This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
One of the lead items on the BBC webpage at the moment is
"Gypsy Child Thieves", which details the enslavement of children and the poor conditions under which Gypsies live, specifically in Italy and Spain. It links the criminality to the discrimination they face. Other editors may wish to incorporate material. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It also shows how it is the Roma culture to steal and beg and how the families even in the charity's care forced there children to go out stealing, and it showed the Gypsy families back in Romania who had made enough money to lead a fairly luxurious life in Romania by robbing people rich European countries, as much as it did account for their perpensity to be criminals due to discrimination. 84.69.228.89 (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The story that is linked at BBC does not show any of what either BrainyBabe or anon are saying above. All it shows is a young gypsy girl who is forced to beg on the street for more than 10 hours. Makana Chai (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Just watched the documentary. It is definitely the effort of the editor to make the points described by BrainyBabe and anon above and he/she does so effectively. I'm sorry that all you got out of it was a girl begging for 10 hours Makana. Perhaps in your neighborhood they only televised the edited version, or perhaps you were just dissapointed in the portrayal of the Roma people. I hope it is the latter, because a documentary about one girl begging sounds pretty boring! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.48.199 (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed, Makana Chai needs to review the documentary, it was more about than a little girl being forced to beg. Lothandar (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
On the page as it is displayed today (Feb 22, 2012) there is a mistaken and seriously misleading sentence indexing Bagnall's article: "Italian government raids have freed children used to steal by day, locked in a shed by night by members of Romani gangs". There are three misleading points with regards to this sentence.
1. From Bagnall's article it is clear that it is not the Italian government which carried out the raids, but the Italian police. This difference is not subtle, unless we are keen to identify a government with the police, something that can only be done in formally authoritarian regimes.
2."Locked children" in Bagnall's article are mentioned only once, and precisely here: "Members of the gang were jailed for up to 14 years in prison for enslaving and exploiting the children, many of whom were discovered locked in a shed when police raided the camp". This leads to two considerations. A) In the quoted sentence there are no "gangs" - contrary to what is stated in the current page - but only "a gang". B) Not all the children who were exploited had also been locked in a shed - contrary to what is stated i the current page - but only "many" of them.
3. The information provided by referring to Bagnall's article is definitely partial. The 2007 measures taken by the Italian government were subsequentially and reinforced in June 2008 by the newly elected government, which declared the "state of emergency in relation to settlements of communities of nomads". The latter were condamned by the European Parliament as "discriminatory on the basis of ethnicity" (resolution, 10 July 2008) (REF: http://gov-ro.academia.edu/GiovanniPicker/Papers/1159178/Nomads_Land_Political_Cultures_and_Nationalist_Stances_vis-a-vis_Roma_in_Italy) . This information should be provided, especially because this section is entitled "Contemporary issues" and it opens with Amnesty International reports on Antiziganism.
I consider the sentence which I commented on points 1 and 2 to be highly misleading, as it gives a wrong information, going against Wikipedia policy. Moreover, I consider the praise of the Italian government for freeing "locked children" to be partial and seriously measleading as well.
I therefore invite the authors to provide all the necessary corrections and to supplement the section with a new sentence describing the condemnation of the Italian government by the European Parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni Picker (talk • contribs) 12:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Edit request from Brebenel, 31 March 2010
{{editsemiprotected}}
The word romani means romanians in romanian language it is a GROOS MISTAKE made by someone how trys to link the 2 ethnic groups. Romanian gypsis call them selfs ŢIGANI ,that is their real name.How ever roat the page about the "romani people" please make this change.
We don't need any such thing. This is the English language Wikipedia. The issue of correct nomenclature has been debated ad nauseam here and English language sources confirm the words are used correctly. RashersTierney (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
There was a push by gypsy leaders in Romania in the mid 90s to rename their people as "Romani" (incidentally "rom" means "man" in their language). This was done to make westerners believe that they are the same as native Romanian people, since gypsies had always historically had a bad name. It worked perfectly. This is probably what Brebenel was getting at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.38.89 (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Romani or roma/rom etc. in various versions is the name for the romani people in many languages, not only in Romanian, deriving from the word rom=man as stated above. So it is not an issue of "renaming" but rather of different habits or language usage. Some romanis prefer or use the terms gypsy/țigan/zigenare etc. and others prefer the term romani/romani/rom. (examples in English/Romanian/Swedish) Stajn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC).
Juscelino Kubitscheck
Why is there a picture of Juscelino Kubitschek(president of Brazil) ? Are there evidences/references that he was associated with this culture ? Was he important for the culture ? References please.-- 201.21.50.53 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
There was apparently a reference at the main article, but it seems to have succumbed to linkrot. Will remove accordingly unless it can be referenced. RashersTierney (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 1 March 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
ACTIONS:
1) Please replace the sentence
"Italian government raids have freed children used to steal by day, locked in a shed by night by members of Romani gangs"
with the sentence
"In 2007 the one Police action freed many of the chinldren belonging to a Romani gang who used to steal by day, and who were locked in a shed by night by memnbers of the gang" (here please add the reference to Bagnall's article)
2) Please immediately after the sentence
"In 2008, following the brutal murder of a woman in Rome at the hands of a young man from a local Romani encampment,[84] the Italian government declared that Italy's Romani population represented a national security risk and that swift action was required to address the emergenza nomadi (nomad emergency)".
On the page as it is displayed today (March 1, 2012) in the section "Contemporary issues" there is a mistaken and seriously misleading sentence indexing Bagnall's article: "Italian government raids have freed children used to steal by day, locked in a shed by night by members of Romani gangs". There are three misleading points with regards to this sentence. 1. From Bagnall's article it is clear that it is not the Italian government which carried out the raids, but the Italian police. This difference is not subtle, unless we are keen to identify a government with the police, something that can only be done in formally authoritarian regimes. 2."Locked children" in Bagnall's article are mentioned only once, and precisely here: "Members of the gang were jailed for up to 14 years in prison for enslaving and exploiting the children, many of whom were discovered locked in a shed when police raided the camp". This leads to two considerations. A) In the quoted sentence there are no "gangs" - contrary to what is stated in the current page - but only "a gang". B) Not all the children who were exploited had also been locked in a shed - contrary to what is stated i the current page - but only "many" of them. 3. The information provided by referring to Bagnall's article is definitely partial. The 2007 expulsion measures taken by the Prodi government were subsequentially reinforced in June 2008 by the newly elected Berlusconi government who introduced the "nomads emergency" (emergenza nomadi). The measures included in the "nomads emergency" were condamned by the European Parliament as "discriminatory on the basis of ethnicity" (EP resolution, 10 July 2008) (REF: Picker, Giovanni, Nomads‟ Land? Political Cultures and Nationalist Stances vis-à-vis Roma in Italy. In: Stewart, M. and M. Rovid (eds): Multidisciplinary Approaches to Romani Studies. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2010, 211-227). However, the government kept on collecting fingerprints in the nomad camps (REF: "Maroni: avanti con impronte e censimenti nei campi nomadi", La Repubblica, July 16, 2008).
This EP resolution, and the fact that the government neglected it, should probably be mentioned, especially because this is an instance of State Antiziganism, and this section is dedicated to Antiziganism. Also, I consider the sentence which I commented on points 1 and 2 to be highly misleading, as it gives a wrong information.
Partly done: I agree that the first sentence went past what was supported by the source and I inserted your sentence (with some small copy edits). The source for the second addition appears to be a self-published source, which is not allowed. If you want to refer to other sources, please reopen the request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Charlie Chaplin Romani??
The first image on the page lists Charlie Chaplin as Romani. The actual Charlie Chaplin article states nothing about this, however, and as far as I was aware he was London born and bred. No? --Tomsega (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
His mother's family were Romani, according to Ian Hancock, and it is mentioned in the article about him. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
According to The Gypsy Kings "Tierra Gitana" DVD, the group mention that Charlie Chaplin once said to them about him having Romani blood. It was either a grandparent or his grandparents that were Romani. I'll have to dig the DVD out and watch it again. Tsigano (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
That would be a very good thing. Kenshin (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
At the time it was popular among entertainers, particularly those of the itinerant variety to claim to be "Gypsy" in order to give themselves more mystique. This was often done even in cases where the person had no actual ties to the Romani or other nomadic group.Mediatech492 (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Einsatzgruppen is better translated to 'task forces,' or 'deployment forces.' 'Mobile Killing Units,' doesn't sound professional and although militaries often serve that function, the term could technically be used to describe any combat military contingent. For that reason it should be replaced with one of the aforementioned terms which better describes it.
source: (German fluency, history minor). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timashuk (talk • contribs) 01:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Indian Subcontinent? Get a clue
Gypsies have claimed to be from every place on earth. It's stupid to state a place of origin without hard evidence.
You would know something about stupid. Do you normally attack WP editors who write in good faith? Oh, here's an idea! You might try to get a clue yourself! :) For example, why don't you consider correcting the section yourself? That would work.--174.106.79.0 (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
there is very little on Roma beliefs and mythology...
something like this shud be added:
Beliefs and Practices of the Roma
Many centuries in the past, the Roma were some of the last Goddess-worshipers in Europe. Their Goddess, Kali, was viewed as a trinity. Her symbol was a triangle. A male Horned God also played a prominent role. The similarities between ancient Roma belief and that of Wicca are obvious. These beliefs have long been abandoned by the Roma.
There is today no single Roma culture. Nor is there general agreement on who should qualify to be called a Roma. Romani groups around the world hold different traditions, customs and beliefs. Groups that have settled in one location generally adsorb some of the gajikané (non-Roma) local culture. Most Roma have converted the religions of their host countries, typically Christianity (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism), and Islam. Their formal religious affiliation is often supplemented by Roma traditional beliefs:
the existence of Del (God)
the existence of beng (Satan)
the existence of bibaxt (bad luck) and of muló (supernatural spirits or ghosts).
the power of good luck charms, amulets and talismans
the power of curses
the power of healing rituals
Marimé is a state of impurity brought on a person by the violation of a purity taboo. It also means a "sentence of expulsion imposed for violation of purity rules or any behavior disruptive to the Roma community." Some Roma consider the part of a woman's body below the waist to be dirty or polluted, because it is associated with menstruation. 1 In many tribes, women wear long skirts, the bottoms of which must not touch a man other than her husband.
A pregnant woman is considered unclean. She must not give birth in the family home because it would then become impure. Sometimes knots are ritually untied as the birth approaches. This is believed to assure that the umbilical cord will not be tangled. After birth, anything that the new mother touches is later destroyed. This quarantine continues at least until the baptism of the baby.
