia prohibits extensive quotations in order to avoid exceeding fair use. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copy-paste. When extensive material is necessary from a source, it should be presented in a combination of direct quotation and proper paraphrase. The quote formerly used under Murzyn#Examples in Polish culture was nearly 10% of the original source, which is extensive. I have reduced it, but cannot be sure that I have taken out the elements considered most essential to the editors of the article. Certainly, editors are welcome to highlight different passages, but the entire quote should not be restored in compliance with our copyright policies.

What I could not do was assess the Polish so as to retain the original text for the direct quotes I have held on to. It would be very much appreciated if multilingual editors could assist in restoring those brief sections necessary to substantiate the translated quotes. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi, the Pirog quote is 1229 out of 18745 characters, just under 6.6%. Not 'nearly 10%'. If you choose words, it's 181 out of 2681 - 7.2%. Higher, but still - closer to 5% than 10%.
Perhaps more importantly though, no one in the AFD on this article accused the article of copyright infringement. The debate didn't even touch upon it. It can therefore be assumed that consensus was that this was a non-issue. Since fair use is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps you are being slightly overzealous?
Also, in my view, the content of the quote justifies its use, and this is a scholarly article and not for profit. We can't reproduce the original poem, so Pirog's quote's description of the narrative ("Unfortunately Bambo cannot go to school with us" mirrors the poem's last line) is very important. Finally, the original material is likely to benefit from any link to this WP page (it'll receive more hits, not less), so it won't suffer from it. Shouldn't that lead us to a more lenient view of its use? Malick78 (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Malick, you keep confusing the "keep" outcome of the AfD - which merely reflects the fact that people thought the subject matter to be "notable" - with some kind of justification for all things that are wrong with this article. A "keep" vote at an AfD is not a carte-blanche to do whatever, nor is it in anyway an approval of a currently existing version. Volunteer Marek  21:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


No, I don't believe I am being overzealous. I'm an uninvolved administrator asked to look into a copyright problem, and I believe that this quote constitutes a copyright issue. (Eliminating apparatus distinct from the text of the article (footnotes, title), the source is 2,490 words. You're right that the quote is 181 words; when figuring percentages, I used the English version, which I should not have done.)It is not as extensive as the other one, but it's too much. However, if you'd like another review, I'd be happy to list it at the copyright problems page to ask another administrator to review it.
In terms of our ability to push boundaries, Wikipedia does not rely on its position as a non-profit organization, which is why we require that material placed here be licensed for commercial reuse. We also do not rely on the presumption that the copyright holders would like for us to use their content and drive traffic to their page; if this is true, they should be willing to grant license to allow us to use the text. (See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permissions).
The fact that this question was not considered at the AFD does not make it an invalid question; the removal of extensive quotations (and hopefully replacement of them with valid paraphrase and briefer excerpts) does not remove the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Cycki murzynki 2

