Talk:Bunga bunga

Nominated for POV check

It seems to me that, while Berlusconi is related to bunga bunga, the reverse is not necessarily true.

If the article authoritatively defines the term first, expanding it with an explanation of the (temporarily?) increased cultural significance Berlusconi brought to the term may be valid.

As it stands, the mention of Berlusconi smacks of notoriety.

What say you Wikipedia?? Netscr1be (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The article does not mention Berlusconi, so I don't know what your objection is here. The Berlusconi article does mention bunga bunga (or did several hours ago); if this worries you, then you should bring up the matter at Talk:Silvio Berlusconi. -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Come on, get real. Five of the seven references mention Berlusconi in the title, the incident(s?) referred to are notoriously connected with Berlusconi, and in the unlikely event someone doesn't get the the veiled reference to the "Italian prime minister " it is wiki-linked to (surprise!) Silvio Berlusconi. So when you say "The article does not mention Berlusconi, so I don't know what your objection is here" you are showing an obtuseness that has to be deliberate. In brief, it appears you are WP:gaming the system. I don't know if that amounts to a violation of WP:NPOV, nor if the article would be acceptable if it honestly related the connection to Berlusconi, but as it stands I think it shows bad faith. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, if my obtuseness must be deliberate, then it isn't natural, so I suppose that you are saying I'm not stupid. Thank you for that, at least. I wrote the comment above at 00:52, 19 January 2011. Please look at this edit, of 13:26, 21 January 2011. Yes, somebody other than me added Berlusconi to the body of the article. I wasn't happy with that addition. When I started this article, the article on Berlusconi had a link for "bunga bunga" that pointed to a list of words in which "bunga bunga" did not appear; I thought it obvious that something should be done, although I'm willing to be persuaded that creating a stub article about it was a poor solution. Yes, the sources for this article are about Berlusconi, or more strictly are about allegations made about him; I believe that it's these allegations that brought the term "bunga bunga" to the attention of the anglophone-news-reading public, and I know of no better sources. If you do know of any, you are free not only to add them but to subtract those inferior sources that are more or less linked to Berlusconi. ¶ Now, your summary for your addition of your comment above reads "Article and comment spurious". If the article is spurious, perhaps it should be deleted. I certainly wouldn't take offense if somebody put it up for AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC) .... PS I have edited the article and I hope that it is now less objectionable. -- Hoary (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No! It is seven out of the seven that mention him, not just five! Ian Spackman (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What I said is: "Five of the seven references mention Berlusconi in the title". Meaning that a reader doesn't even have to go to the link to see what it is about. That the other two references also mention B. does not surprise me. The article is not simply about a new term for a kind of sexual antics, it is about the sexual antics (alleged) of a specific politician. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What else could the article be about than about Berlusconi? Certainly it should be made more explicit, and cover his defenders’ version of its true meaning—a rather old fashioned joke in a somewhat racist style, allegedly told by himself, in which two representatives of his opponents’ party are raped by an African chief, but only one of them is murdered. Or do you have an earlier usage of the term? Ian Spackman (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I have no earlier example of use of the term. (I am not, and have never claimed to be, an expert on "bunga bunga".) If you have a source for this etymology, perhaps you can add it to the article. If the article can be about nothing other than Berlusconi, then as a first stage perhaps there should be a "Category:Silvio Berlusconi" to which it should be added -- but then again I wonder if the inquiring but non-prurient mind needs so many articles about the extracurricular adventures of Berlusconi; maybe its content could be moved somewhere and the article turned into a mere redirect. But then again (and thanks in part to you) we do read that this somewhat mysterious practice reached Berlusconi via the "Brotherly Leader" to the south. Is it, or is it not, also related to Gaddafi? ¶ The article now starts by saying that it is "an orgy involving a powerful leader to which the Italian prime minister was allegedly introduced by his friend, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi", attributing this to a South African paper, the Times. But the newspaper didn't say this, as it doesn't use hyperlinks. MoS sez: "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As nobody here spoke up for adding links to quotations, I've reworked this part so that it does not attribute links to the source. -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