Newborns are baptized, usually in running water, when they are a few weeks old. Often, the infant is massaged with oil; this is believed to make it strong.
A Roma typically has three names. The first is known only by the mother; it is given at the time of birth. Its purpose is to confuse evil spirits by keeping the real name of the child from them. The second name is conferred at the time of baptism, and is the commonly used name within the tribe. A third, different name may be given when the child is re-baptized in a Christian church. It has little importance, except when dealing with non-Roma.
In the past, people were typically married between the ages of 9 to 14. This tradition has changed in many tribes due to the influence of the surrounding culture. Pre-marital sex is very strongly forbidden. Marriages to outsiders are heavily discouraged. The wedding ceremony is usually simple. In some tribes, the bride and groom join hands in front of the chief or an elder and promise to be true to each other. In ancient times, they used be married by jumping over a broomstick in the presence of their families.
When a person dies, relatives and friends gather around and ask for forgiveness for any bad deeds that they have done to that person. They are concerned that if such grievances are not settled, then the dead person might come back as an evil spirit and cause trouble. In the past, the widow might commit suicide when her husband died so that she could accompany him during the afterlife. Sometimes, the deceased's nostrils are plugged with wax so that evil spirits cannot enter and occupy the body. Clothing, tools, eating utensils, jewelry, and money may be placed in the coffin in order to help the deceased in the next world. The deceased's possessions are burned, broken or sold to non-Roma.
They believe that a person can be reincarnated as another human or animal. Alternatively, they might appear as a muló or "living dead", seeking revenge on anyone who harmed him during his life on earth.
Many Roma rules of behavior relate to the use of water. They normally wash in running water, as in a shower. Baths are not used. Women's and men's clothes are washed separately, because of the impurities of a woman's body. Clothes of a pregnant or menstruating woman are washed furthest downstream from the camp, to avoid contamination.
Women must not expose their legs. They wear long, multi-colored skirts.
Out of respect for the importance of the horse in assuring Roma mobility, the eating of horse meat is prohibited in some tribes.
Many Roma women, called drabardi practice fortune telling. But fortunes are only read for non-Romas.
Other women are are called drabarni or drabengi and practice natural healing techniques.
Do Romanis have their own Coming-of-Age ceremonies?--Splashen (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Charles Chaplin and Azis
A credible letter revealed that Chaplin was born in a Black Patch Park (England) Gypsy caravan. That's plenty enough to qualify as Romani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engines On (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
In those days "Gypsy" caravans were used by itinerant merchants, artisans and entertainers of all sorts, being born in a caravan is not by itself proof of ethnicity Mediatech492 (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Chaplin is not a "Roma personality." His maternal grandmother was half-Gypsy, and that is very relevant. Were the ethnicities of all great-grandparents to matter, and as such the half-something-or-anothers of all grandparents, a lot of people would be under a lot of ethnicities that they do not identify or are identified with.
Note his own words in My Autobiography:
Grandma was half gypsy [Roma]. This fact was the skeleton in our family cupboard. Nevertheless, Grandma bragged that her family always paid ground rent. Her maiden name was Smith. I remember her as a bright little old lady who always greeted me effusively with baby talk. She died before I was six. She was separated from Grandpa, for what reason neither grandparent would tell. But according to Aunt Kate there was a domestic triangle in which Grandpa surprised Grandma with a lover.
Also, having Azis as one of the great Roma personalities is not such a great idea; he is not particularly notable.
Please do something. Purpleturple (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
She was not half "Roma" as she was half Romanichal. I am Romanichal and we have never called ourselves as Roma. Roma is just one branch of Romani (Rromane). Tsigano (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and removed reference to both individuals as it created confusion due to the ambiguity between 6 people in the infobox1 image to the right and 8 people being listed in reference to it.
These two individulas could more appropriately be added to the Society and culture section or a new image showing all 8 could be created for infobox1. Personally im in favor of the former. Domentolen (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm really not happy with the idea of having either of those two in the infobox, because one was not Romani, and the other is not notable. Like I've said, if Chaplin was Romani, then Nicolas Sarkozy is Hungarian - the latter has more of a case. If you don't think someone with a Hungarian father is Hungarian, then let's not think that someone with a maternal grandmother that was half-Romani was Romani. Purpleturple (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
1. Chaplin is of Gipsy heritage, he afirmed it and he was proud about it, that's important here. We don't don't categorize people in ethnic groups by counting the percentage of their "blood".
2. Azis is very popular in the Balkan Peninsula and the music made by him is representative for the Balkan Roma music. --Olahus (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
1. Yes we do. That's why Mexicans are Mestizo and not Spanish.
2. Sorry, Olahus. I think half of the "representative Romani" you've picked are very irrelevant - if you haven't noticed, other peoples of the world have scientists and writers - and I'm going to make a selection of RELEVANT Romani people, that excludes really rubbish singers and isn't demeaning towards my Romani friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpleturple (talk • contribs) 19:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
1. Not per WP rules.
2. Make a list of proposals. I'm sure we can find a consensus. --Olahus (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
In this list of Romani personalities you have to add Šaban Bajramović and Esma Redžepova, maybe the World's greatest representatives of Romani music and culture. 109.111.231.92 (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The list of noted Romani people is here, and both are now included. RashersTierney (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The word 'Romani'
I never heard an English(or American) people saying the word 'Romani'.Only the bulgarians say 'Romani',because they don't want to be racist.Someone should move this page from 'Romani people' to 'Gypsy people'!
NOT RACIST!
Just saying the truth!
User:Nikinikolananov
The term "Gypsy" is often used to refer to people who are in no way related to the Romani people, such as the Banjara, the Yeniche and the Irish Travellers, this article is specifically about the Romani.Mediatech492 (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I am English and I am Romani. I have grown up with English people using the word Romani in reference to me.
When I say I am Romani, I never get anyone not knowing what I mean.
Romani has survived in English literature for years. Example being the famous and popular English writer George Burrow who I think first wrote it as Rommany (the word is correctly pronounced as "Rom-man-ee")
Why is it that so many Gaje (non-Romani) places try to say Rom means man?
I think it is sourced from Gaje sources trying to say Rom comes from Dom but this is wrong. Rom comes from Rama(n) which in Sanskrit means the same.
Manush means man and manushni means woman. alternatively there is Jheno & Jhuvli (very often spelt as Zheno & Zhuvli in countries where 'j' gets pronounced as 'y').
A non-Romani man can be called a Goro (Gero in English Romani) and a woman can be called a Gori.
Rom means 'husband'. It doesn't even mean a man who is Romani as the man who is Romani has to be married in order to be a Rom.
In English Romani they say Rommered for married which is from the old word 'Ramado'.
Please change the meaning from man as it is a lie.
Shouldn't there be a list of widely used English synonims next to the official name (i.e. gypsy(gypsies), pikey (pikies), gypo or gippo--BezosibnyjUA (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Please add this note in the header of the article in order to avoid the discrimination created by the western European mass media against the Romanian people by associating the Romanians with the crimes committed by the Romani people in Western Europe.
Thank you.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not to be confused with the ROMANIAN people.
Bogdan.st74 (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Done (as an aside, please refer to the note at the top of this page regarding personal attacks) Illia Connell (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Gypsy Criminality
Why is this section missed from this article? Mazarin07 (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
And that reason is what exactly?Padlokasul (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Aside from reinforcing false and inherently racist stereotypes, what purpose would it serve? Mediatech492 (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
It would balance the 'Contemporary issues' section which is too one-sided at present. There is no mention of criminal activities or other antisocial activities which are disproportionately high among Romani people. Where are the references to harassment of the public by Romani beggars? Are descriptions of negative behavior only allowed when they are directed against the Romani people, or is the mention of one single murder and one Romani gang sufficient balance-wise?Padlokasul (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Any mention of criminality would have to be properly referenced. Linking an article about one particular incident of criminality wouldnt add anything to the article - it would only prove that some gypsies commit crimes, which is true of any ethnic group, but may be taken in this context to imply a tendency for criminality among the population as a whole. In my research on this subject, I have found no evidence beyond anecdotal evidence, that criminal activities are 'disproportionately high among Romani people'. The statistics I've seen suggest that gyspsies and travelers are no more likely than the settled population to have a criminal conviction though they are significantly more likely to be accused of a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.252.196 (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The confusion between Rroma population and Romanians. Very important !
RAZVANTRUFIN99X (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
It already says at the very top of the article "... should not be confused with Romanians, an unrelated ethnic group and nation..." I'm not sure what more is needed. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Closing this request as Not done: per above response. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Considering Romania as a country only existed from the 19th century and within a cultural context Românească was used in some contexts from 1521 the official usage for the territory that would become Romania. However you state the Rroma somehow use an alien name to create confusion. That is utter rubbish for one the name Rom comes from Dom and there are other Romani groups in Europe who are not Rroma who use the term Romani; those being the Romanisæl of Sweden and the Romanichal in Britain. furthermore you'll find rather than a recent trend among Romanies to call ourselves as such it is documented as the earliest presence of Gypsies in Britain more specifically to the Scotland can be dated to 1505, (twenty years before the first documentation of Romanian usage). In the reign of James IV, an entry in the Book of the Lord High Treasurer records a payment to Peter Ker of four shillings, to the 'King of Rowmais'. Furthermore several days later the document states "a payment of twenty pounds was made at the king's command to the messenger of the 'King of Rowmais'".[1][2] So it appears groups of Romanies did call themselves that and before the first Romanian. Its not without the realm of possibility that different peoples or nations use similar names for themselves.Uthican (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The single R is by far the most common spelling in English. In particular, it's the spelling used by the International Romani Union, both in their name and on their website (e.g., [1].) It's also the spelling used by the UN, which generally uses whatever name and spelling a group of people asks them to use. Dricherby (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Another genetic study
Isabel Mendizabal and 21 others, Reconstructing the Population History of European Romani from Genome-wide Data, Current Biology, Available online 6 December 2012,
[2]
Abstract:
The Romani, the largest European minority group with approximately 11 million people [1], constitute a mosaic of languages, religions, and lifestyles while sharing a distinct social heritage. Linguistic [2] and genetic [3–8] studies have located the Romani origins in the Indian subcontinent. However, a genome-wide perspective on Romani origins and population substructure, as well as a detailed reconstruction of their demographic history, has yet to be provided. Our analyses based on genome-wide data from 13 Romani groups collected across Europe suggest that the Romani diaspora constitutes a single initial founder population that originated in north/northwestern India ∼1.5 thousand years ago (kya). Our results further indicate that after a rapid migration with moderate gene flow from the Near or Middle East, the European spread of the Romani people was via the Balkans starting ∼0.9 kya. The strong population substructure and high levels of homozygosity we found in the European Romani are in line with genetic isolation as well as differential gene flow in time and space with non-Romani Europeans. Overall, our genome-wide study sheds new light on the origins and demographic history of European Romani.