Discussion based on recent reverts started. Sigh. Regarding reliable sources, I find one mention on Google Books, which seem to be an article from Przekrój. That may be reliable. The major issue here is - is this a notable enough concept to merit inclusion, per WP:UNDUE (and to a degree, WP:FRINGE)? The cake is not well known (I've never heard of it before); that the word is used in a cake - so what? If the cake was notable like Mille-feuille (aka Napoleon), it would be different, but for a footnote to footnote of culinary history, is it relevant? Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (or just "stuff exists") is not really a valid argument for inclusion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning Mille-feuille seems strange when the majority of that page is unsourced. That suggests you care little about sourcing, to be honest.Malick78 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
220,000 hits on Google suggest it's not just a footnote. Unfortunately, popularity doesn't always equate to a mass of scholarly writing: not all Polish cultural issues have been written about in a scholarly way or are available on the internet to cite here. In my view, the cake is well known (as the hits show) and widely available in Poland, precisely because of it's risque look and title; you wouldn't be the first Pole on WP to tell me that they "haven't heard" of something, btw. The issue is actually this - isn't the deleter just deleting to make a WP:POINT? The hits show it's a popular cake, yet he demands even better sources to prove it merely exists. At such a moment, WP:COMMONSENSE is surely worth mentioning: ignore rules (the need for RS) when they're unnecessary (the cake clearly exists). I think it boils down to one thing - making a point. He and I certainly don't get on... that's not news to anyone.Malick78 (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
1. 220,000 hits on google is squat.
1a. It's nothing because 200,000 google hits actually ain't that much - "cycki" by itself get's 9million+ hits (I'm actually surprised it's that low)
1b. You have no way of knowing how many of those are false positives
1c. The very fact that "popularity (it's NOT popular - VM) doesn't always equate... to scholarly writing", or at least reliable sources, is EXACTLY the point here. You can type all kinds of stuff into google and get hits. That doesn't make it encyclopedic or mean that it's not UNDUE.
2. "In my view" - this is another problem here. This is just your opinion and your own OR based on some stuff you found on the internet. Guess what, there's a lot of stuff on the internet and you should probably be more judicious in how you form your opinions. Regardless, "in my view" = original research.
3. I am not "demanding that Malick proves it merely exists". I have never said that or asked you to proof existence. That's a nonsense strawman you came up with. Either provide diffs to back up this weird claim or simply. Stop. Lying.
4. Of course it exists, so what? If I bake a cake and call it "Malick's Ear" it will also exists. And if I put up a recipe for it on the internet, that still doesn't mean it should be included in any encyclopedia article.
5. If there's anyone trying to engage in WP:POINT here it's you, by including this fringe and needlessly provocative text and sourcing it with junk from the internet.
6. It's very simple. You say it's popular and notable. Fine. Show me a reliable source. Not "stuff I found on the internet". Otherwise, cut out the edit warring and the disruptive edits.
VolunteerMarek 19:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you tone down your language ("lying" etc.) In my view the sources that were there were fine for this purpose. Why weren't they? You haven't even said what's wrong with them. As for your idea, when thousands of people put photos on the internet of my baked ear, I'll happily start Malick's Ear. The amount of mentions on the internet will doubtless proof it's a notable cake. And best of all... in the History section you'll even get a mention ;) Lastly, how is it "needlessly provocative"? Does the mention of breasts upset you? I've seen the cake in shops... that's why I've added it. No provocation. I'm just reflecting life in Poland. Malick78 (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Kremowka Papieska (the Pope's Mille-feuille) gets 96,000 hits. I guess 200,000 (or even half that) isn't "squat" in the Polish internet, as you claimed.Malick78 (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you start following WP:RS. Like I said, it's extreeeeeeemmmmmmlllly simple. Find. A reliable. Source. Not random webpages from the internet.VolunteerMarek 20:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
And I don't know how to explain it to you politely without sounding patronizing, but the stupidity of your google search warrants it and more. Quite simply has it occurred to you that when you do a google search for "cycki murzynki" you just might be getting a whole bunch of hits which having nothing to do with the culinary arts? I hear that out there on the internets they have this thing called pooorn. And some of it even shows "cycki".
