Talk:Murzyn

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").

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)

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)

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". --Lysy^talk 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 ;) )--Lysy^talk 17:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic ?

How does this belong to the English wikipedia ? Anyway, is this encyclopedic, at all ? Rather a wictionary entry ? --Lysy^talk 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 ? --Lysy^talk 22:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what PROD it means, but we have plenty of foreign words in WP, see . 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 ? :) --Lysy^talk 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 ? --Lysy^talk 22:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• I will contest deletion. The key phrase in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness." How is 'murzyn' different from 'truthiness'? If your point Lysy is that one is in Polish, then I can't see that as being a deletion reason according to the criteria. Malick78 (talk) 22:52, 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. --Lysy^talk 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. --Lysy^talk 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. --Lysy^talk 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. --Lysy^talk 08:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, refuting myself, check this video out: http://www.klikplej.pl/film,3430 --Lysy^talk 08:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Two more links, maybe of some use, both in Polish, alas: Afrykańczyk nie jest Murzynem, Afrykańczyk. --Lysy^talk 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)