Zerotalk 14:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm... I think Gipsies never called themselvs "Romani" or "Roma" because "rom" means husband, man. "Rom san" means "I am a human being" or "I am a man", that's all. I know this very well. Besides many gipsies in Eastern Europe are not amused when you call them "roma", or "rom", etc. I don't know how it is in GB but in Eastern Europe gipsies din't know since few years ago that they are called "rom", "roma", etc. It is really a problem to create confusion between two ethnical groups, Gipsies, now called "Romani", etc., which are of Indian origin and Romanians which are of European origin and ethnically have nothing to do with "Romani"/Gipsies. Romanians have a right for ethnical identity too. They don't want to be confused with another ethnical group and this is very, very understandable.--Monterex (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Mark Swenker just emailed us this image and asked if we would like to add it to the page. Amada44talk to me 17:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Non-historic images of children: a bit problematic I would have thought. In any case, what does it add to the article? RashersTierney (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I am just forwarding the request by Mark Swenker. Cheers, Amada44talk to me 19:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Plural?
I was reading, seeing things like "Romani people", "Roma", and "Romani", then encountered "Romanies". Romanies looks and sounds weird and wrong. Anybody know of a resource that might have an indication of appropriate plural forms? Cliff (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
'Romanies' grates a bit with me too, but it is commonly used even by 'reliable sources'. Terminology in this area is contested/evolving. RashersTierney (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, "Romany" is a commonly used substitute for "Romani", but it is possibly misleading since it also means "Roman", a completely different culture. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Edit request June 07, 2013
"Balkans / For the Roma communities that have resided in the Balkans for numerous centuries, often referred to as "Turkish Gypsies", the following histories apply for religious beliefs:"..."Romania / The majority of the population are Muslim and also speak Turkish.[81]"
The cited article [81] is mentioning just a small area of Romania ("region of Northern Dobrudja"), where the majority of the population is Muslim. The Roma community is about 1% Muslim in Romania, the majority of the population having the same religion as the majority of the Romanian population, namely Orthodox Christians. SebastosNet (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Semi-Protection
I assume the article is semi-protected to censor racist content. There may be quite enough of racist sayings against the Romani people already. But this also hinders non-racist edits. The article needs heavy copy-editing, it's wording is at times very poor and misleading. Can we not remove the extra barriers to contributing to this article and let the usual guidelines of correctness, verifiability and neutrality keep the racism from consuming the article and spreading misinformation.
And note that it is unhelpful to remove all discussion about their stereotypically bohemian lifestyle. In fact, one of the reasons I'm reading the article is that I'm curious as to *why* gypsies are associated with disregard for property and laziness by capitalist Central-Europeans that neighbor them and how Romani societies function. And seriously, Romani people should not be protected in the same way Down syndrome is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvartMan (talk • contribs) 23:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Those that persecute them are neither Central Europeans nor Capitalists, per se. It's pretty mainland-Europe-wide. I've seen anti-Gypsy persecution in the streets of Barcelona and in Slovakia Romani woman were forcibly sterilised in 2008. Central Europe - which to me is Germany, Austria, etc - actually has a relatively lower level of cases of anti-Gypsy discrimination, possibly due to a smaller populations of said - Spain has a particularly well-established community, as do most Eastern European countries. Furthermore, I think you'll find racism of all sorts has little to do with one's political allegiance. I doubt there's even a correlation, unless you're an actual Neo-Nazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.173.46 (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm American, but I can certainly see why unlocking this page could create issues. However, as Svartman said, much of this article is poorly written; there is a plethora of misleading information both intentional and unintentional, not to mention a gross amount of irrelevant details that clog the article and obscure the important information it contains. As to Svartman's question however, the guy below him is correct: European disdain for Romani society has absolutely no relation to capitalism or modern European ideas at all. Te stigma surrounding Roma goes back to the turn of the millenium, when the ethnic group began to arrive in Eastern Europe. An itinerant and semi-nomadic people with different culture, customs, and religion, the Roma instantly aroused the suspicions of Medieval Eastern Europeans. Similar to Medieval European Jews, the Roma were stripped of rights and property and frequently freedom: Roma slavery was very common in the Balkans, Romania, and throughout Eastern Europe. At the bottom rung of European racial and national hierarchy throughout the last millennium, the suffering of the Roma, referred to as Gypsies, further sunk their standing in the minds of Europeans: a negative cycle leading to further persecution, distrust and superstition. In the mind of Europeans, Gypsies became a kind of Bogeyman, a traveling band of thieves, pickpockets, and criminals who preyed on the innocent. It is this perception and stigma that has never quite extinguished itself in the minds of many Europeans. However, trying to link bias against Gypsies to capitalism or modern European thought is like trying to link Medieval anti-semitism to today's European businessman.
Jrector703 (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the protection is more to save the article from excessive pov-pushing on the part of Romani activists.
If it saves us from the occasional racist edit, that's fine too. But most articles on ethnic groups get 90% of their attention from angry young men from that group on a mission to tell everyone how great their group is. That's natural, and the Romani article isn't worse off in this respect than many others. But it creates an asymmetric situation of very few neutral editors having to watch a sometimes concerted effort by agenda-driven editors, so we often end up with semiprotection.
If you are serious about contributing, you can get an account and get editing within minutes, the time you lose due to semiprotection is negligible compared to the time you're going to have to invest to make a meaningful content contribution. --dab(𒁳) 10:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Balkans section
Makes no sense to have such a section. Misses out the rest of Europe e.g. Hungary and the rest of Romania. The reference to Romanian Romani speaking Turkish is wrong as it only refers to the tiny region of Northern Dobruja which isn't all in the Balkans anyway. Chrisjwowen (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree this sub-section dealing with Religion is a bit of a mish-mash and does not accord very well with the single source provided. Feel free to correct, hopefully with alternative sources. RashersTierney (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Intelligence and Education Level
This section seems to be a crudely disguised attempt to paint all Romani as mentally challenged. Specifically, the Bakalar study cited was insufficient in terms of subjects (particularly Romani subjects who represented only 7% of an already anemic sample size of 1357) and location. All other studies mentioned were inadequately described with little supporting evidence and there is no mention of conflicting studies or research other than the opening quote from Amnesty International which was used as a rhetorical device. Due to its shoddy presentation and racist overtones this section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadchicken7 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree. Not having read the cited studies I cannot comment on their scientific merit but on the face of it the claims sound outrageous. I am also reminded of the US military's IQ test results which showed Jews having an abnormally low IQ. These tests were conducted at a time when Jewish refugees were flocking to the US; current IQ tests results of this population show them to outperform almost all other racial groups in the US and the difference between their scores today and their scores then is greater than the current difference between today's lowest performing racial groups in the US and the highest. (See Thomas Sowell's book Ethnic America: A History[3].) Sowell's work indicates to me that these tests are not reliable if you want to draw conclusions about inherent intellectual potential of an ethnic group, especially one that is economically and linguistically marginalized while the testing takes place.
Unless more reliable sources can be produced echoing these conclusions, I think we need to reexamine the amount of room devoted to the claims of that one reference and reduce it down to a more appropriate size. Peace, Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree. If an attempt was made to introduce such POV, relying on WP:SYNTH, into any other ethnic group article it would be given short shrift in toto. RashersTierney (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
6th century vs. 11th century date
The article keeps suggesting the Romani "left India" in about AD 500.
This date is due to population genetics, apparently the founding population existed at roughly that time. This does not mean they "left" anywhere at the time, just that they existed as a group.
The 11th century date is due to linguistics. The state of their language suggests they remained in contact with other Indo-Aryan languages until at least that time.
These dates aren't mutually exclusive at all. It is perfectly possible that the group existed, as a group, within India during the 6th to 10th centuries, and then left around the 11th. The article should just not suggest that the 6th century has anything to do with "leaving India". --dab(𒁳) 09:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I back this and I am amazed at amount of information in the article which is written as fact but in truth is sheer writer's fabrication.
There is absolutely no evidence to say that the Domari and Romani left India as one group nor is there any evidence to say that the Romani left India prior to 1000ad yet the article says they did. WHY? I DEMAND AN EXPLANATION WHY SOMEONE CAN WRITE LIES ON HERE AS FACTS WITHOUT BACKING IT UP? In fact the linguistics of the Romani firstly show that they left much later and it also shows that they speak a different Indian root language to that of Domari.
Romani speak a Rajasthani language using many Rajasthani and neighboring Panjabi unique grammar & words. Example being the masculine 'o' on the end of words or Chavo (son from Sanskrit 'Sva' via Rajastani regional corruption), Phral (brother), Phen (sister), Othe (over there), Athai (here), Kher (house), Khuro (colt), Char (grass).... the list goes on. Domari however does not share this with Rajasthani & Panjabi but instead it has the equivalent words from a different India root region / language in their place.
If I open up a Italian restaurant alongside a Turkish restaurant does it mean we both come from the same place because from the outside we both have the same occupation? Please don't be so ridiculous. It even happens with Pavee Irish Travelers because they live in caravans (most Romani globally don't even live in caravans and never have) and they do facial boards and driveways....Never jump to conclusions unless the evidence is solid.
It is said in the main article that " In 1595, Ştefan Răzvan overcame his birth into slavery, and became the Voivode (Prince) of Moldavia.[68]"
but seems inexact and according to article dedicated to "Stefan Razvan":
"The father of Ştefan Răzvan was a Muslim Rom from the Ottoman Empire who emigrated north of Danube, in Wallachia, while his mother was a Romanian peasant from the new country of settlement. At that time, all the Romani people living in the Romanian states of Wallachia and Moldavia were slaves. The rule was applied also to any Romani immigrants, excepting the Ottoman citizens. Benefiting of this exception, the father and later the son could remain free and become an active part in the local society."
Which on short means he wasn't "born into slavery".
This line should be edited / removed as induce in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.154.147 (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Rom does not mean 'man'
In the article it says that Rom means husband or man. This is obviously written by Gaje (non-Romani) as any Romani knows this is wrong.