Also, please retrecat the above claim that I was demanding you prove the cake's existence as that was a straight up misrepresentation (if you don't like the plain descriptive word "lie").VolunteerMarek 20:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The text says that the cake exists. That's what's being claimed, and you want "better" refs for it. Don't you? Hence you have asked me to "to proof existence [sic]". You still haven't said what's wrong with the refs, of course. They are reliable as in it's safe to assume they haven't made up the cake's existence. It's been proofed. Malick78 (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Please stop with the IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Especially since once again you are trying to misrepresent my position. Once, twice, ok that could be a simple error. Three and more times is simple dishonesty.
So one more time. No, I am not asking for better refs to show the cake's existence. I am asking for ANY refs which show that it's notable and not UNDUE. The fact that you haven't found a single reliable source which talks about - as you admit yourself, though for some reason you seem to think that's a plus rather than a minus - suggests that by now you're just obfuscating and playing at... well, "i didn't hear that".VolunteerMarek 23:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is disputing the fact that the cake exists. What is disputed is whether Wikipedia should care about this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, my understanding of UNDUE is that we shouldn't give too much space to viewpoints which don't deserve so much space. Here, firstly, it's not a viewpoint, it's a statement of existence, which is a pretty neutral concept. Secondly, there is one sentence devoted to this cake. So, in my view, UNDUE barely applies. Thousands of photos of the cake on the net testify to it being more than the one-off creation of a non-notable person, which is surely the only worry we should have. Hence, I reiterate my request for the use of WP:COMMONSENSE. Moreover, no one in the absurd and ill-fated AFD complained that this cake was non-notable, though it was mentioned in quite a few posts. Suggests they accepted it being mentioned. Malick78 (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, why not tag it with a [citation needed] tag if you want a better source? That's what the tag is for.Malick78 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Fact tags would make sense except that you've had A LOT of time and can't find a reliable reference, as you yourself have admitted several times now.
And one more time - again, more of "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" - an AfD just decides whether a topic is notable. It doesn't "legitimize" every piece of nonsense or crappy source in a given article.
Finally, you are being dishonest again, this time in your edit summary [5]. I was never "banned" here, so please stop with the slander. You still haven't retracted your falsehoods above and honestly, a dishonest statement in an edit summary should simply be oversighted. Do not make false accusations in edit summaries (or elsewhere for that matter) again.VolunteerMarek 20:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I said "banned" when you were merely "blocked". My apologies. But perhaps if you respected community rules more and didn't get yourself (repeatedly) blocked people wouldn't get confused in the first place.
As for UNDUE, you still haven't said how it relates to this. It specifically refers to "viewpoints". This is an uncontroversial fact that you are trying hard to make controversial.Malick78 (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion. So I am repeating my edit summary.I removed the text because it is in wrong section: it is not "other meaninhg". The word "murzynka" is used in its direct sense. It is "cycki" (of an attractive african femme) that is used in other meaning. - Altenmann >t 05:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Why delete it if it's in the wrong section? Just move it. Malick78 (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If you google "Cycki murzynki" for pictures you get quite a lot of pics of cakes that somewhat fits the name. Maybe some of those are from articles in relevant magazines that could be used as RS.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Most seem to be from blogs, which VM rejects as sources (don't know why, they aren't analysing the cake's symbolism, just confirming it's existence). Yet the obviousness of the cakes' popularity (the sheer amount of such blogs) suggests he should relax and not demand better refs just to 'make a point'. To be fair, I added two new refs which were better than the previous refs (they're single source blogs, not open to editing by readers)... but he hasn't commented on why they aren't good enough. One seems to have won awards. WP:COMMONSENSE suggests he should stop this crusade since it's rather pointless. Polish sites obviously haven't bothered to analyse their use of racial symbolism in cooking, but that doesn't mean the cake shouldn't be mentioned. Malick78 (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
OR. Find reliable sources. I'm not even click on that link you found somewhere.VolunteerMarek 23:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Image

