Talk:Murzynek Bambo

Name and OR translation

The proper translation of "Murzynek" is not "Negro". Literally it'd be something like "Little Moor" but that also is not really a good translation either (though better). Basically the term "Negro" is very American-specific. But guess what, Poland did not have the same history as the US, never had slavery, nor Jim Crow and generally did not have much of a African-Polish population. Historically the information about other races - in particular black Africans - in Poland was very sparse, and mostly came through people making pilgrimages to Northern Africa or hearing about "the Moors in Spain" or something. So the then-contemporary European word for North Africans (Moors) was adopted in Poland for Africans as a whole, and later for African-Americans etc. Quite simply you can't use a very-American-context-specific term like "Negro" to translate a very-Polish-context-specific term like "Murzyn". For one thing the Polish term does not carry the offensive connotations, generally speaking (there's some who argue that it does, mostly the same kind of people who think that the phrase "black people" has negative connotations. The authors of the GW interview probably fall into that category).

Having said all that, it's also true that Tuwim's poem was written in 1920's - people weren't exactly politically correct back then, nor did they have an accurate view of Africa. But the translation of the poem just makes it seem outright racist, which it's not. "his negro ABC book"? - who the hey translated this? Anyway, the translation is completely unsourced and apparently the work of a Wikipedian - which is pure original research. I'm removing it.

The statement by Piekot is likewise given undue prominence. We should avoid long quotes if anything. Just boil it down to the essential opinion of the author.  Volunteer Marek  13:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I should probably add that I'm sure many of the publications of the poem undoubtedly do carry stupid-offensive pictures alongside which embody some silly stereotypes. But that's a problem with the individual publications. Volunteer Marek  13:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Negro is not 'American-specific" - it has a long history of use in Britain, and probably other English-speaking countries. Negro as a translation is sourced to appropriate articles moreover. As for 'murzyn' not having offensive connotations, some Poles agree with you, some don't, and I suspect all black-Poles dislike it. Let's start a page on the word, what do you think? There's a lot to say about it :)

As for the translation (mine), I'd be grateful if others could improve it - or, find someone else's version. I fear though, that that may be hard. Regarding a Wikipedian translating it - I see no problem with that (having checked Wikipedia:Translation, there's nothing against it - though the page perhaps doesn't address the issue in depth). But surely a page on the poem in English has to at least attempt to provide a translation for non-Polish speaking readers. If you dislike a line - add an asterisk * and give an alternative trans.

Btw, the Polish WP needs a page on this poem. They deleted my attempt last night ;) Malick78 (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Having a Wikipedian translate a potentially controversial poem is problematic and it very clearly falls within WP:Original Research. Like I pointed out above even dictionaries cannot agree on the proper way to translate "Murzyn", nevermind sources which go more in depth. So the translation has to go, unless you can find one in a third party published reliable source (and even then it will need to be attributed). The fact that you might not be a able to find a translation suggests problems of notability in English.

"Negro" is mostly used in American context, though yes, to some extent in other English speaking countries. The point is that there really is no Polish language equivalent. The fact that different countries have different histories, including with regard to race etc., means that there can be words which have no proper counterparts in the other language (and vice versa).

I don't know if black-Poles dislike it. Over the years I've seen some indicate that they find it problematic (actually usually in cases where someone told them incorrectly that it translates as "Negro") and others say that they're fine with it. What is the currently appropriate word in Polish to use here then?

Your source in the article is one of those irritating, annoying, "post-modernist" studies articles which tries very hard to find a problem with everything everywhere. For example, it criticizes Tuwim for writing that Bambo "studies hard at school each day" as that is taken the evidence of Tuwim's desire to impose his wacky Western colonialist values (studying, school) on black Africans (frankly this section of the source article is so ridiculous it had me just shaking my head). Of course had Tuwim written something opposite he'd get criticized for it too. Or the strange claim that "koleżka" has some kind of derogatory implications (it means "friend" or "buddy" - of course if you say it sarcastically, as in the South Park "I'm not your friend, buddy" kind of way, it's... sarcastic. But that's not how the author uses it.) What is particularly annoying with these articles when written by Poles, is that in most cases they're just aping Western "post-modernist" studies articles, awkward language and all, but in a completely different context which makes them sound even more silly.

As for the deletion of your version of this article on Polish wikipedia, they might have been right. This is one of the minor children's poems of Tuwim. There's many many poems he's much more well known for (Kwiaty Polskie, To Prostego Czlowieka), even children's poems (Lokomotywa - which HAS been "officially" translated) than this one. The attempt to have an article on this particular poem just comes off as an attempt to stir up some trouble. Can you link to the deletion discussion there?

