Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:48, 30 September 2011

Murzyn

Murzyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Polish dictionary word, non-encyclopedic, not notable, not suitable for English wikipedia. Relevant policies: WP:ENGLISH WP:DICTIONARY --Lysy 23:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Twice over. WP is not a dictionary and doubly so not a Polish language dictionary. North8000 (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Weak keep Not all words are notable, but some are. What makes it less notable than entries in Category:Polish words and phrases and Category:Exonyms? The discussion of the word by Kłoskowska or Piróg seems to suggest it is notable. On a side note, it would be nice if the author would learn how to format references properly (cite templates...) and avoid the humongous quotes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a toponym. Regarding notability, you could easily find a source in Polish on cucumbers in Lesser Poland. Would this warrant an article titled ogórek (Polish for cucumber) on English wikipedia ? Would the fact that the Polish source discusses "ogórek" in Polish make it more notable ? --Lysy 14:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for ogórek, however I think that we could use a dedicated article on Polish pickled cucumbers. Pl wiki distinguishes those from pl:ogórek konserwowy, and if there is no established English name for it, we may end up having an article on ogórek konserwowy on en wiki... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, there may be a reason to have Racism in Poland but no need to have an article on Murzyn, Cygan, Żyd, Chińczyk, Grek, etc. --Lysy 17:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If we are talking about a correct name for the article, this already suggests a keep vote (and a RM to start). Some words are encyclopedic, their usage is studied by scholars. The sources I noted above suggest this is one of them, and that it is of interest to scholars, just like Negro or similar words - even if it is much less researched. Also, I think we should have an article on Żyd, dealing with the word meaning in Polish language (analyzing the stereotypical image of the Jew in Poland through the use in proverbs and such) - although it could be a section in some larger article. Murzyn could also exist as part of some article describing words for black people in different languages, but as we are most likely missing them, keeping this one seems like a reasonable outcome. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a very good illustration of the problem. If we could separate the article Żyd, concerned with the actual word, from anti-Semitism in Poland, it would be fine. The problem is that it's very hard to avoid having both articles discussing the same after some time. The same with Murzyn, we claim it explains the particular Polish word, but I'm sure it will have the tendency to evolve into Racism in Poland, which should be a separate article. But if we create it we would end up with two differently named articles with more or less the same contents. --Lysy 17:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep This is a notable word like negro, sambo (racial term), nigger, nigga and indeed Polack. The sources presented show that in Poland there is a considerable amount of academic and general societal discussion surrounding this word (whether it is racist and whether it should be replaced by other words). That's why I noticed it in the first place. It's the main word for 'black person' in Poland, has a long history, and deserves coverage. That it's from a foreign language is neither here nor there (see Ang mo, Ah Beng, Chukhna, Giaour and many other foreign words found in and probably other categories). I have the strong feeling certain editors object more to the airing of dirty linen, than to this article's actual encyclopaedic worth. Malick78 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

First Malick78 is the creator of the article so he is, understandably, fighting to keep it. Second, Malick78, you're assuming that this word belongs in the "Category:Ethnic and religious slurs" - it doesn't, it's not a slur. All the examples you gave above (Ang mo, Ah Beng, Chukhna, Giaour) are in fact slurs, and in each of these cases an alternative non-offensive word exists. Here "Murzyn" pretty much IS that non-offensive word in Polish. Yes, there are some people who are saying now that it's outdated and politically incorrect - more or less the same way that some people think that the term "black" in English is politically incorrect relative to "African-American" - and there are other people who say it's not but until a new word comes along and gets established this is just a standard translation of the word for "black person" in Polish. The fact that Polish academics are discussing the etymology of a Polish word is not sufficient for an English wikipedia - Polish academics discuss the etymology of lots of Polish words. You say " It's the main word for 'black person' in Poland" - but that's precisely why it belongs in Wikitionary not Misplaced Pages. Volunteer Marek  20:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't say that it deserves to be kept because it's a slur. I just found some foreign words (sure, slurs) that had articles about them, in order to show that foreign words are worthy of English language articles. I fully realise that it's a multi-faceted word with many interpretations, and therefore needs in depth examination to fully appreciate the complex nature of it. Hence an article ;) Malick78 (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, here's a video of Poland's first black MP John Godson discussing the term on Polish state TV with a black Polish musician. Does the word 'ogorek' get this kind of coverage? The comparison is completely inaccurate. Malick78 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• keep—yes, wp is not a dictionary, but any word that is rich enough in conceptual content to inspire sufficient numbers of reliable sources that discuss the word itself as a topic (as opposed to merely using it) satisfies the gng, and we should have an article on it. i would take this position even if the article lacked sources, providing i could find sources, but in this case, there's no need to do that since the article is impressively well sourced. the article is well written, and convincingly makes the case for the notability and encyclopedicity of the term. i also find Malick78's comparisons with articles on other racial slurs to be quite convincing. these are exactly the kinds of words that turn out to be notable, and are exactly the kinds of words that need both definitions in a dictionary and entries in an encyclopedia— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The article rather discusses racism in Poland than the Polish word. How about renaming it to Racism in Poland ? Looking through the "sources", they are either obscure, bogus or irrelevant. It's possible to write a similarly "impressively well sourced" article on almost any Polish dictionary word. --Lysy 17:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