IF an image is to be included in this article then probably [File:John Godson 2008.jpg John Godson], the first black Polish MP who is actually discussed in the article, is a much better choice than the random picture that someone tried to put in here before. I'm not going to add that file in myself since, on BLP grounds, I'm not sure if Godson would actually want to be associated with a crappy article like this. But if it ever improves sufficiently, then that might be a more appropriate image.VolunteerMarek 07:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Why don't you improve your attitude a bit? Or do you feel big going around calling articles created by others "crappy"? Grow up.Malick78 (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Patrycja Pirog

Credentials of a Patrycja Pirog are insufficient to be a source of an extraortdinary claim that "Murzynek Babmo" is a racist poem. Therefore I removed it completely per WP:UNDUE. Please provide a proof that she has suufficiently recognized expertise. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a scholarly article, and makes serious and logical points. Why do you say her credentials are 'insufficient'? The claim that the poem is racist is hardly extraordinary: Bambo thinks that he'll become white if he washes - no black person thinks that, only a white person in the 1920s would think that. And then of course he runs up a tree like a monkey... again, a racist stereotype. Mamadou Diouf also thinks it's racist. It's not such an "extraordinary" view. Malick78 (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A quick search shows her participation in an "All-Poland" conference on the representation of black people in Polish art. I can't imagine there are that many of those in Poland, so, regarding the narrow subject matter and its unpopularity in Poland, she could be said to know as much as any one else in Poland.Malick78 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"narrow subject matter and its unpopularity in Poland" - my point exactly: WP:UNDUE. Please don't tell me that this kind of research is suppressed in Poland or all Poles are bigots and think it is OK to be racist. I'd rather suggest that the issue itself is rather attention-grabbing drama-queen activity worth only marginal remark in wikipedia to match its "unpopularity".
I do enjoy, e.g., Twinkle Brothers melding with Trebunie-Tutki, but it seems someone other likes to bite a hand which feeds them. There is nothing unusual that an African person seen in the streets of Nowy Targ attracts attention and nothing unusual that a Polish toddler who have never seen an alive Afrcian kid would shout "look, mama, murzynek Bambo!". (I do agree it is not good that this is the only image he had got so far, but I strongly disagree that this is racism.) But if next thing you start telling me that "Oj cosik tamo cyrni na wysokiej Cyrli? Oj cy to kupa gnoja, cy dziewcyno moja" is a racist anti-black people song ("Wow what's something black on high Cyrla?..."), then how can I defend myself against such stupidity other saying that this is a nonnotable stupidity not worth arguing. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Why exactly are you suggesting I may say something "stupid" next? It's a shame you're dragging the conversation in such a direction.
  • You seem a little touchy about all this, even to the point of paranoia: "Please don't tell me that this kind of research is suppressed in Poland or all Poles are bigots and think it is OK to be racist" - I've said no such thing. When I say that the subject is a minority interest, that simply reflects that few study it in Poland. Let's be honest, Poland has a long way to go to get to the level of discourse on the subject of race as is to be found in Western countries. That's not a criticism, just a comment. And the fact that the subject is understudied in Poland does not mean that quoting coverage in UNDUE. That's an amazing conclusion to draw, nonsensical in fact.
  • Lastly, talking about race and Poland is not "drama-queen activity" - Polish people have to confront the issue of race just like many other countries have already. Unfortunately, few Poles seem to want to: I'm constantly amazed by the acts of casual racism I see in Poland each and every week. I have Indian friends who have had strangers throw snowballs at them in the street; hairdressers refusing to style their hair; black people I know are called names in the street. But hey, these are just worthless anecdotes... as long as you know there's no problem, I guess that's fine. Smile and pat yourself on the back. (Oh, and sorry if I've said something stupid. Race is best not mentioned, I'm beginning to see that...) Malick78 (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Once again you are right. These are anecdotes. If something is understudied, it is not wikipedia fault this issue will be "undercovered". A study must have credentials, recognition from peers. Otherwise it is just a collection of anecdotes. Someone does not like someone else or a bunch of a rowdy teenagers decided to have fun at the expence of someone who does not carry a big stick and looks different. Big deal. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Easy to say for us whities, isn't it? As for credentials, she read the paper at a conference. That seems good enough to me. Malick78 (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Go to Japan or Vietnam and try it for yourself how easy it is for us whities. "That seems" you have to get yourself better familiar with WP:RS. Look for a word "peer-reviewed" there. When mama says to boy to wash himself is interpreted as white supremacy, what a load of crap. Just the same I can write an article that says that murzynek Bambo was father of all Black Panthers: he proudly stood against washing himself white, being proud of being black. Black power! I am pretty sure it will stir some noise at some conference. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's quite clear your article would be ignored by all. Her article was included in a conference - where it was first submitted and then evaluated. It passed. Yours never would. Btw, your inept revert yesterday readded dead links. Perhaps you could check what you're reverting next time? Malick78 (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"10 Years Later": After finally reading the article carefully, I see our article make an inappropriate attribution "according to Patricia Pirog" - it is not according to her. Fixed. Hers is but a compilation of comparatively known experts. I am retaining the link to her work as a possible source of other refs. She himself failed to become notable. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Racist word?