Also I'm not seeing where the claimed translation is actually in that source article. Volunteer Marek  14:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, probably the best way to refer to the character in the article (and in any translation) is simply as "Murzynek Bambo", and let people worry about the exact meaning of the term themselves. Also BTW, if you do want to see some (pretty mild) racial stereotyping by Tuwim then look for it in some parts of Kwiaty Polskie. Volunteer Marek  14:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The claim that "While the poem is much loved by Poles" (what? all of them? every single one?) "and while it shows a certain fondness for its main character" is also not in the source and pure OR. Volunteer Marek  14:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• There'll be little point in us talking if you won't read properly any sources which are given: "The symbolic character of Bambo the Black child/Bambo the little Negro is becoming inconvenient and will probably need to be dispensed with before long." So please don't remove this.
• You removed the statement that the poem was written in the first half of the 20th century. I can't find an actual date anywhere on the web for this, but is it really controversial or disputed? It'd be nice to tell readers when it was written.
• If you want to see what black Polish speakers think of the poem - see here. It's blog, so I won't be quoting it unfortunately :(
• You say that there's no translation of "murzynek". True. Nothing can exactly match it. But we have to try, and others are happy to use 'negro', so unless you find something better that's the best we've got (I'd, personally, go for 'blacky' - it's dimunitive, which is good too).
• The fact that no translation of the poem is available on the web does not mean no article should exist in English. After all, there may well be translations in books. Furthermore, the ample mentions of the poem on the Polish web should convince anyone of the notability of the poem. It's existence isn't therefore to "stir up trouble". It deserves its place here. There's no conspiracy ;) Though I'm not at all surprised that a conspiracy is being alleged...
• The Polish page on this was deleted because an editor objected to my 'bad Polish'. What a friendly group Polish WP editors are. So welcoming to foreigners :) Malick78 (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, and yes, read WP's page on OR if you really want to mention it. You might find [this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Original_Research#Translations_and_transcriptions] helpful ;) I quote, "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research." Also, see here, "When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote." - we have the original poem quite prominently shown ;) Next, "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations." The implication therefore is "Wikipedians can translate and it's not OR". Finally, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules ("If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.") suggests that the vital matter of explaining the content of the poem trumps OR problems, if they still exist (I contend that the above WP pages on translating mean they don't). Malick78 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Even that goofy source you're using translates the title of the poem as "Bambo the Black child lives in Africa". Stop edit warring and stop making changes for which there's no agreement.

And you really need to stop with the OR ("blacky"? Are you serious? Stop making stuff up)

"After all, there may well be translations in books" - ok, then go out and find some of these books. There's no allegations of a conspiracy being made here. Just of bad judgement. And you can keep your opinions on the nation of Poles to yourself.

And "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research." " - there's that word "Faithfully" there. You're translation is not done "faithfully" but according to your whim and fancy, for reasons I've already pointed out above. If you're going to insist on having your own biased work being featured in a Wikipedia article, then at the very least the article needs to be noted as such. Volunteer Marek  16:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• I want to provide something to help English language speakers to understand. Hence a translation. If you disagree with the translation - improve it. Or add footnotes with alternatives. Be constructive. That's all I'm trying to do. And the article may just become more 'faithful' in the process. It's not, however, OR. Perhaps you should take the tag off?
• It's not edit warring to re-add material that was unjustly removed. You didn't read the whole source for the "little Negro" bit, so it shouldn't have been removed. Koniec i kropka. That you had removed it for a second time without reading the source properly (for a second time) seems more like edit-warring than anything.
• And are you saying 'blacky' isn't used as a noun? Of course it is.
• Comment about Poles above changed to be more exact ;) Malick78 (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• For the nth time, it's a potentially controversial poem and hence you need to get a translation from a reliable source, not one that you made up. Having me make one up is not really solving the problem either.
• The material was not unjustly removed. The (goofy) source you use itself translates the title of the poem "Bambo the Black child lives in Africa". It uses the word "Negro" elsewhere in the text but not as a reference to the title of the poem. So who hasn't bothered reading the source again?
• Of course I'm not saying that that word isn't a noun, don't be daft. What I'm saying is that it is a horrible translation (yours) of the word "murzynek".
• Yeah, thanks, a little better. A bit ironic that on an article which has to do with prejudice and stereotyping you indulge in some of it yourself. Volunteer Marek  17:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Compared to 'little moor', I think that 'blacky' has the advantage of actually having been used in the last 50 years. Either way, I was just brainstorming. No harm in that :) As for 'little Negro', the use in the source is so obviously related to the character after whom the poem is named that to complain about the directness of the link seemed to be to be rather strange. Malick78 (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Compared to 'little moor', I think that 'blacky' has the advantage of actually having been used in the last 50 years - what are you talking about!?  Volunteer Marek  01:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• You said 'blacky' is "a horrible translation (yours) of the word "murzynek"." I was just saying that, compared to "little Moor" (which you offered in the first line of this whole page as better than 'negro'), 'blacky' has actually been used relatively recently, whereas no one in the past few centuries has called a black person a 'moor'. I said 'fifty years', because that's about the time when 'blacky', perhaps, started to go out of fashion. Hey, it was a throwaway line, no need to worry too much ;) Malick78 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Little moor" IS the literal translation of "Murzynek". It is a literal translation whether or not someone has used the expression in the past 50 years or not. "Blacky", which you came up with, is not a translation of "Murzynek", it is obviously very offensive and carries completely different connotations than "Murzynek", which, especially in this poem, is not used in an offensive way at all (though I'm sure that someone somewhere at some time used this word in some kind of negative way). That's why I inquired as to what the hell you were talking about. In fact, I'm still wondering. Volunteer Marek  17:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