Yes. Rom does mean 'husband' but Manus, Gero / Goro or Jheno means 'man'.
Rom means 'man' no more than Jatt means 'man' in the Panjabi language. In Romani a married respectable man of Romani blood is called a Rrom and his wife is called a Rromni but this does not a translation for 'man' or 'woman' as you cannot be a Rrom if you are a gaje (unless it is a reference to husband / married).
Just to add it is no different to the way a Jatt (male of the Jatt ethnic group) is called a 'Jatt' and his wife is called a 'Jattni'. You or I cannot not be a Jatt or a Jattni unless our birthright conforms. The same way you cannot be a Rrom or a Rromni if you are not of the Romani ethnic group.
How then can the article say it means 'man'? That is very misleading and I think it came around with certain Gajo scholars (Manchester University springs to mind) trying to argue Rromani derives from Domari. It now keeps re-surfacing as a case of Chinese whispers.
deleting false information wrote as though it is fact
I am going to delete the paragraph as it is all the writers speculation selling it as though it is accepted fact.
"According to a legend reported in Shahnameh and repeated by several modern authors, the Sasanian king Bahrām V Gōr learned towards the end of his reign (421-39) that the poor could not afford to enjoy music, and he asked the king of India to send him ten thousand luris, men and women, lute playing experts . When the luris arrived, Bahrām gave each one an ox and an ass and an ass-load of wheat so that they could live on agriculture and play music gratuitously for the poor. But the luris ate the ox and the wheat and came back a year later with their cheeks hollowed with hunger. The king was angered with their having wasted what he had given them, ordered them to pack up their bags on their asses and go wandering around the world.[49] Linguistic and genetic evidence indicates the Romani originated from the Indian subcontinent, emigrating from India toward the northwest 1500 years ago. Genetic findings in 2012 suggest they originated in northwest India and migrated as a group.[50][51] According to a genetic study in 2012, the ancestors of present scheduled tribes and scheduled caste populations of northern India, traditionally referred to collectively as the Ḍoma, are the likely ancestral populations of modern European Roma.[52] In December 2012, additional findings appeared to confirm the "Roma came from a single group that left northwestern India about 1,500 years ago.[dubious – discuss]"[51] They reached the Balkans about 900 years ago, and then spread throughout Europe. The team found that, despite some isolation, the Roma were "genetically similar to other Europeans."[50][51] Contemporary populations suggested as sharing a close relationship to the Romani are the Dom people of Western Asia and North Africa, and the Banjara of India.[53]"
Has the writer of the paragraph never read anything by professors such as the world recognized and very respected Ian Hancock? Does the writer not know that the words रम rama m. husband & रमण ramaNa m. husband in Sanskrit are a more obvious origin of the word Rom & Romani considering that it means exactly the same in the Romani language. Nor does the writer of the article discussed the old Romani tale that we come from a once rich king by the name of Rom. Again we see parallels with Indian folklore and various ethnic groups from Rajasthan. Ethnic groups ranging from Rajputs on the higher end down to Banjara & Bhil on the lower end. Ethnic groups who also have proven similar genetic finding. Genetic finding has even been found in Jatts (eye disorder) but the article seems to want to paint only one idea as though it is proven without enlightening on anything else that may dispute it.
Please tell me if I am not to delete it as we can obviously see it is false information sold as though it is proven
The article opens with The Romani are an ethnic group living mostly in Europe. - is there any source for that "mostly in Europe" part?
Meaning, is there any source that most Romani live in Europe? I am searching for hours for some good source on this, but I can't find any. --- Ɍưɳŋınɢ 21:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I have now found this quote from Matras, Yaron (2005). "The status of Romani in Europe"(PDF). University of Manchester. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) - In the absence of reliable census figures, the total population of Romani speakers can only be estimated, at anywhere upwards of 3.5 million. The largest concentrations of Romani speakers are in southeastern and central Europe, especially Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovakia. - but it's about Romani language. I am not sure if we can say "it says that about the language, therefore it says that about Roma people in general." --- Ɍưɳŋınɢ 21:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I have now found this quote in Hancock, Ian F (2002). We Are the Romani People, p. XX. ISBN978-1-902806-19-8. Retrieved 2008-07-31. - There are Romanies everywhere, even in China or Singapure, but by far the greatest number live in Europe and in North and South America - which is good enough for saying Romani people are mainly in Europe and Americas. --- Ɍưɳŋınɢ 22:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Subgroups
In the part "Population and subgroups", there are a few subgroups given. However, in none of the sources given, there are exactly these subgroups listed (and one is even just about Romani language). I have a suspicion that the author of the article made it up.
Please, give me the exact sentences that suggest this division into subgroups, because I don't see it.
(I haven't checked the Russian website, because it's dead and I don't speak Russian.)
--- Ɍưɳŋınɢ 17:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Good publicly accessible article about subgroups is here - http://romani.uni-graz.at/rombase/cgi-bin/artframe.pl?src=data/ethn/topics/names.en.xml . Basically, the "subgroups" are classified by endonyms of a given population; most people call themselves "Rom", but some are calling themselves differently. However, I still see no need to have one article called "Roma" and another article called "Romani people", since in all the literature all the cultures with different endonyms (like Kale or Sinti) are still in the "Roma" group (which is used interchangably with "Romani"). --- Ɍưɳŋınɢ 20:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The best and most usable quote I have found about this:
The Roma call themselves different names according to which sub−ethnic Indian group they came from, and the wave and time of their migration to Europe. All European dialects of the Roma language include the word “rom”, meaning man or husband. The female form is “romni”, meaning woman or wife. As for the group name, the endoethnonyme “Rom”, the term “Roma” is used mainly by the descendants of the first groups that spread across the Balkans and the eastern part of Central Europe before the 15th century. Groups in Western Europe from later migratory waves used their own names: the Sinti lived in German territory, the Manusha in France, the Romanitsel in England, the Kale in Spain and Portugal, and the Kaale in Finland. The word “manush” is also included in all dialects of Romany. It means man, while “Manusha” equals people. This word has the same form and meaning in Sanskrit as well, and is almost identical in other Indian languages. The use of the term for “people” in the form of an endoethnonyme is the oldest way in which ancient tribes and ethnic groups were named.
from Jurová, Anna (2003). Vaščka, Michal; Jurásková, Martina; Nicholson, Tom (eds.). "From Leaving The Homeland to the First Assimilation Measures". ČAČIPEN PAL O ROMA - A Global Report on Roma in Slovakia. Slovak Republic: Institute for Public Affairs: 17. Retrieved September 7, 2013.
I profoundly disagree with this part of the article.
Repatriation? Roma have no country. They happen to be citizens of countries where they are given a citizenship.
Camps? You can call their houses camps or huts but they were their homes.
Illegal? It was illegal in Nazi Germany to be Jewish and breathe. When it comes to human rights, "legality" has to be consider with some brains.
I think the French people can call a cat a dog but people are not stupid. It was an expulsion, and that was illegal, not Roma people.
--188.79.77.191 (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Gone too far
This article is so studded with citations and "citation needed" tags that it has become unreadable. We need a better way — perhaps grouping the tags at the ends of the paragraphs. rowley (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I added most of those. I just think it has just too many claims without any references. - Ɍưɳŋınɢ 11:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 21 October 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change " There is also no known record of a migration from India to Europe from medieval times, that can be connected indisputably to Roma." to:
" There is also no known record of a migration from India to Europe from medieval times that can be connected indisputably to Roma."
because the comma in the original text is superfluous.
Dkapetansky (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Relations between Romani and the "settled population"
Hello,
I am curious as to why there is no mention in the main article (other than the very reasonable discussion of the persecution that many Romani face in different countries) of the occasionally harmonious but occasionally fractious relationship between some Romani and some settled populations? For example, there are travellers (Romani, not Irish) in my village and the neighbouring village, and other than occasional minor illegal behaviour that I have seen (e.g. driving untaxed vehicles, giving driving lessons to children on public highways, etc.) they are friendly and cause no trouble, although do not choose to integrate themselves into the local community at all (as in, they do not participate in local events, have no interest in the parish council, visit the local pub only very infrequently and keep themselves to themselves).
However I often read reports in local and national newspapers (and hear anecdotal evidence from friends, colleagues and neighbours) of assaults, theft, fly-tipping, trespass, and casual disregard for the law in general (which is often exaggerated in some sections of the national press), and so is it not reasonable for balanced discussion of all of these broad aspects of Romani interaction with others to be presented here? It is pretty obvious to anybody reading this article that this is the "elephant in the room" that is being completely ignored. For this Wikipedia article to be taken seriously as a reference material then this must surely be addressed. I understand that the article is locked (or whatever the terminology is) to prevent extreme views (either pro or con) being presented, but as it stands it is woefully incomplete. Hopefully this will be addressed. NB in am in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.41.242 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to add something: The word "thief" doesn't exist on this page, even though that's one of the main stereotypes people have of the Roma. I was trying to find some unbiased information on where that came from, and how valid it is. Are there any statistics that can be added to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.108.66 (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Merger proposal
Discuss here: A request has been received for the merger of Roma (Romani subgroup) into the main article of this talk page. GenQuest"Talk to Me" 03:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Ceremonies and practices
"Romanies often adopt the dominant religion of their host country in the event that a ceremony associated with a formal religious institution is necessary, such as a baptism or funeral (their particular belief systems and indigenous religion and worship remain preserved regardless of such adoption processes). The Roma continue to practice "Shaktism", a practice with origins in India, whereby a female consort is required for the worship of a god. Adherence to this practice means that for the Roma who worship a Christian God, prayer is conducted through the Virgin Mary, or her mother, Saint Anne—Shaktism continues over one thousand years after the people's separation from India.[126]
Besides the Roma elders, who serve as spiritual leaders, priests, churches, or bibles do not exist among the Romanies—the only exception is the Pentecostal Roma.[126]" I'm actually Catholic, this is a misrepresentation of both Catholic and Romani beliefs (for one, Catholics only believe in one God and do NOT treat the Virgin Mary as a god or goddess) maybe someone should re-phrase it? 2601:0:4180:7D1:994C:B9E1:FF3E:441B (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Romani in Romania are not Muslim
I'm a Romanian. The statement "The majority of the population [of Roma in Romania] are Muslim and also speak Turkish" is ridiculously false. I don't have a citation to prove this, but I urge anyone interested in editing this article to check things out... Muslims in Romania are scarce, the vast majority of the population is Christian, including the Roma people. And they speak Romani or Para-Romani or Romanian or Hungarian, not Turkish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0E:FF:FFFF:0:0:4F77:6472 (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
You are right. As far as I know, the vast majority of the present-day Romani/Gypsy people is Christian (mostly Roman Catholic but also Eastern Orthodox). Gypsies speak in their own language (Romani language) plus the language of the country they're currently in (most frequently it's Polish, Slovakian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Hungarian, Romanian, or Spanish). Yatzhek (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Homophobia in romani culture
People are persecuted and driven out of romani communities for their sexuality. It is a very backwards culture. Why is there no mention of this in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.204.236 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Probably, but no more than conservative society at large as Gypsy groups are reserved even the subject of sex is taboo. In the 21st century you'll find non-gypsy groups are a lot worse. Homosexuals are shunned, imprisoned in Islamic nations, hanged in Iran, heads of state link gays to paedophiles [[4]] and have bigoted laws passed and forced underground in Russia, or attacked or killed on the streets around the world by youths because they are gay. You will also find society at large -including gay sub-culture- to have its fair share of bigots regarding gypsies as 'dirty thieves' or subhuman as well. In fact being a gypsy automatically gives society to place you on the lowest rung of the ladder and anti-gypsy views are ingrained in society at large and that would include the gay subculture too. Being gay hardly absolves you from being openly discrimatory against another group. I worked with a man who openly said to friends offhandedly 'You filthy gypsy' as an unsult, yet came out as bi-sexual six months later and still used the term. Gay lifestyle is hardly singled out by gypsy groups but you'll find non-gypsies do exactly that to the Gypsy/Travelleing peoples.Uthican (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I propose a new section
Due to large Romani migration in EU from Romania to beg or make criminal deeds(not all Romani!!!), EU citizens are mislead by some right wing Hungarians activists and by the name they took, to be considered one and the same with Romanians.