This is a traditional blunder to think that a single word is guilty of a particualal image. I am pretty sure if Tuwim wrote a poem "Afrykanczyk Mambo", today the hell would be risen around the word "Afrykanczyk". It is not a word that bears the stereotype. It is the object denoted by the word that is stereotyped. It is not a "murzyn", but an african indigenous person who is perceived as bare-ass bare-boobs AIDS-ridden, dirty, hungry, slums-dwelling tribalist savage. to say that the word 'murzyn" is responsible for this image is utterly ridiculous.

The Germans are not insulted with the Polish word niemiec for "german (person)", which literally means "mute" (and "mute" is almost the same as "dumb"). Both words (murzyn and niemiec) are ages old. Poland had never had historical reasons for racism against towards Africans, unlike, say, towards Germans.

Speaking of Germany, I am ashamed to say that the word "Polnisch" in Germany create an image in a German brain which is quite insulting for a Pole. Consider a joke shown on TV which starts like this. A man enters a police station and says "I want to report my car stolen" The police clerk starts filling the questionnaire. "Nationalität" -- "Polnisch" --- <ha-ha-ha-ha-ha....>. I ma sure that all Poles and Germans know what's so funny. But in my craziest dream I cannot imagine for Poles campaigning to forbid the German word "Polnisch", because it invokes racist reaction. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Think of how many negative phrases there are using the word "murzyn", and then how many there are using the word "czarnoskory". What's the ration, 5/6:0? That's your answer as to why some think "murzyn" shouldn't be used - it may or may not be racist, but it certainly conjures up negative connotations for some.Malick78 (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    • You probably didn't digest what I wrote above. It is not the word which is responsible for negative connotations. It is the stereotypes of Black people themselves. It is true that perception of some words can radically change, "swastika" and "red" being striking examples. But you have yet to prove that the word "murzyn" is on this road. At best, wikipedia can say that some people think so, but most disagree. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
      • That's all I've ever said! That some people think so. Where have I said that it is universally considered racist? No where. Malick78 (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
        • You didn't , but somehow the article leans in this direction. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

my recent rv labelled as OR

  • (1) Suski vs Godson: an occasional episode - primary source of opinions; we cannot judge whether they are valid and how to judge them. Without expert's comments this is just misleading. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • (2) Piekot speaks about the image of an African , not of the word "murzyn" - this usage in wikipedia article is abuse of translation : you translate all text but a single word. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • (3) Agatha Chrisrtie: so what? Just a translation of a title. There are quite a few Polish titles with the word "murzyn". If you find something fishy in this translation, it is your opinion, read: original research. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Since you've been stalking me, I wish to have as little contact with you as possible. Therefore, I'll answer just your second point. The source says: "Po pierwsze, mówimy zwykle "Murzyn". Obraz takich osób w Polsce jest brutalny. Myślimy o nich, że są głupi, brudni i że śmierdzą. Stąd powiedzonka typu: "śmierdzi jak z murzyńskiej chaty", "ciemno jak w dupie u Murzyna". Kojarzą się z zacofaniem, biedą, niewolnictwem. Możemy przecież powiedzieć o kimś, kogo wykorzystujemy, "to jest mój biały Murzyn". To wszystko negatywne konotacje.
He is not speaking about the image of an African. That's the subheading of the para (Co myślimy o Afrykanach?), not what he actually says, which is: "Po pierwsze, mówimy zwykle "Murzyn"" - "Firstly, we usually say "murzyn". When asked about Africans (presumably the reporters question, or a lazy sub-editor), the answer directly refers to the word Poles use - 'murzyn'. Therefore, everything which comes next ("The image of these people in Poland is brutal. We think they are stupid, dirty and stink. From this we get sayings of the following type: "it stinks as if it's from a murzyn hut", "it's as dark as in a murzyn's arse". It'sThey're associated with backwardness, poverty, slavery. We can after all describe someone we are using as, "this is my white murzyn". These are all negative connotations." Now, I've changed my original trans from "It's" to "They're" (my mistake), but the whole para is still clearly intended to be about the word 'murzyn' and it's connotations (hence mentioning its use in phrases). He's clearly not saying that it's just about Africans, since 'murzyn' doesn't even mean 'African' in Polish. The subheading was clearly sloppy journalism/the question he was asked. Both your edits are clearly looking at the heading, when it's the words of the interviewee which are relevant. Malick78 (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
What the speaker is talking about is general racism. He's using the word "murzyn" because that's the most common word in Polish for black people. The source is not about the word itself. And if it was sloppy journalism (your opinion) why are you using this as a source?
And what's with the completely nonsensical stalking allegation? VolunteerMarek 18:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The allegation is being taken care of elsewhere. As for the source - the sloppy subheading is used rhetorically (compare "Ale co jest złego w "Murzynku Bambo"?" - the next subheading) - and does not necessarily negate everything else in the article. That's obvious. But we certainly should not take the subheading as being more important than the actual words of the speaker. If you think he's talking about race in general, why is the word murzyn in quotation marks? - Po pierwsze, mówimy zwykle "Murzyn" If it was about black people, there'd be no marks. I don't think I can make it any clearer. Btw, in the first question the journalist says "osoby o innym kolorze skóry" - they are quite careful when they talk about black people, and don't use 'murzyn' without referring to the specific use of that word itself.Malick78 (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Po pierwsze, mówimy zwykle "Murzyn" -- The question was "Co myślimy o Afrykanach?". The interviewed clarified that we don't usually use the word "Afrykanie" in this context, and for a number of reasons, no point to be discussed here. We call these people "murzyny" for ages. Period. The quotes here are not "scare quotes". Yes the first sentence speaks about the word "murzyn". But the rest is about the image of the ethnicity, not of the word, answering the question, which was 'o Afrykanach', not about the word 'Afrykan'. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Explanation from linguist