My few cents:

• the names "Bambo the Black child or Bambo the little Negro" are verifiable to the source that seems reliable (hosted at an edu page)
• I cannot find a single source translating this as a "little moor"
• Wikipedia:OR#Translations_and_transcriptions seems to allow translations, although one may ask whether they should not be moved to Wikisource instead. If the translation proves to be controversial, however, hmmmm. We should probably resolve this through discussion, and perhaps there is a need for a "this translation is disputed" template. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see that source translating the title as "Bambo the Little Negro"? The only translation of the title given in that source is "Bambo the Black Child". As I said above "Little moor" is the literal translation of the word "Murzynek". That doesn't mean it's the "correct" one (in fact, I don't think there is such a thing in this case), especially since translation of a particular word can be context dependent. I've actually looked around and I cannot find ANY translation of this poem as a whole. I do agree that the original Polish version should go to Wikisource - assuming it's not copyrighted which actually is an issue here I haven't thought about. I did at one point ask Moonriddengirl about including poetry in articles and aside from excerpts and quotations, if the poem itself is copyrighted, then it cannot be included. Volunteer Marek  19:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The negro ref would be from its use here: "The symbolic character of Bambo the Black child/Bambo the little Negro is becoming inconvenient". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And in this particular context, I believe the copyright holder of the poem is the Fundacja im. Juliana Tuwima i Ireny Tuwim [1]. Volunteer Marek  19:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

From their website:

Prawa autorskie

Fundacja im. Juliana Tuwima i Ireny Tuwim jest jedynym właścicielem autorskich praw majątkowych do wszystkich utworów Juliana Tuwima i Ireny Tuwim.

Prosimy wydawców planujących publikacje utworów Juliana Tuwima i Ireny Tuwim o kontakt z nami, by uzgodnić warunki umowy licencyjnej i dokonać korekty autorskiej tekstu. Pragniemy poinformować, że dysponujemy poprawnymi tekstami utworów obojga autorów. Dotyczy to także umieszczania utworów w Internecie.