I also hear the insane thing in a UK tabloid that Romania name come from Romani people.
Also the EU country's with large right movements as Dutch, France, UK, Italy are very hard on the gypsy and Romania, forghething that they decimate the gypsy in middle ages.
Now they ask Romania to integrate a nation who migrated for 1000 years, and they make them a BIG problem ,instead to apply the law as for the other criminals.
What Romania should do, force them to learn in school, bring them in camps like in 1940, or decimate them and hang them like in West Europe in middle ages?
Now for the right information of the readers we must have a sections with difference betwen romans/romanians/romani.
I ask this section to be added, mostly for gypsy sake, the romanians are very sick of this confusion and the society shows messages with " death to the gypsy".
Now this messages start to flow when some idiots from France and UK started to name Romanians gypsy and other names.
The issue is more complicated, because we are named racist by EU because we name gypsy ,rromi, rroma, rromani, with 2 r .
Majority of those who accuse Romania not know that in Romanian language, "romani" means Ancient Romans and "Roma" means Rome, so that's why we put 2 r.
And what nations wants to be confused?
Vasile iuga (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems like you want to add something about alternate spellings? If so, you should probably find some reliable sources for making these claims. Also see WP:REFB for a tutorial on citing sources. – FenixFeather(talk)(Contribs) 14:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Term usage: Word: often
I am opening this section to discuss the validity of removing the term OFTEN from a key sentence in the article.
Here is the section is derives within the article.
This exonym is sometimes written with capital letter, to show that it designates an ethnic group.[49] The term 'gypsy' appears when international research programmes, documents and policies on the community are referred to.[citation needed] However, the word is often considered derogatory because of its negative and stereotypical associations.[37][38][39][40][41][42][50]
The word is highlighted in bold. This term of often and words very similar in meaning are used in multiple cited sources on the page. Removing the term often changes the meaning of the sentence, and it also takes the sentence out of context alignment with cited sources. One such source is reference number 50, Roma Report. In this report, often is specifically used in section 2.2.9
Quoting from the article to illustrate. The term Often and words that reference the same meaning are highlighted for ease.
This report uses the term Roma although the term 'Gypsy' appears when international research programmes, documents and policies on the community are referred to. However, as a term ‘Gypsy' is considered derogatory by many members of the Roma community because of negative and stereotypical associations with the term. by Louise Lesovitch
This passage was also taken from the same cited source:
2.2.9 The Roma are frequently referred to as Gypsies by non-Roma majority societies.
Although some Roma use the term Gypsy, it is generally considered incorrect (and
often derogatory) for non-Roma people (known as Gadje or Gazho (plural) by
Roma)28 to use the word Gypsy when referring to someone from the Roma
community. The Roma language is known as Romani or Romanes. ‘There is no
Romani word for ‘gypsy’. Roma means, literally, ‘people’.29 The term Roma is the
plural of Rom, which means an adult member, man or people. Romni refers to female
members of Roma groups and the wider female Roma community.
This is just one source. I have read 4 sources cited on this page and the Wikipedia page for Gypsy and Gipsy that carry similar wording suggesting that most will find it offensive, but not all. It cannot be a proven fact that all Romani people are offended by the term 'gypsy' unless a perfect vote is cast by each and every one of them stating it is offensive. Then the removal of the word often would be valid. Kevintampa5 (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
It says in the article: "Most Roma people in Serbia are Muslim, but the Gurbeti community, as it has been designated, are Christian." In the supplied reference it states: "Today most of the Gypsies in this region of southeastern Serbia (the regions of Niš and Vranje) are Muslims" not that most of them in whole country are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.172.42 (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
NPOV Dispute
This article is heavily biased in favor of the politically correct view of the Romani people as a "poor persecuted ethnic group" without giving any information that might seem unfavorable to them. There is absolutely no treatment of the lifestlyle and the economic activities that many Romani communities engage in and which are considered as objectionable by the communities surrounding them. In particular, the association of Romani people with petty crime is treated as a "stereotype", while there is strong evidence that many Romani communities had (and still have) a history of engaging in certain specialized non-legal activities. It would be more accurate, and also more interesting from an ethnological point of view, to give some information about Romani communities economic foundations, which usually involves a blend of legal and non-legal activities. A lot of evidence exist that point to the fact that most Romani groups engage in a kind of "self regulated" form of crime in which they allow themselves to perform certain minor illegal activities while avoiding more serious offences in order to avoid provoking extreme backlash from the host community. I believe it would be fair to quote such evidence. For example: this BBC story or this article, this book, etc. Fi11222 (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Haven't looked at this in depth, just responding to your action based on general knowledge/maturity. The standard will be the treatment of other groups that have been persecuted, regarded negatively, jews, dalits, etc. The criminal element in this case is special but the overall standard of objectivity and uniform practices should resolve this. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Finding a negative news article from 5 years ago, as in the first example, and doing a search in Google Books with the search terms 'Romani theft culture' as in the third are not reflective of NPOV. Asking why an article to which, as far as I can see you haven't previously contributed to any great extent, isn't reflective of this attitude is frankly ridiculous and is in fact exemplary of POV. RashersTierney (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Categories
The category Indian Diaspora was added by an IP, then removed by RashersTierney because the article Indian diaspora redirects and is primarily about persons of Indian origin and ethnic Indians which, as RT said, is not applicable. I had previously accepted the pending change which added the category because the target article contains two paragraphs about the Romani and their origin. I'm not wedded to the idea, but it seems to me that the category is not altogether inappropriate as a means of aiding navigation around WP. Comment? Cheers, LindsayHello 09:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
That is a fair reflection of recent edits. RashersTierney (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Possibly i'm overly thick, but which is the antecedent for your that ~ the removal of the category or putting it back? Cheers, LindsayHello 21:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Diaspora implies a personal connection to a modern nation state which in this case is not applicable and is certainly not 'value neutral'. RashersTierney (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Exonyms in lead
I have removed the 12 non-English European exonyms for Roma from the lead. Their inclusion is unwarranted because the lead is supposed to summarize the article, not provide in-depth detail (see WP:LEAD). Moreover, there is an article already dedicated to the names used for Roma, found at Names of the Romani people, which is already linked as {{Main}} in Romani people#Name. This article is about the Romani people, not the etymology of exonyms (see WP:COATRACK). EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 01:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Table and picture of Romani population are wrong and misleading
The table regarding Romani population, next to "Contemporary issues" has many flaws.
1. First of all, it is unclear what the percentages represent. They are supposed to represent percentages of the total Roma population in Europe, divided by country, but without an accurate description it may seem like it's how many Roma there are in each country (out of the total population of those countries).
2. The web links are misleading. The table points to Reference #147 - "Roma on the rubbish dump". CIA World Factbook.
There are two links there, one to an article in a British newspaper about a Roma community in Romania, and another one to the wiki article about the CIA Factbook. None of those say anything about the Roma population in Europe, but Reference #147 makes it look like the info in the table is verified/vouched for by the CIA.
3. The numbers are wrong. The percentages in the table seem to nave been taken from Reference #148 - The (now deleted) page of a European Roma meeting in preparation. There is no indication that meeting ever took place, or that the figures presented there were legit. The numbers on that web page come from various sources, from national census - to private estimates and those made by NGOs, and some of those are not entirely reliable. The final numbers are "average estimates" and have nothing to do with official, verified sources, such as the census. For example, for Romania, the census says 600.000 Roma, while estimates vary from 1,2 to 2,5 million. The "average estimate" therefore climbs up to 1,8 million - 300% the official figure. For the Russian Federation, the "average estimate" is 395% the official number.
This is also the basis on which the picture under the table was generated. The explanation under that picture is also misleading. It states that the numbers are the "average estimates of the European Council" when in fact they are an average of different estimates made by other entities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razvan mod (talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I am not. Simply because those are not 'their' figures. The man who edited that Council of Europe webpage listed as reference a series of third party sources. Those are not the numbers put up by the Council. They are not official, and some of them come from private entities, such as The Soros Foundation. Which is known for its involvement in social issues, as well as economic and political ones (e.g. - The Soros Foundation is actively funding anti-fracking NGOs and action groups in Romania). No number on that page represents the point of view of the Council. The only numbers that are reliable are the census numbers, and they are not taken into consideration on that Council webpage, given that the final numbers of the Roma population are calculated based on 'average estimates', rather than the census (maybe that's why the page was eventually erased?) Razvan mod (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Romani are NOT indian
While their some linguistic similarities between Indo-Aryan languages there are no genetic markers connecting the two disparaging people. In fact, on phenotypic expression alone the gypsies do look more Afghan and many of their traditional outfits and characteristics (occupation) match those of the herder communities of Afghanistan. It would make sense given the numerous invasions that country has seen. Perhaps some nationalist self hating Indians who are constantly trying to attach a foreign connection to india are encouraging this myth but this is completely false and needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.14.213 (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Romani are indian and they were taught the wrong things by christians because they hated them and they were probably the first to populate south america — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.142.124 (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I propose a new section
Due to large Romani migration in EU from Romania to beg or make criminal deeds(not all Romani!!!), EU citizens are mislead by some right wing Hungarians activists and by the name they took, to be considered one and the same with Romanians.