i don't read polish, so it's true that i can't evaluate the quality of the sources as i would be able to do if they were in english, but it strikes me that your dismissal of them is too sweeping to be completely accurate. the one by Antonina Kłoskowska is clearly reliable, and the one by Patrycja Pirog certainly appears to be so, if the translation is accurate and the source is, as it appears to be, the proceedings of an academic conference. these two alone seem to me to be enough to satisfy the gng. i think that as it stands, the article is actually not about racism in poland, but about the word itself. the sources seem to discuss the word, not racism in general. if some of the other sources don't strike you as reliable, you could edit them out if you wanted. it wouldn't be possible to write such an article about almost any dictionary word in any of the languages i know. is there something special about polish in this regard?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Some sources are obscure, but most of them are simply irrelevant. The video is a promotion of an anti-racist children book, the Żakowski article is about smoking and the author uses "I'm black" in the sense of "I'm being discriminated", the article by Pirog is about the connotations of black people in Polish art and culture (that's also what the conference was about). I cannot comment much on the text of Kłoskowska as it's not available online, but its title "Nation, race and ethnicity in Poland" suggests that it discusses racism rather than the actual "murzyn" word. Likewise the text by Ziółkowski is about the racist stereotypes in the US. I will not comment on the quality of the sources for cake recipes. --Lysy 18:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not have articles on the translation of the term "black person" in Russian, Lithuanian, Finnish, Chinese, etc.? Volunteer Marek  20:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• The video is not promoting the book, if you watch all 7 minutes you'll see it's about the use of the word 'murzyn'. Do you think that a Polish MP would come on the show just to promote the book? And why do the two black men start arguing? It's about the connotations of the word and how black Poles should be described. Please don't describe the sources inaccurately when not everyone here speaks Polish and can understand them for themselves. I would disagree with your descriptions of the other sources as well. Malick78 (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Kloskowska source is online and the relevant part is basically a footnote. Volunteer Marek  20:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Try Google Books search for "pojęcie murzyn w języku polskim". Unfortunately, most Polish books just give us a snippet view, but a quick overview suggests there are more sources available (if not easily online yet). Rozprawy Komisji Językowej, Volume 32 from 2006 seem to have at least several pages on this word (one quote: "Ustalając konotacje semantyczne zbiorowe, odnoszące się do nazwy Murzyn, a które zakorzenione są w świadomości zbiorowej użytkowników języka polskiego, opisać należy nie tylko frazeologię i paremiologię, lecz i inne aspekty kształtujące..."). The article currently is poor and could benefit from better refs and more research, but the more I look into this the more I am convinced the subject is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is applicable in this case. Of course Polish linguists study this word, just like they study other Polish words - maybe a bit more. Additionally, most of the hits seem to be to (unavailable) sources which are picking up the word "pojecie" "jezyk polski" etc. Searching for "pojęcie murzyn w języku polskim" with quotation marks gives zero hits. Same for variations designed to increase the number of hits , , - all no hits. Even looking at the search w/o quotation marks which one of these sources is actually discussing the word itself, rather than using it in some completely unrelated context? None as far as I can see. I mean some of them are just translations of English language works about completely different topics - like translation of John Stuart Mill which obviously has nothing to do with how the word is used in Polish. Volunteer Marek  20:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Also , . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The first one ("also" to what?) is a "maybe" - it's a Polish linguistics paper. So yeah, not surprising that Polish linguists would discuss a Polish word. But that's not really enough here, since that's what linguists do. The second one looks better, particularly since it's in English. But again, it's a linguistics publication - apparently about Slavic languages. So this too would support the inclusion of this type of entry in a dictionary, rather than an encyclopedia. The bottomline is that you can find these kinds of sources on almost any word, English, Polish, or other. Again, why not have an entry on how "black person" is translated into Russian, German, Hindu etc.? Volunteer Marek  22:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's really quite simple. There are no academic articles about the word ogorek. Murzyn has dozens. That's why it's notable. Malick78 (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait what?!? Where are these "dozens" of sources? Even the article now has only 13 sources over all and half of them are junk (somebody's webpage with some recipe on it, some opinion piece about smoking, letters to the editor etc.). And they're not academic. You got 1 sort of "academic" source which deals with it. You got a few academic sources which mention it in footnotes or passing. And you got one, maybe two, sources which are "academic" in the sense that they are articles by Polish authors about Polish linguistics. Quit making stuff up. Volunteer Marek  22:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What makes a word notable? If it is studied by the linguists, and touches upon sociological issues (discrimination, stereotypes, and so on), that seems to make it notable to me. It would be easier if we had Misplaced Pages:Notability (words), though (but we have a user essay, linked). But even the generic WP:N seems to suffice; the word received coverage in numerous, reliable sources - and I see no exception there that would make linguistic works not reliable for our purposes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

<- Ok, I don't know why this has to be repeated, but it's obvious that Polish linguists will study the etymology of Polish words - and you can find sources (in Polish) to that effect. That is NOT enough to show notability for the purposes of English Misplaced Pages, IMO.