Murzyn has no pejorative meaning in Polish. It means literally a 'black person', any black person regardless of where they come from (Africa, USA etc.). Even some Polish rappers call themselves 'bialy murzyn' (singular) or 'biali murzyni' (plural) which literally means 'White black person' / 'White Negroes' because rap and hip-hop culture in Poland is linked with the image of ghetto American black youth, the Bronx and so on. There are racist words for black people in Polish language but murzyn is completely neutral, there's no other way to describe a person of black / dark skin other than Murzyn in Polish language. Polish Murzyn is, to some degree, comparable to the Spanish, Portuguese and old Italian word Negro - However, black color in Polish has its name and it is 'czarny kolor' (black color).

  • Hi, thanks for you comment. While this word has no negative connotations for you, it does have for other Poles I assure you. This may surprise you, but that's the nature of language. Because of this, it's safest to quote reliable sources rather than go with our own perceptions (which we call 'original research' here).
  • As for words for black people in Polish - what about czarnoskory? It exists and is used (though isn't yet as popular as 'murzyn'.)Malick78 (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I've never heard in my whole life that the word murzyn would have negative connotations for anybody. It is widely used everywhere, including schools and universities. Nobody uses "Czarnoskory" (black-skin[ned]) as it is more racist than Murzyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I've heard many a Pole claim that "they've never heard that it has negative connotations", but there lack of knowledge is not proof that the word can't be negative. Please don't trust solely your own experience. The fact is that many Poles (whom, it seems, you don't know) do think that it sounds a bit weird now and therefore some of them try to avoid it. See the refs for proof. As for 'czarnoskory', some Poles like it, others don't. There's no consensus yet. Regards, Malick78 (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Murzyn