I also hear the insane thing in a UK tabloid that Romania name come from Romani people.
Also the EU country's with large right movements as Dutch, France, UK, Italy are very hard on the gypsy and Romania, forghething that they decimate the gypsy in middle ages.
Now they ask Romania to integrate a nation who migrated for 1000 years, and they make them a BIG problem ,instead to apply the law as for the other criminals.
What Romania should do, force them to learn in school, bring them in camps like in 1940, or decimate them and hang them like in West Europe in middle ages?
Now for the right information of the readers we must have a sections with difference betwen romans/romanians/romani.
I ask this section to be added, mostly for gypsy sake, the romanians are very sick of this confusion and the society shows messages with " death to the gypsy".
Now this messages start to flow when some idiots from France and UK started to name Romanians gypsy and other names.
The issue is more complicated, because we are named racist by EU because we name gypsy ,rromi, rroma, rromani, with 2 r .
Majority of those who accuse Romania not know that in Romanian language, "romani" means Ancient Romans and "Roma" means Rome, so that's why we put 2 r.
And what nations wants to be confused?
Origin of th name "gypsy"
Most sources say it derives from "Egyptian" but one source I read says that it derives from Little Egypt, the area north of Greece which was known by that name at one time. I have forgotten where I read it, and frankly I am not sufficiently interested to go searching for it, but someone else might like to. Mike Hayes (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be no single convention for the plural form of the Romani people. While 'Romani' is often used without the definite article, it is equally common to find the use of the definite article as forming the plural: see this, this, and this as examples. While it is often contingent on context, this form is not replicated in the English language for other ethnic groups. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Romani people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Confirmed as correct. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2015
This edit request to Romani people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This phrase "they were driven out by the KLA, or Kosovo Liberation Army, as well as the new Kosovar Albanian government" is not true. I live in that region, they are not from Kosovo, neither drawn by KLA or Kosovar Albanian government. This is a Serbian false statement!
178.175.20.90 (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Done -- ferret (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Religion
Romani ancestors adhered most likely to Vedic religion similar to the practices of the Arya Samaj and contemporary Theravada Buddhism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.148.92 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups
Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Romani people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
In this new section on the history of children in Romani societies across the world, I will utilize depictions and studies of various aspects of Romani child behaviors across a broad historical period. This will be a new section added to the "Romani people" article that will feature several subsections based on different eras in Romani history presented chronologically. With a wide range of customs and cultures across Romani peoples of various tribes and geographical regions, it will be important that I do not generalize Romani child behaviors but rather present evidence on a source by source basis and allow readers to form their own vision of Romani children based on their own interpretation of my sources. As a traditionally oral culture, written first person Romani sources related to Romani society, in particular childhood, are hard to come by. Therefore, I will utilize several forms (late nineteenth century accounts, twentieth century academic articles, contemporary news reports and video documentaries, etc.) in order to approach the subject from several different angles. In regards to older, pseudo-academic sources, I will make note of possible cultural or racial biases in those accounts with reference to the perceptions of the the reporting culture. The following is a list of potential sources for this new section:
“A Child Stolen by Gypsies.” The Globe, 5 July 1886, 2.
Allen, Daniel & Paul Adams. Social Work with Gypsy, Roma and Traveler Children. London: British Association for Adoption & Fostering, 2013.
Berry, Lynn, “Millions maintain gypsy traditions – but in silence,” The Ottawa Citizen, 18
March 1995, C4.
Berthier, Jean-Charles. “The Socialization of the Gypsy Child,” International Social Science
Journal, 31, 2 (January 1979): 376-392.
Bishop, Joe. “Marginal Roamers Sedentarized: Slovak High School Student Views toward
Roma (Gypsies),” Institute of International Education, (March 2002).
Brown, Irving. Gypsy Fires in America. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1924.
Republished by Gale Research Company. Detroit: Book Tower, 1974.
Buchanen, Ann & Alice Sluckin. “Gypsy Children in Post-Communist Eastern Europe,”
Children & Society, 8, 4 (January 1994): 333-334.
Chon, Werner. The Gypsies. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1973.
Čvorović, Jelana. “Juvenile Marriages, Child-Brides and Infant Mortality
Among Serbian Gypsies,” Glasnik Etnografskog institute, 59, 2 (2011): 27-44.
Foray, Katalin R. & Andras T. Hegudus. “Differences in the upbringing and behavior of Romani
boys and girls, as seen by teachers,” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 10, 6 (1989): 515-528.
Leland, Charles Godfrey. The English Gipsies and Their Language. London: Trubner & Co.,
1874.
Leland, Charles Godfrey. Gypsy Sorcery and Fortune Telling: Illustrated by Incantations,
Specimens of Medical Magic, Anecdotes, Tales. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1891.
Levinson, Martin P. “The Role of Play in the Formation and Maintenance of Cultural Identity:
Gypsy Children in Home and School Contexts,” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34, 5 (October 2005): 499-532.
Levinson, Martin P. & Andrew C. Sparkes. “Gypsy children, space, and the school
environment,” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18, 6 (2005): 751-772.
Liegeois, Jean-Pierre. “The Training of Gypsy Children.” Council of European Teachers’
Seminar, June 2-25 1983. Federal Republic of Germany. Council for Cultural
Cooperation.
Lloyd, Gwynedd & Claire Norris. “From difference to deviance: the exclusion of gypsy-traveler
children from school in Scotland,” International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2, 4 (October 1998): 359-369.
Orçan, Maide, Canan Yildiz Çiçekler & Ramazan Ari. “A Study on the Mothers of Roma
Children Who Are a Risk Group,” European Journal of Educational Research, 3, 2 (2014): 59-72.
Okely, Judith, “Non-Territorial Culture as The Rationale for the Assimilation of Gypsy
Children,” Childhood, 4, 1 (February 1997): 63-80.
Poveda, David, Ana Cano & Manuel Palomares-Valera. “Religious Genres, Entextualization and
Literacy in Gitano Children,” Language in Society, 34, 1 (February 2005): 87-115.
Puxon, Grattan. Rom: Europe’s Gypsies, Minority Rights Group Report No 14. New York:
March 1973.
Quintana, Bertha B. & Lois Gray Floyd. Que Gitano! Gypsies of Southern Spain. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972.
Redondo, Maria J. & Francisco J. A. Guisasola, “An unknown risk group of lead poisoning: The
gypsy children,” European Journal of Pediatrics, 154, 3 (March 1995): 197-200.
Réger, Zita & Jean Berko Gleason, “Romani Child-Directed Speech and Children’s Language
among Gypsies in Hungary,” Language in Society, 20, 4 (December 1991): 601-617.
Réger, Zita. “Teasing in the Linguistic Socialization of Gypsy Children in Hungary,” Acta
Linguistica Hungarica, 46, 3 (September 1999): 289-315.
Rican, P. “Sociometric status of Gypsy children in ethnically mixed classes,” Studia
Psychologica, 38, 3 (1996): 177-184.
Salo, Matt T. & Sheila M.G. Salo. The Kalderas in Eastern Canada. National Museum of Man
Mercury Series, Paper No. 21. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Folk Culture Studies, 1977.
Scheffel, David Z. Svinia in Black and White: Slovak Roma and their Neighbours. Broadview
Press, Toronto, 2005.
Smith, George. Gipsy Life: being an account of our Gipsies and their children with suggestions
for their improvement. London: Haughton & Co., 1880.
Smith, George. I’ve Been a Gipsying: Rambles Among Our Gipsies and their Children in their
Tents and Vans. London: T. Fisher Inwin, 1883.
Smith, Tracy, “Recognizing Difference: The Romani ‘Gypsy’ Child Socialization and Education
Process,” British Journal of Sociological of Education, 18, 2 (1997): 243-256.
Sutherland, Anne. Gypsies: The Hidden Americans. New York: The Free Press, 1975.
Sway, Marlene. Familiar Strangers: Gypsy Life in America. Chicago: University of Illinois
Press. 1988.
Tempel, Charles, “‘Life took me elsewhere.’ The Roma Tutoring Project in Romania,” Reading
Teacher, 53, 3 (November 1999): 228-232.
Walter, Simon. History of the Gipsies with Specimens of the Gipsy Language. New York: M.
Doolady, 1866.
White, Julia M. “Slovakia’s litmus test: Policy, prejudice, and resistance in the schooling of
Romani children,” Syracuse University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2007.
Wood, Mantri Frederick. In the Life of a Romany Gypsy. Edited by John A. Brune.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973.
This is comprehensive and a great start. I think you already know you will likely need to narrow your focus. From a Wiki perspective, it would be useful to explain, using secondary sources, why Romani children might have been the focus of concern when compared to the ideals of modern childhood, especially during the child saving era (1870-1920). Cliomania (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Romani people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The pictures in the moment present mostly stereotypes
Wagons, Wagons, and so on. This ist not an objective illustration...--Pachycrapsus (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Requested move to Gypsies = 5 March 2016
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. wbm1058 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Romani people → Gypsies – Although the term has become controversial in recent years, it is still by far the most common way to refer to this ethnic group in the English-speaking world. Although some may find it offensive, many dictionaries do not view at that way (i.e.:OED), and many Gypsy organizations use the term themselves. Google Ngrams shows that Gypsy has been becoming more common than the other terms in recent years, and not less. Therefore, we must move the title to the most common name, and use English, and therefore, it must be called "Gypsies". Genealogizer (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment the word "gypsy" is used for other things besides the Romani, which the weird situation on Wikipedia seems to fail to consider when we deal with uses of gypsy (instead of "Gypsy"), having seemingly removed many uses of gypsy when used for all purposes and not just the Romani related ones -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
This has been proposed several times before. Regardless of the offense argument, the problem is that the word "Gypsy" is used to describe a wide range of people, many of whom are not Roma. See this source. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@Genealogizer: Please always read through the archives of talk pages before proposing moves or changes to content. You'll see the discussions Cordless Larry is referring to. Also, Ngram only searches for the use of a word without a specific context. In this context, the article WP:TITLE reflects the fact that it is specifically about an ethnic group, and the subject is treated in accordance with academic works and other encyclopaedic resources (such as Encyclopaedia Britannica).
