 | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 February 2018. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | A fact from Surra de Bunda appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 June 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Non-reliable sources edit
- [1]- April 28, 2010 blogpost in Portuguese decrying the song as vulgar, and setting out some of the lyrics.--Milowent (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- [2] (January 27, 2010) blogpost in Portuguese notes the dance.
- [3] (December 23, 2009), [4] (December 13, 2009), [5] (December 11, 2009) negative blogposts in Portuguese.
- [6] (December 2, 2009) blogpost embed of a video without commentary.--Milowent (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Ass licking edit
- Some english source may report that "surra de bunda" means ass licking, because Google translate may translate it that way. But "licking" really means "beating" in this case, so its better say "ass (or butt) pounding" or "ass beating" instead of "ass licking" (conjuring up a nonexistent use of the tongue) to avoid confusion.--Milowent (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Translation edit
The closest translation of "surra" is "spanking" or "beating (as punishment)". "Butt beat" is vague and could be translated back to Portuguese in many ways, more closely as "surra NA bunda" (beat on the butt) or "surra DA bunda" (beating of the butt). Likewise, "butt pounding" is ambiguous and is a poor translation.
"Butt" is a PG-rated version of "ass". In Portuguese, "bumbum" is a PG-rated version of "bunda", so "bunda" should be translated as "ass".
In this case the word "de" is better translated as "by", which makes "punishment by ass" a much more appropriate translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joemaffei (talk • contribs) 02:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
More information edit
I've noticed that the July 1, 2010 version has more information than the current one. Through the history, we can see that on July 3 an IP removed content and no one reverted it. It's been quite a good time since then and I think probably people would note it and maybe considered it to be irrelevant, But maybe no one noticed it. So, in this case, is the content of July 1 note worth to be restored? I'm pinging Milowent as the main contributor, but any opinions are welcome. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Gabriel Yuji! If supported by decent sourcing, this article can certainly deserve to be longer than its current state. I have not researched the subject recently, have at it!--Milowent • hasspoken 19:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)