Please, translate. I can't speak English very well: W języku Polskim Murzyn nie onacza nic obraźlwego, słowo te pochodzi z języka śląskiego (silesian dialect) i oznacza obcego przyjciela (murziń). Mieszkam w Katowicach, w Polsce i jestem nauczycielem Polskiego. Murzyn is not "Nigga". 217.153.168.178 (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Translation In the Polish language the word "Murzyn" means nothing offensive, the word originates from the Silesian dialect of Polish "murziń" which means "strange friend". I live in Katowice, Poland and I am a Polish language teacher. "Murzyn" is not "Nigga". To this, I'd like to say that, I cant really speak on the neutrality of the term. Though, it definitely can be used in a hostile manner. While in Poland as a darker than acceptable, it was indeed used abusively toward myself. Although, my close, more sensitive to racism, Polish friend has said to me he'd classify it as mostly negative usage I've also in a couple of Polish acquaintaince situations had it used as a casual term to refer to me. In that sense, I get the feeling it's has duality aspect like "schwuchtel" in German, or "Jew" in English, "Redskin' in American English, or "Gypsy" for some varieties of English and other languages. Though, Im on Wikipedia loop at the moment, so part of me doesnt even know why the hell I find this on the English wikipedia for "Nigga", haha wasnt expecting that, since no one in America really uses this. At most, I would've expected the Dutch "Neger", but instead got a German word page about bombs. Anyway, ramble over.

Image, grammar

1. The image in the article is not necessary, any more than Rembrandt's paintings of black people is not necessary in the article on whatever the Dutch word is for black people. Or other painters', from other countries. Oh wait! Those words in other languages don't actually have articles on Wikipedia, only the Polish term is singled out for some reason. Anyway, the inclusion of the image is gratuitous and obviously intended to push a POV (that the translation of "Murzyn" is "Negro" rather than "Black person").

2. The grammatical details appear to be included for the same reason. The source is actually discussing how in Slavic languages, if you're using the plural form in regard to a group of people, then if you end it with "-i" it's not offensive, but if you end it with "-y" it can be offensive. It uses the word as an example. But that kind of detail is not relevant to this article (again, the underlying problem is that this info really belongs at Wikitionary, not here) and it applies to all words in Polish. So again. Gratuitous and obviously intended to push a POV.

So that's why the info is going to be removed. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

1. As part of BRD perhaps when I reinstate your change you should leave the info and discuss it? Not rerevert and then discuss?
2. I came across the painting by chance in the actual museum where it hangs and it seemed a natural thing to add. No intention to push a POV (please assume good faith!). It did seem appropriate to add to the article however since some editors had claimed it can NEVER be translated as 'negro'. Since the article is about the word 'murzyn' and it's use in Polish, I can see how the painting could help to show the 19th century view of blacks. Nigger happily uses illustrations to show usage, after all. It makes an encyclopaedia more than just boring text!
3. The AFD said this was more than just a wiktionary entry, you know that. Mentioning usage of the word is therefore absolutely fair. I, for one, did not know that there was a potential pejorative ending to be used until I read that source, so I'm sure others will be similarly enlightened. I'm not sure you are right that it can be added to "all words" in Polish - do you have a cite for that? Until you do, I don't recognise that as a reason to change the info. Suggesting that 'y' is "normal" is certainly not true and is OR - it does not reflect the cite. You seem to just dislike any negative content about Polish it seems. And that would be your POV :)
4. Words for 'black' in other languages may not have articles on WP, but that's may be because they don't deserve it. The word 'murzyn', as you should by now know, is controversial in Poland and is deserving of discussion here. Malick78 (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
1. Perhaps as part of WP:CONSENSUS, after I remove your changes, you should obtain consensus before restoring them? Not rerevert and then discuss?
2. I don't care how you came upon the painting. What matter's is whether it's relevant to this article AND whether or not you're using its inclusion to push POV. The comparison you make with the article Nigger pretty clearly shows that you are in fact trying to push POV. That's not a relevant comparison at all, as you well know. That's why I compared it to "the Dutch word for a black person", which would be relevant, but alas, no such article exists. Which is POV by itself.
3. AfD kept the article. But that doesn't mean that now you can insert any ol' irrelevant text into it. You fail to understand the distinction between WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NPOV.
4. Your opinion does not interest me. The image is gratuitous, and doesn't add anything to the article except to push your POV. Remove.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know a whole load of other words for black in other languages, so I couldn't refer to articles regarding those words. I picked nigger because it's a word and has its own article. No POV involved.
As for the image, I can't beat a tag team but it's sad you all feel you have to work in such a way against the spirit of WP. But, VM, you fail to have explained why you have inserted OR that the 'y' plural ending is "normal". The cite doesn't say that at all. Please explain. Malick78 (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Aclually I have to agree here. Deliberate distortion of normative usage is a common way to deliver pejorative connotation. While the word is neutral, it may be converted into pejorative. (Poles do know: the term "Pollack jokes", right?) And since the issue has become sensitive (although I think it is a manufactured controversy), this info is relevant and encyclopedic, in order to clearly split pejorative and no-pejorative usage. I edited the sentence to clarify that the 'murzyn' is not the only victim of the '-y' ending. - Altenmann >t 22:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
It can work the other way too. Think "Polacy" (nice) vs "Polaki" (not nice). "Szwedzi" (nice) vs "Szwedy" (less nice). Etc. I don't really object to that aspect on POV grounds, I just think it's too much trivia. In Slavic languages you can pretty much make any word for a group of people sound mean in some way by changing the ending. "Edytorzy" -> "Edytory". That's really a statement about the language, not this term in particular. If we had an ... English Wikipedia article on every Polish (or Russian or Czech or...) word which describes some person or persons, that info could - but shouldn't - be put into every single one of them. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