On the same note, in response to IP 70.51.46.39, Wikipedia is not a dictionary: it's an encyclopaedic resource. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The hatnotes address any confusion, and Wikipedia already has a redirect entry in place for 'Gypsies' or 'Gypsy' Google searches. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose not a proper encyclopaedic term. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Not used in any official english-speaking government agency or authority anywhere. Reality is that the term "gypsy" is no longer used even in the media to refer to contemporary rom community. I find proposal ridiculous frankly.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with all the 'opposers'. Also point out that the absence of 'derogatory' in a dictionary, does not make it the preferred term. Pincrete (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per my own arguments and those by the rest of the 'opposers'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Placing a photo
Is there any one who would help to put this photo? Thanks a lot.Manaviko (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Romani people. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
Twice removed now, brought here for chat, please comment as to this large figure change, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Support at least including any kind of alternative estimate, given the high fertility rate. The census that in 2011 left 700,000 people or 10% of the population with undeclared ethnic group is not a reliable source, see that 10% of the population is of undeclared ethnic group at the article of Bulgaria at the World Factbook [5]. Morevoer, most of the Muslim, more than 100,000 Romani in Bulgaria, view themselves as Turks. Even the official statistics say that the number then was higher than the census figure of about 300,000, the source that you removed claims that at the 1990 census according to the official statistics there were more than 300,000 that declared Romani identity, but the official database recorded that there were de facto more than 500,000 and most of those who did not declare Roma declared Turkish identity. --130.204.185.50 (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It is not reasonable to exclude an alternative estimate only in one country, but to leave all the rest, especially only of a country with such deflated census data. Angelosbrain (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The edit summary of the second removal says "This disputed addition will need a talkpage discussion". Actually there was no disputed addition. The first removal was not a removal of a recent addition, but a removal of a seemingly well-sourced version that had been in the article for a long time. In my opinion, the IP130 editor made a legitimate revert of a bold removal per WP:BRD. @Govindaharihari: I suggest you reinstate the removed part and encourage the editor who made the removal to try to create a consensus for removal in the Talk page. --T*U (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there guys. Excuse me if I got it a little bit wrong. I saw the removal and that an editor (User:Kreuzkümmel) was disputing the details - the IP editor 130.204.185.50 (who has commented above) replaced it with the comment - "official data is not a criteria, in fact recent unofficial would b more reliable than an old census at which less than 90% declared ethnicity" - if the edit summary comment had been , this content has been in the article over six months and is well cited I would most likely have accepted it. I see it was added by User:Angelosbrain (who has also commented above) in August last year. As a side issue, it's a massive bunch of notes in a reference section, I personally don't think such additions are worthwhile, no one ever gets down there to read them, I will leave it to the editors here to decide what to do, I won't replace the details as I don't really support such a massive reference comment and don't want to take responsibility for them. I won't act as reviewer on the content again though, good luck and thanks for your contributions. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Graph in section "Contemporary issues"
@ScrapIronIV: The graph "Roma estimate percentage of population in European countries" in the section "Contemporary issues" is sourced to this article from The Telegraph. The graph in the Times article is again sourced to the Council of Europe. You can see all the numbers if you let the mouse hower over the Telegraph graph. Changing one of the percentages because another source says something else is synthesis.
The percetages in the infobox are, as far as I can see, not sourced, and they are on the whole misleading, since they only cover one number in sometimes very large number spans. As an example, is it 621,573 or 3,000,000 that is 3.3% (Romania)? On the whole, I will suggest to remove all the percetages from the infobox. Any thoughts? --T*U (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I am fine with removing percentages from the infobox. I all really want is consistency within the article, and clear sources. Scr★pIronIV 14:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Fine. I'll remove the percentages from the infobox and restore the (sourced) number for Bulgaria. --T*U (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
How to add a country to Infobox?
For some reason I cannot add Slovenia under ethnic group Infobox (i.e. "Regions with significant populations"). I tried with the following code, since all other countries follow each other by a higher number. Is there a limit of 'just' 32 entries for this particular Infobox? FYI, I even tried changing the number in two instances of the Infobox ethnic group itself; maybe this is a coincidence but they were indeed entries only to the number 32.
It should look like this:
Slovenia
3,246-5,000 Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
I used the following code:
|region33={{flagcountry|Slovenia}}
|pop33=3,246-5,000
|ref33=<ref name=immigration/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/romi-kako-iz-labirinta-stereotipov/98728 |trans-title=Romani - how to come from the labirynt of stereotypes? |title=Romi – kako iz labirinta stereotipov? | publisher=RTV Slovenija | date=5 April 2009 |accessdate=21 April 2016}}</ref>
According to the documentation of the Template:ethnic group sidebar, there is a limit of 30 entries in this type of list. I have no idea why it works with 32, but the limit is obviously in the template. --T*U (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, that was the wrong template. In the documentation of Template:Infobox ethnic group, the limit is set to 31, which also is a bit odd, but the principle is the same. All these templates have an in-built limit. --T*U (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Very Big Issue with the Romani Name [Disputed Neutrality]
There is a very big issue with the Romani name. The name discriminates the people from Romania.
There are 28 millions of Romanians who call themselves Romani for Centuries. In Romanian language, the Romanians call themselves Români, which is nowadays mostly written in mass-media and on Internet without the diacritic, as Romani.
Why is wikipedia not using the name Romani to name the Romanians? There are 28 million Romanians in the world - compare that with 2 million or maximum 12 million of Gypsies. Why are Gypsies allowed to take over the name of other nations?
This name of Romani was not used as replacement for Gypsies before 1990, or it was barely used.
Why is wikipedia misleading the whole world - and by doing this is discriminating Romanians?
Because of this new name given to the Gypsies, Romanians are now considered by a majority of population in UK and France as being Gypsies. This has to stop.
The Romani people page needs to point first to a disambiguation page, what is now at the page Romani section --Nationalities--
The Romanian term for Romanians (citizens of Romania), officially written with diacritic â (an upper arrow on top of a) as Români, but many times written just as Romani, without diacritics. Because of these name similarities, many Romanians are discriminated in Western Europe, mistakenly being considered part of the Roma People.
The Romani name needs to be used only for the nationalities above, as it was used for Centuries, and not for renaming Gypsy people. Gypsy people can be renamed to any other name (like Rrom), but not the names that are already taken.
- Sicama (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but for the purposes of this encyclopedia, it doesn't matter how the word "needs to be" be used, only how it is used. And worldwide, it is generally used for the people you call Gypsies.
The Oxford Dictionary definition you bring up (Romany) says "also Romani" right there, below it. --Ashenai (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
regarding what you wrote: "it doesn't matter how the word "needs to be" be used, only how it is used". - I can tell you 99% of the population calls Gypsies with the word Gypsy. This is how it is used. The fact that Gypsies call the male as Rom in their language, this has nothing to do with the name of the people. This is because the English people do not call themselves Man as nation and the Spanish people do not call themselves as Hombre as nation. And Gypsy is more used than Rom or Roma or Romany or any other new name under which Gypsies want to reside, as the older name was tarnished by some of the Gypsies behavior (you know, some of the Gypsies teach their kids how to steal, how to beg and how to stay in other people houses). They are originally Indian people, why they don't call themselves Indian, but this is another story. Other people call them mainly Gypsy, not Roma, not Romany. This is their main name --Sicama (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, alright. As far as I know, the "accepted" name for them is Romani, and Gypsy is a slur. But, I'm not an expert on the subject. I live in Hungary, where the official name for them is "Roma", and "cigány" is sort of a slur, the equivalent of Gypsy. Based on that, and the fact that their organizations appear to have the word "Romani" in them, I would assume that Romani is their official name.
But, like I said, I'm not really an expert. Either way, you're going to need to come up with some reliable sources for your claim that they are properly called Gypsies. I would be very surprised if that turned out to be the case, but I've been wrong before... any sources you can show us? --Ashenai (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
A non-issue unworthy of discussion. The vast majority of the recent news sources referenced in this very wikipedia article use the term Roma or Romani. Few if any English-language news sources use the word Romani to refer to Romanians. The choice is clear. If anyone is confused, there is a clear disambiguation line at the very top of the page. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
OP's post is racist propaganda. Romanians who immigrate to other EU countries have a compensated inferiority complex because the ethnic majorities of these countries stereotype Romanians as thieves and beggars. Not knowing how to stomach such bad public image, Romanians racists advance the idea that the Romani are guilty of all misdeeds attributed to Romanians, thus seeking to replace an ethnic stereotype with a racial stereotype (they have found a scapegoat for the national honor of Romania). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not Romanian myself, but I still think this post is quite a bit too hostile. Notably this part: "Romanians who immigrate to other EU countries have a compensated inferiority complex because the ethnic majorities of these countries stereotype Romanians as thieves and beggars." It doesn't matter if it's mostly meant for racists, that's pretty offensive to all Romanians. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the tendentious tagging per WP:SOAP. The POV template should not be used as a badge of shame. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
So there is an issue with the Romani name? For centuries, Gypsies have been regarded, with ample justification, as thieves and swindlers, and now I see that they have stolen the Romani name from the Romanians.John Paul Parks (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The Question : Do you speak english ?
As the first question it is for any language , the question in Roma speak is : Jalez rumalez ? .
Though the naming in other languages for that ethnic people are in Europe as it was established by specific
cultural and historical issues .
For it is not my concern , I thank you for the patience of reading this lines . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.98.161.212 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Population estimates
Until the matter of the population estimate of Romani people is resolved, I suggest that only the official figure is being used. In the case of Romani population in Bulgaria, the source is much older than the official census data (the article in question is first published in 1995, whereas the census data is from 2011!). The other source is a newspaper article, which is based on a document by the Council of Europe. This document does mention a population of 325 000 Romani people - the number of 800 000 is again an estimate. The basis of this estimate is not clear.
Besides, an estimate can not be seen as equal to an official census data, especially when it isn't clear on what basis. Even if this estimate numbers are included in the article, they can not be put in the same place as the official numbers; all the more instead of the official numbers. --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
For the percentage graph, the figures are cited directly from the source. The Telegraph is considered a WP:RS. You would need consensus to remove that entire graph if there is a consensus that the figures cited in the article are unreliable. Scr★pIronIV 22:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually I could not care less if all the numbers in "Regions with significant populations" were removed, preferably together with similar tables in a vaste number of articles about ethnic groups. Such tables tend to turn into a contest of who can find the highest (or lowest) number. What I find hard to understand, however, is why this specific number is targeted. There are many far more disputable numbers in the table.