So it is in fact a copyright violation (btw, this is why it's sometimes so hard to find poems or their translations on the internet - they may be shorter than a book or a story, but they are still copyrighted, and reprinting a poem is no different than reprinting a copyrighted textbook). Volunteer Marek  19:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And another thing. The text in the article says "Black people in Poland frequently report being called "Murzynek Bambo" in the street" and then inserts a citation to the Opposite website [2]. But the website does not say anything remotely like that. Volunteer Marek  19:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Likewise this source [3] does not support the claim either - it just gives a hypothetical of what could happen. Removing this nonsense. Volunteer Marek  19:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Erm, when was the poem written? Won't that help us determine copyright? I saw one source say the 1920s, but I'm not sure how accurate it was. I'd be surprised if something from the 1920s was in copyright.
• As for 'little Moor' - it's a bad translation of 'murzynek' simply because it was accurate 400 years ago, but as 'moor' is no longer used to describe black people now, ever, it in no way replicates the fact that 'murzynek' is still in current use. 'Negro' is, however, used nowadays, by some. 'Black child' is too uncontroversial to use for 'murzynek', simply because people do often complain about the use of 'murzynek' - whereas 'black child' in the UK and other countries is seen as neutral and, even, the best possible description of a black-skinned young person. Malick78 (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. The point was not that we should translate the poem using the phrase "little Moor" - yes that wouldn't make much sense either. I wasn't suggesting it. I brought up the "Moor" thing in order to point out the inadequacy of translating "Murzyn" as "Negro". The rest of your comment is pure speculation and original research. Volunteer Marek  21:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Btw, the page you mention says that the foundation has the copyright, but surely it's the Polish copyright. WP is under US copyright laws. So, what do they say about Tuwim's work??? Malick78 (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• I agree the poem is copyrighted, and so the translation is an unauthorized copyright violation. Malick78, if you want to translate it, your first step should be to contact the Fundacja im. Juliana Tuwima i Ireny Tuwim and ask them to release the poem under a free license, or into the public domain. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, not surely. Tuwim emigrated to the US. Even if not, the use of material which is copyrighted in one country in a jurisdiction of another country is governed by international treaties and laws (otherwise we could post all kinds of stuff-copyrighted-in-Poland on Wikipedia). So yes, it still applies. Volunteer Marek  21:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• What I meant was that a Polish website writing in Polish seems to be claiming copyright in Poland. WP's servers, being in the US, mean that the issue is if the poem is under copyright in the US. Poland law doesn't count, US law does, it seems to me. But again, do we know when it was written? That'd be helpful to know. Malick78 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Look up how copyright works. Ask other people who deal with copyright on Wikipedia if you have to. Obviously this isn't just some "Polish website writing in Polish" (oh God no! not writing in Polish! especially not writing in Polish about a Polish subject! How crazy is that?) but rather a foundation of the author's heirs. Volunteer Marek  01:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

My few cents: I'm just arriving at this, but I'd say, as ever, when in doubt, discuss the discussion in the article. All this is a relevant and interesting part of the context of the article. Give the varying possible English titles and the connotations of each. The audience is intelligent enough to know that a lot of the time phrases don't neatly translate. I don't think any of this is insurmountable. Is there any paper anywhere that might analyse the different interpretations? You would need an independent reliable source for the translation. Personal translations won't fly. Saying an article is "one of those irritating, annoying, "post-modernist" studies articles" is neither here nor there. If it meets WP:V and WP:RS then it's fine. Span (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no paper I'm aware of that looks at different interpretations, and there is even fewer (<0) English language papers that might suggest an adequate translation here. Basically, this is at the end of the day a fairly minor poem of this guy, which is why I'm not sure why Malick78 insists on this article, but whatever. You're not going to find any sources out there that will help resolve the translation issue here because most likely they don't exist.

I agree that "personal translations won't fly". Especially since the poem appears to be copyrighted - in those cases you have to get the copyright holders' permission to publish a translation.

Yes, I know that saying a particular article is "one of those irritating, annoying, "post-modernist" studies articles" is neither here nor there, just my personal opinion. Note however that I was NOT trying to remove this source, just expressed my personal opinion of it, off-offhandedly. I'm fully aware that it meets verifiability and RS standards. Volunteer Marek  21:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, it's not a minor poem culturally - most Poles know it. It may have less critical cache than his other stuff, but culturally it's a biggie. Bambo is the main cultural reference Polish children seem to think of when they see a black person, according to the articles I've read on the web. Malick78 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources for any of this? Volunteer Marek 

The poem is of course minor, but notable, as the present source (coverage, mentions in Google Books, etc.) show. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Since the poem and trans have disappeared, can we lose the OR tag? Any objections to my removing it? And what part is not NPOV now? Can that tag go too? The analysis of the poem is well sourced. Malick78 (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've added alternative 'pro-poem' views to analysis. Can we remove the NPOV tag now? You're welcome to add more views in favour of it too if you want Marek. Malick78 (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a start and a move in the right direction. But you still got these two huge block quotes from two individuals on one hand, and just a passing mention of the fact that some people don't agree with these. So there's an UNDUE issue. Volunteer Marek  16:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Just added more. To be honest, it's easier to find (well-written, reliable, non-forum non-blog) stuff against the poem rather than for it. So, I'd question the UNDUE claim. If it is easy to find, perhaps you'd point me in the direction of it or add it yourself. (BTW, the intro states "The poem is known by the majority of Polish children but has been accused of promoting a stereotypical and demeaning view of Africans.", suggesting that the accusations aren't shared by everyone. And in the 'murzynek' section there's also a mention that "the word "'murzyn', which in the opinion of many Poles, including academics, is not offensive"). Malick78 (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it's much more reasonable now so I removed the tag. I still think that it's a good idea to avoid long block quotes so the two big ones in the Analysis part should be summarized through several sentences - the UNDUEness is not so much in the relative balance of various sources but the fact that the two big anti-poem block quotes take up such a relatively large share of this article.