An article in the Toronto Sun that the article now cites (for Jonathon Green) suggests (but does not say) that "bunga bunga" simply means "sex". Me, I know nothing beyond what's cited in this WP article. But if the term were simply to mean "sex", perhaps it should redirect to Sexual intercourse or Human sexual activity or somewhere else. But then again, if the term itself has some special significance, then perhaps it could still merit an article (cf "fuck"). -- Hoary (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not simply mean "sex" (I am Italian and I am unfortunately quite well informed on its real meaning for Berlusconi and his hosts...). I believe that this term should be included in wikipedia as it is very popular and has a political impact in Italy, even if as Italian I am really ashamed. Moreover, Bunga bunga has its origin in a hoax, so I added a short introduction with references. In its present form I do not find any problem of neutrality for this article. --Aristarco (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, much better. In its current form the article is about the phrase itself, which has gained prominence recently because of its use in a political scandal, and not focused solely on the current scandal. I think it is now passable per WP:NPOV. Though the penultimate sentence ("In Italy...") could perhaps use a little explanation of why it the phrase has become an instant household expression. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the change is well meant, but I'm not at all convinced that it's for the better. We're first told that (A) The original etymology of Bunga bunga is related to a hoax perpetrated by Brits in Britain. And then, (B) One century after the hoax, the term Bunga bunga became popular again, acquiring a quite different meaning, as well, the mysterious leisure pursuit of Mediterranean plutocrats (and with my emphasis). I see no particular reason here to suspect that there's any relationship between (A) and (B). This isn't an encyclopedia entry; instead, it's a pleasant but wordy dictionary entry; or perhaps a pair of dictionary entries (as the English noun prune [dried plum] is related to the English verb prune [a plant] so tenuously that within contemporary English they are better regarded as entirely separate). Now, a single Wikipedia entry may present different meanings for the same word or phrase: an example is the article "expletive", but that article explains three separate meanings as these meanings are related and may easily be confused. Unless some link can be made between a minor aspect of a long-ago British hoax and the recent bunga bunga, I see no reason why an article should either (a) be about both or (b) be primarily about the latter but devote a paragraph to the former. -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ding-dong! Anyone here? My learned friend Ipigott points me to "What the heck is bunga bunga?" (Slate), which manages to be mildly interesting. Well, here in what's touted as an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary, is a (speculative) etymology worthwhile or isn't it? I think it isn't, but I do concede that there's something to it, whereas all we know about the bunga bunga in the newsworthy allegations is that it involves attractive young women wearing very little, which of course hardly adds up to an article fit to survive AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. The Slate author is more tentative than he needs to be about the anal rape joke being known to Berlusconi. In an interview printed in the Corriere del Mezzogiorno of 28 April 2009, Noemi Letizia was asked which was her favourite among the many jokes which Berlusconi likes to tell. She replied: ‘There are two ministers of the Prodi [i.e. Romano Prodi] government who go to an African desert island and are captured by native tribesmen. The tribal chief questions the first hostage and offers him a choice: “Do you want to die or bunga-bunga?”. The minister chooses bunga-bunga. He is raped. When the second prisoner has to choose he doesn’t hesitate and answers: “I want to die!”. But the chief replies: “First bunga-bunga and then die".’ Angelo Agrippa, ‘Ecco la bella Noemi, diciottenne che chiama Berlusconi “papi”’, Corriere del Mezzogiorno, 28 aprile 2009 [last modified 7 May 2009; retrieved 23 January 2011; my translation]. Original text:Mi racconta qual è la sua barzelletta preferita tra le tante che il premier le racconta?   «Vi sono due ministri del governo Prodi che vanno in Africa, su un’isola deserta, e vengono catturati da una tribù di indigeni. Il capo tribù interpella il primo ostaggio e gli propone: ‘‘Vuoi morire o bunga-bunga?’’. Il ministro sceglie: ‘‘bunga-bunga’’. E viene violentato. Il secondo prigioniero, anche lui messo dinanzi alla scelta, non indugia e risponde: ‘‘Voglio morire!’’. Ma il capo tribù: ‘‘Prima bunga-bunga e poi morire». Berlusconi’s fondness for the joke was confirmed as the Ruby Rubacuore scandal emerged in October 2010: asked about bunga bunga Emilio Fede said: ‘As far as I know it’s just an old joke which Berlusconi has told in various versions. The first made fun of Cicchitto and Bondi [i.e. Sandro Bondi and Fabrizio Cicchitto, not members of the Prodi government], captured by a tribe in Africa.’ Lorenzo Salvia, ‘Fede: l’ ho incontrata ad Arcore Le ho detto di rivolgersi a Mora’, Corriere della Sera, 29 October 2010. Ian Spackman (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Now this really is of some interest, in that this directly links the joke with the current use of the term. Do please add it, and dispose of the probably irrelevant (and dubiously sourced) hoax -- either completely, or by relegating it to a single footnoted clause or thereabouts. (If you don't do this pretty soon, then I shall.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth. I see no issues of neutrality in the article. The mention of Berlusconi, which, I think, is what the placer of the tag objected too, is unavoidable as that is simply how the term has (re)gained notability. The article in no way unduly casts Berlusconi in a negative light or uses WP:OR. All claims are backed by their references. Ravendrop 08:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems OK to me too, but until Netscr1be is happy it seems doomed to retain its template. -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been unable to find an online reference, but I can assert that during the 1990s the term "bunga" was being used in industrial circles in Europe to describe money or services being offered as a bribe. The closely related term "bung" was in widespread us in the UK media at the time in connection with money being paid to football club officials to influence player transfers. A former colleague of mine who still works in Spain and Italy maintains that a "bunga bunga" party is an event (it doesn't have to an actual party - it can be used to describe a discrete lunch meeting or similar) where bribery is transacted. Has anyone else come across this usage or can poing to any supporting reference?