But let's come back to this " coverage in numerous, reliable sources" - IT'S NOT THERE. Malick78 filled up the article with a bunch of junk he found on the internet consisting of things like:

• Letters to the editor, from a newspaper. Not a reliable source.
• Somebody's online cooking recipes. Not a reliable source
• Somebody's blog. Not a reliable source but this one was actually written decently enough that I left it in for now.
• An article about smoker's rights which uses the word in passing. Irrelevant to the topic.
• An article about the Oscar awards which uses the word in passing. Irrelevant to the topic.

The last two, or even four, are just random usages of the word out there in the internets. They are not reliable and they most certainly do not show notability - just the fact that people actually use this word sometimes (crazy!)

What's left after you remove this junk? What are these supposed "dozens" or "numerous" reliable sources?

• A link to a Polish dictionary - which actually just shows that this belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia.
• The source by Klosowska , which *I* was the one who put that in, trying to make something half way decent out of the mess that was in there. Importantly, this "source" for the word is a ... a one sentence footnote. Other than that it is again irrelevant.
• That whole "OPPOsite" website and Patrycja Pirog which is really all that you have here. It's a goofy source (post-modernist writing nonsense) but I guess it does qualify under the heading of reliable sources. This is listed separately in the article's reference section 4 or 5 times, giving it an appearance that it's numerous sources being used, where it really is just one.
• A link to a tv interview by Poland's black MP who says he doesn't think the word is racist. Ok, relevant but by itself not nearly enough.

That's it. Of these only one can be considered both relevant and reliable, the Pirog article, though certainly not "high quality reliable source". And even that article is mostly about racism in Poland and only deals with the word in a minor manner. It's sort of as if you found an article on Racism in US, which discusses the word "black" and used that as a basis for creating an article on Black (word for black people) or something, rather than the appropriate article on Racism in US or Black people.

The tv interview is borderline - if this was really a notable article topic and there really were "numerous" or "dozens" (as people here keep erroneously asserting) of other sources on it, then I'd probably support it's inclusion. But there are no "numerous" or "dozens" of other sources - at best you got 1 - so by itself this doesn't cut it. Volunteer Marek  17:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I see you have a PhD, where did you get it? I want one from there too! Malick78 (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Surprised keep. Those who know of some of my previous AfD activity may be surprised to see this, but this is a good example of an article about a word that actually has valid encyclopedic coverage. I will point to this article in the future as an example of what some of the truly horrendous dictionary entries we have here should look like. Powers 19:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - per comments above. This belongs in Wikitonary, not Misplaced Pages. Author of the article is trying to make the term seem more controversial than it really is by cherry picking sources to make it seem more notable - in an encyclopedic sense. Move the whole thing to a dictionary.  Volunteer Marek  20:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

it's hard to see how anyone could cherry-pick in order to make something seem notable. what would they do? omit mentions of sources that don't discuss the topic? if there are reliable sources that discuss the topic then it's notable. a place for cherry-picking opens up if there are opposing views on an already notable topic and someone doesn't give a balanced account of that. that's how the term is usually used.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Volunteer Marek. No cherry-picking was needed. The first articles I found were all about the controversial nature of the word. Not many people write about words to say how unexceptional they are :) Malick78 (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In a way this actually addresses alf.laylah.wa.laylah's objection. It's a relatively - though not completely - uncontroversial word. So yeah, the only sources you're going to find are going to be ones which say it's controversial (and write down, that's basically 1). The people who think it's not controversial are just not going to write articles about it. So to answer alf.laylah.wa.laylah's question - yes, that's what cherry-picking involves here - not mention all the sources which use it in a controversial way. Volunteer Marek  22:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, so if I say Obama is a woman... can I back it up by pointing out the lack of webpages devoted to his female nature? Because, hey, if no one bothers to write about it, it must be something uncontroversial that everyone knows. Malick78 (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty good example. It's as if you started an article on The femaleness of Obama and then claimed that it was a notable concept because you found some post-modern studies article (singular) (and I am certain that such exists) about Obama's femalness. And then claimed that it made the topic notable. And then said "well, I can't find any sources which say that don't deal with Obama's non-femalness, therefore the concept is notable". ???  Volunteer Marek  22:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

find the sources, write the article, and i promise to !vote keep when it appears here.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you missed the point ;) --Lysy 17:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: The "Murzyn" article provides substantial information on a notable topic, and the information is too extensive to fit in a dictionary. Comparable articles on use of analogous terms in other languages would also be welcome. As an electronic encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages can accommodate topics that might not be considered in a paper encyclopedia. Nihil novi (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: Upon a closer examination of the article, I'm changing my mind, and I support to keep it. Maybe I should have withdrawn this AFD now but first of all I don't know how to do that, and secondly, let's have it completed for the sake of future doubts like mine. At the same time I would like to apologize Malick and everyone involved for the time wasted on the afd :) --Lysy 17:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks :) Out of interest, what finally swayed you? Malick78 (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
• AfD debates