Thanks for making the effort, I do appreciate it. Volunteer Marek  17:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Quotes are not encouraged on wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Quotations. I'd strongly suggest removing them from references, and considering shortening them in the article proper. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the poem isn't being shown, I thought longer quotes describe it more to those who won't find an English translation of it :/ Malick78 (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. We should describe the subject with our own words; if the reader would like to see what the sources say, exactly, they can follow the links from the references. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Quotations says: "In some instances, quotations are preferred to text. For example:

When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editor of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be "from Wikipedia"."

Is this not a suitable moment to quote at length? The subject and views are controversial. Malick78 (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It is hard not to get the feeling that now the page goes too far in defending the poem. We are told twice that the poet didn't "have bad intentions" - sure, but this isn't a personal attack page against Julian Tuwim. Also "The author of "Murzynek Bambo" was himself discriminated against [as a Jew] and we can assume, he didn't have bad intentions." - what kind of argument is that? You can be discriminated against because you are put into the mental category "Arab" and still be nasty against Chinese (say). Feketekave (talk) 12:16, 7 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.

I have removed a quote by Tomasz Piekot, which was over 50% of the source. Salient points of this can be excerpted, briefly, with other passages well paraphrased as necessary to avoid infringement. (Please be careful not to paraphrase too closely; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrase for some guidance there.)

The quote by Pirog was nearly 10% of the original source, which is also too extensive. Feeling more confident that I could extract the critical analysis, I have reduced it, but it should ideally be reduced further by contributors familiar with the poem. 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.

If there are questions about our copyright policies, please feel free to stop by my talk page, but please do not restore this content as it was. This may lead to further administrative action in order to ensure that the article complies with these policies.

Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, I think you didn't scroll down on the Piekot source (it has a break in it). If you had, you'd find that the quote is 1175 out of 4120 characters, 29%. If you choose words, it's 187 out of 627 - a fraction under 30%. You may still think that's too much, but I'd just like to be accurate - it's not over 50%. More importantly perhaps, the Pirog quote is 1229 out of 18745 characters, 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 Murzyn accused that article (with the same Pirog quote) 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 quotes justifies their 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) 20:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that I had overlooked the break in doing my word count this morning. While around 30% is better than 50%, however, it is still too high. (Eliminating apparatus distinct from the text of the second 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.)

That said, I will reproduce in substance my note from the other talk page:

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. 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) 21:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Notable enough ?

I'm not sure if this make a notable article or just trolling. There's no even an article about this on the Polish language wiki. Tuwim wrote hundreds of more notable poems, yet none of them has a separate article on English wiki. Polish wiki does not even mention this "poem" in pl:Julian Tuwim article. --Lysy^talk 22:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure the presence, or lack thereof, of an article on Polish WP is notable. As it is, this poem is well-known in Poland, extensively discussed in the media, and it would therefore seem that Polish WP should try and catch up. As for trolling, AGF please. Malick78 (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Murzynek Bambo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130416121251/http://opposite.uni.wroc.pl/opposite_nr1/patrycja_pirog.htm to http://opposite.uni.wroc.pl/opposite_nr1/patrycja_pirog.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327174852/http://colemi.pl/murzynek_bambo_dla_licealistow-81-news.html to http://colemi.pl/murzynek_bambo_dla_licealistow-81-news.html

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)

Public criticism and discourse over the content of the poem

The quoted examples of negative criticism of the content of the poem do not prove the general feeling of Polish society.

Poles are historically particularly sensitive to attempts to manipulate the language and take possession of the Polish language by external forces. Hence the resistance to change, not its alleged racism. During the partitions of Poland, the Germans pursued a Kulturkampf against the Polish language, and the Russians pursued a policy of Russification.

The Wikipedia article does not cite counter-criticism, although in the Polish media, opposition to the opinion about the racist background of the "murzyn" was common, if only because it was not supported by sociological research.

According to my private experience, Polish children who came into contact with this poem did not think at all that they presented the titular Bambo as inferior to them, while adults notice that Bambo is a diligent student, education and hygiene are common in his country, and the boy does not want to be like white - he has a deep racial identity. Piotr Moskal (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)