Quality of References

I appreciate Hoary's work on this and understand the need for a definition for bunga bunga but finding an unattributed citation in a news story does not (IMHO) make an authoritative reference.

In this case;

Reference 1: Chase Madar's explanation of it as an orgy involving powerful leaders is cited as a reference but has no source cited in his article.

Reference 2: Barbie Latza Nadeau's unattributed description of bunga bunga is similarly unattributed.

The third reference simply characterizes bunga bunga as 'african-style'.

The fourth references relates simply states the poles and strip-tease competition took place in a room referred to Berlusconi's bunga bunga room. It doesn't even try to explain bunga bunga.

The fourth reference even says that "bunga bunga" was just an expression [Berluconi] used while telling jokes" and (in a stunning example of circular referencing) cites the Urban Dictionary's definition of it as "erotic ritual which involves a powerful leader and several naked women" which is clearly a joke. The other definitions for bunga bunga at U.D. may even be libellous.

When the source is not authoritative on their own and does not attribute can it be used as a reference?

Netscr1be (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's rare that a newspaper article cites its sources. I'd be surprised if a newspaper article cited its sources for a small matter such as this.

You say that The other definitions for bunga bunga at U.D. may even be libellous. Since this article doesn't cite these other definitions, mention "Urban Dictionary", or otherwise encourage people to look at that website, I don't see what the problem is. -- Hoary (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Linking from within quoted material

I've just now reverted this well-intentioned pair of edits (and more). MoS says: "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The joke

I've just reverted the addition of the bunga bunga joke. If there's a source for it, then a compact, summarized version may be readded, with the source specified. -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the original jocke should be:

C'è un aereo che sta sorvolndo l'Africa Nera con a bordo il pilota, un ufficiale dell'esercito ed un esploratore. Costretti ad un atterraggio di fortuna, causato da un guasto ai motori, i tre vengono catturati da una tribù indigena che li conduce al proprio accampamento. Qui i tre ostaggi vengono portati al cospetto del capo tribù e questi, rivolgendosi al pilota, domanda: ‘‘Vuoi morire o Bumba Bumba?’’. Il pilota, terrorizzato, sceglie: ‘‘Bumba Bumba’’. A quel punto viene il pilota viene violentato da un uomo. Poi il capo tribù, rivolgendosi all'esploratore domanda anche a lui: ‘‘Vuoi morire o Bumba Bumba?’’. L'esploratore, anche lui per evitare la moret esclama: ‘‘Bumba Bumba’’ e tutti gli uomini della tribù lo violentano. Infine il capo tribù si rivolge all'ufficiale dell'esercito: ‘‘Vuoi morire o Bumba Bumba?’’. L'ufficile fiero e sprezzante del pericolo non indugia e risponde: ‘‘Voglio morire!’’ al che il capo tribù : ‘‘Bene. Sei un uomo coraggioso. Morirai... ma prima un po' di Bumba Bumba’’.

This joke, using Bumba Bumba rather than Bunga Bunga, had a certain diffusion during 70's and 80's and was used as the base of a sketch by Claudio Bisio. This sketch was repeated at the TV show Zelig by Claudio Bisio and Raul Cremona on 2006.--HermesII (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, if you can only find a reliable source for what you say in your second paragraph, a summary could certainly go into the article. -- Hoary (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)