As for image, I don't think that black tits is a proper focus for a topic. (unless the intention was a smartass illustration for "cycki murzynki") - Altenmann >t 23:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As for the neutrality of the article, it fails to mention the fact that historically Poles did not have much contact with Africans for a language to acquire a special pejorative term for them (unlike for Germans or Russians). And I mean a special term: because grammatically any word may be turned into a pejorative by numerous grammatical means of a language rich in inflections. - Altenmann >t 23:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Last part is what I just said above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Coming back to the image issue, is there a better Polish picture to illustrate the word? Perhaps you'd be so kind as to suggest one? I'd say that Murzynka is the most famous Polish image of a black person that I know of that uses a murzyn-based word in the title, and hence is quite appropriate here. Malick78 (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
This article is about a word, not about African Americans. The image are supposed to illustrate article text. Fore xample you may look for an out-of-copyright book cover for Murzynek Bambo. - Altenmann >t 06:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Erm, why are you mentioning African Americans? Do you mean 'black people'? Malick78 (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Apteki

There are about 4 such names in former Germany, none in former Poland. Uncommon. Xx236 (talk) 05:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Virile?

This article uses the word 'virile' in a way I don't understand, evidently something to do with grammar. I know eastern European languages have some unusual grammatical rules. The link just leads to the article on virility in the usual sexual sense. Can someone clear it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.206.153 (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"virile" is "masculine personal", i.e., "masculine human", "non-virile" is the rest. I will update the Polish grammar article shortly. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
...ehm... Not so 'shortly' as I thought. This concept exists in other languages as well. Enough material for a separate article. Will take longer. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I am changing this "virile" to "masculine animate" as per Polish morphology. Zezen (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Animate includes animals. I believe 'virile' excludes them, focusing on humans. Is that a fair summary of the difference in Polish? Widzialem kroliki but widzialem facetow. Malick78 (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. Problematic. Hispanic culture uses the word "machismo" in a slightly more exaggerated manner. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You guys (@Malick78 @Iryna Harpy) are right, and I should have been more precise <Blush>, especially as I can speak Polish. I am changing the grammatical explanation to the "personal masculine" then, as per the English version of the Polish article that I had updated myself some years ago :).

In short that is how Polish works, virile-wise: Polish might be said to distinguish five genders: personal masculine (referring to male humans), animate non-personal masculine, inanimate masculine, feminine, and neuter. The animate–inanimate opposition for the masculine gender applies in the singular, and the personal–impersonal opposition, which classes animals along with inanimate objects, applies in the plural. (A few nouns denoting inanimate things are treated grammatically as animate and vice versa.) The manifestations of the differences are as follows...

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Murzyn. 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).

  • 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) 21:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murzyn/Archive_1&oldid=1136252912"