Let's take a look at the sources. 1) The official census gives the number self-declaring as Roma. Given the high percentage of people not answering the question (and given the insentives not to self-declare as Roma), this number can be seen as a lower limit of estimation. 2) The source deleted by Kreuzkümmel estimates the number to 700-800,000. The argument against this source is that it is old. Given the stability in the census numbers from 1992 (313,000) to 2011 (325,000), this is really not a valid argument. I see no reason not to treat Marushiakova and Popov as a reliable source. 3) The source for the graph further down in the article (not so far used as a source in the infobox) is a newspaper article from The Telegraph. The article takes their numbers from The Council of Europe. The argument here is that it is just an estimate. Of course it is just an estimate, but that does not give us any right to dismiss it as an estimate. Appendix 1 in this report gives the numbers (and percentages) used in the Telegraph article. And here is an updated version from 2012. There is no reason to dismiss the Telegraph article (or the tables from the Council of Europe) as valid and reliable sources for an estimate.
I do not do edit war, so I will not reinstate the number in the table, but I suggest the following: Put back the higher number in the table, or use the "average estimate" number of 750,000 instead of 800,000. If preferred, add a parenthesis (est.) after the number (but in that case, do it for all countries). Then source it with the OSCE report and/or the updated table from CoE.
An alternative solution would, of course, be to strip the infobox of all numbers and perhaps present them elsewhere in the article.
Oh, and by the way, this is not a minor edit. --T*U (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I still insist for a reason to base the graph on an estimate and not on an official census. Also for a reason why a twenty year old estimate should be considered relevant. And the same would apply to all other estimated numbers for other countries - referring to the accusation, that there are "many far more disputable numbers in the table" - which is not an argument at all. --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I think, at least for Europe, the Council of Europe should be the only source since by what I remember it provides credible minimum and maximum estimates, filtering out ridiculous numbers such as Amnesty International for France.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
a reason to base the graph on an estimate and not on an official census: The graph covers a large number of countries. Many of them does not have official statistics covering ethnic minorities. In the graph all numbers are estimates sourced from the same CoE statistics. Changing one of them with numbers from an official census would be WP:Synthesis. You may argue for removing the graph altogether, but changing one number using an incommensurable source is not an option.
a reason why a twenty year old estimate should be considered relevant: Already given (the stability in the census numbers in the period), but I have provided newer sources (2010, 2012) and I have suggested using one of them instead.
there are "many far more disputable numbers in the table" - which is not an argument at all: You are quite correct, that is not an argument, and I have not used it as an argument either. I just mentioned it as a reason for my surprice over the focussing on one specific number. --T*U (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The main Wikipedia article for "Republic of Macedonia" estimates that 2.7% of the country's population is Romani. This seems more accurate than the 9.59% in the table citing source [211]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.99.245 (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Romanians are again made gypsies.
„Not to be confused with Romanians, an unrelated ethnic group and nation, nor with modern or ancient Romans, also unrelated. For other uses, see Romani (disambiguation)”
Well that is just in theory because now the gypsies are the Romans and the Romanians, are the heir of Rome in this article! :)
So without any sources we find this.
Endonyms[edit]
Romani Rom "man", if not from Coptic ⲣⲱⲙⲉ, "man", is Sanskrit रॊम (roma) "the city Rome", probably from Greek Ῥωμαῖος Rhomaíos "Roman", signifying Greeks or more general inhabitants of Byzantium, who considered themselves successors of Ancient Rome.
So yes, Romani are the Romans, and of course Romanians and Roma are the same! Clever racial banter at the Romanians.
Well I never heard that etymology, I never heard a Gypsy to call himself heir of Rome, like the Romanians in XVI century, maybe Wikipedia can change History. I modified the text, but let's see how will end. That is original research, and it should go away. It is also stupid, the Gypsies called themselves Romans in India!? :)) What has to do the Sanskrit word used for the Romans with the theory that gypsies lived in the Byzantine Empire? That is not even a Sanskrit word at all, is just the latin word for the city. Please show the evidence that Romanus will give Roma or Rom in Gypsy language, that it had that meaning of Rhomaios, Romeos or Rumâni as in Greek or Romanian. Rom means man, that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.147.172 (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Disputing Cited Source
Hi, new user here.
I'm challenging the citation for the first sentence of section 1.3 (Romani Usage):
The origin of the name Romani is tied with the fall of Constantinople in 1453 at the hands of the Ottoman caliphate: as thousands of Greeks (Romanoi) refugees were fleeing towards western Europe, gypsies declared themselves refugees of the fallen empire.[1]
Upon reviewing the cited work I was unable to find anything to verify the above statement.
The problem is not new but I don't ask you to change it into Gypsies. The problem is that in Romani language the word Romani is a adjective or the name of the language often spelled Romany. It is wrong to say The Romani. I found in this dictionary that they call themselves (as we, Romanians, also call them) Rom (sg.) and Romi (pl.). But in english it would be Roms. This is the best solution to stop the confusion around this term. Not only that people may think that this page is about Romanians (Români), but if you search Romans (from Roman Empire) in romanian Romani, you'll find this page which has nothing to do to Latin people. (There is the source: https://thevore.com/romany/). So I propose the change of the name of this page from Romani people to Roms. --5.12.32.52 (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
"Romani" isn't wrong - there are plenty of reliable sources that use that term (see here and here). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Cordless Larry yes, it is wrong. Just take a look here [6] and see here the adjective form and the name of their language [7]. Romany is a version of Rom, but Romani doesn't exist. See what a Madalin Voicu, Romanian politician who represent the Roma people said here [8]: In Romani language, they ask each other: "So san?", which means "What are you?" and he answears:"'Rom san!" not "Țigan (Gypsy) san!" . The Romani language dictionary says the same thing. I don't care how other people wrote their name. In Europe we call them Roms or Roma people. Just think about it. So they page title must be Roma people.--5.12.32.52 (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Romani does exist, for example in the title of the scholarly journal Romani Studies. In any case, Wikipedia articles are named according to what reliable sources refer to their subjects as, not what we as editors think is correct or not. You are free to write to the authors and editors of publications that use the term Romani if you think they are wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I repeat once again. Romani is adjective. So we write romani people or romani language or romani studies. Guess why. because it is an adjective. I said that the usage of "romani" (without capital letter because is not the name of the people) as a noun is wrong. All I asked was the change of the title from an adjective (romani) + a noun to a noun (Roma, the plural version of Rom). I ask that because 1. the pege Jews is not named jewish people; 2. it generate confusions (as I already described). I hope this is clear enough. Thanks! --213.233.85.125 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
IP 213.233.85.125, enough of this. Please read WP:NOR. This is English language Wikipedia, and we follow reliable sources, not personal interpretations of the nuances of a complex linguistic structure (i.e., the English language). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Romani people. 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:
I have just modified 3 external links on Romani people. 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:
The correct pronunciation is not roMAni. Everyone agrees on that, to my knowledge.
I have seen ROmani (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Romani). The evidence for that is not known to me. However, the Latin alphabet language in which the term is most used prior to the 20th century is (by far) Spanish, in which the acute accent (áéíóú) indicates the stressed syllable. In Spanish it is always Romaní, never Rómani.
My sugggestion is to write it here as Romaní. If someone has a problem with that, how can we prevent readers from pronouncing their name as roMAni? deisenbe (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
There is a note at the start of the article, for those who can use IPA. I've not seen "Romaní" used in English, and it would make the pronunciation little clearer for most English-speakers. We should not invent these things. So no. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Romani people. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
I have just modified one external link on Romani people. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
I've made some changes to the WikiProject tags on this talk page. Romanis might be found in Pakistan, Kosovo and other countries, but they are not indigenous to these places as in origin. As an ethnic group they are from around the Gujarat-Rajesthan region which is present day India and their language belongs to the same Indo-Aryan language subgroup as Gujarati, Rajesthani. I replaced WikiProject Pakistan and WikiProject Kosavo with the WikiProject tags of South Asia, Europe and the Middle East. They are found in the countries of all three continents. It would be too much to add the WikiProject of each country individually, so I added the WikiProject tags of the continents of these countries they are found.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Gogol Bordello
I wanted to point out that while the band is described as influenced by Romani music, frontman Eugene Hutz is indeed Romani on his mother's side. 85.35.90.50 (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Exonym
This is inaccurate. Many Gypsies would use the term as a form of self-ascription in the UK today (i.e. it is not a name that is appended to them from outside & that is historically true e.g. the C15 Egyptian narrative both told about Gypsies and by them?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrin100 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Removed. Another reference for this is the book 'The Stopping Places' (recently serialised on BBC Radio) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.172.41 (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
It isn't necessary that a term NEVER be used by 'insiders' in order for the term to qualify as an exonym, many, in fact most Germans, Greeks and Dutch living in Eng-speaking countries are going to use those terms to describe their origins when speaking to Eng speakers, nonetheless, all three terms are exonyms. Pincrete (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Well Exonym and endonym states that they are respectively 'used only outside' and 'used only inside' the place, group, etc. in question. I take your point about Germans living in England, but there is perhaps a distinction in that Germany and England are more closely equivalent (and essentially non-overlapping) concepts.
Indus Valley
I removed:
Mother Goddess figurines have been found in the excavations of the Indus Valley Civilisation in Mohenjo Daro and Harappa, in the Sindh – Punjab – Haryana area [Some Romani claim Punjab is their original habitat], and Mata Kali [Mother Kali] is still worshipped in India. Therefore,
There is a jump of several millennia between the Indus Valley Civilization and the Romani migrations.
--Error (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Context
I made the following modification:
Most Romani speak one of several dialects of the Romani language, an Indo-Aryan language, with roots in Sanskrit, and distantly related to the Persian and most European languages.
This seems pretty non-controversial but Govindaharihari seems to be bothered by these. The changes were reverted without any real explanation. What is the concern?
Maybe you should have said 'Farsi and other Indo-European languages'? 92.237.196.75 (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Removing Too few opinions template
I am removing the Too few opinions template from the article because there is no indication here or in the Comments of what opinions are missing. --Frans Fowler (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Partly done: I agree that the first sentence went past what was supported by the source and I inserted your sentence (with some small copy edits). The source for the second addition appears to be a self-published source, which is not allowed. If you want to refer to other sources, please reopen the request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Done (as an aside, please refer to the note at the top of this page regarding personal attacks) Illia Connell (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Not done: per above response. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Confirmed as correct. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Slovenia