Talk:Romani people/Archive 5

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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Photo verification

Can someone verify if the girl from "A young Romani woman from the Czech Republic (2005)" is truly Romani? She REALLY looks Indian (as in from India; and i know Romani can trace themselves to India, but she looks way too desi)

This has already been discussed further down on this page [1]. Also, Czech Romanies especially tend to look more similar to Desis than other Romanies. There are lots of Romanies, especially in the Czech Republic, who look very Indian. --Kuaichik 20:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll say here what i've said there to: There are a lot of 'Desi' Romani girls in Eastern Europe and some of them are quite beautiful. I was surprised to see that there were in Italy, too.--AKoan (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am the photographer who shot, cut, and uploaded the picture "A young Romani woman from the Czech Republic (2005)". I personally know the young woman and her family as she is my neighbour. I declare here and now, that SHE IS ROMANY, she considers herself to be Romany and I have never had any doubt about the fact. Is this sufficient? What other evidence do you want? How long will anybody call any picture of any pretty Romany girl into question?! BTW this has been discussed. --Anglos (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There are many Roma people that look "very Indian", I've seen some from Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece etc that look "very desi"....it shows their origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.202.233 (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I recently pulled into a service station on the M2 motorway in the UK and saw what looked like car fulls of Panjabi India getting out of BMWs with Romanian number plates. Curious as to how Indians came to be from Romania. Being so quizzed I first tried speaking to one of the young girls who was walking past me. She blatently ignored me and called over to one of the men (in Romani). The man came over and I asked as to where they were from and who they are and I discovered that they were Roms and not Panjabi as I had thought. Prior to this I would never have guessed that they were not Indian. Panjabi or similar to that. Definetely Desi.

Genetics section rewrite

As it stood, the Genetics section was a bit of a mess, and was really decipherable only by those with a background in the science. I have rewritten it to emphasise what I feel are the important points. In so doing, some of the material that was in the article (and which, in my opinion, served only to obfuscate) has been removed. Perhaps there is scope for a separate, main article on Roma Genetics which could go into more detail? Dinlo juk 12:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been reviewing some of the claims in the original Genetics article and, to be honest, they're not worth saving. Dinlo juk 15:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Your impressions correspond with my own. I've long suspected that there was a lot of dubious stuff in that section, but, not being a geneticist, didn't know how to go about pruning it. (And not for any of the reasons that the hot-headed Finnish guy takes exception to that section, but simply because of the inappropriateness of the overly-specialized tone and content, as you pointed out.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 15:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Another agreement here. The section was a jargon-filled mess, decipherable but just barely, and not all that useful. If that Finnish guy would stop calling us Nazis and deleting the section, we might be able to clean it up...K. Lásztocska 16:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've just noticed that Dinlo juk already cleaned it up. :) It's much improved, still could be better but it's a vast improvement over what was there before. :) K. Lásztocska 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to address genetics without using some technical terminology, but I'm trying to keep it to a minimum. It does need some more tweaking, which I'll tackle in the next few days. What I think would be a good idea would be to consolidate the sections "Origin and Language" and "Genetics" under one heading of "Origins" with subheadings of "Linguistic Evidence" and "Genetic Evidence." Dinlo juk 18:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, at least in some rudimentary fashion. K. Lásztocska 19:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've edited those sections to pull them together a little better and serve as a platform to build from. I've deleted a couple of images for the time being that were causing formatting problems (at least on my PC). This section would probably sit better after the "Population" section and before the "History" section. Dinlo juk 21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try finding a good place to put it...incidentally, this is a bit of a non-sequitur but what should we do about the picture for the infobox? There used to be a really beautiful portrait of three Roma girls in Bulgaria or somewhere, then it got yanked and we replaced it with a sort of montage, but now that's gone too and we just have the flag. It's a small issue, but it's been annoying me...K. Lásztocska 21:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that was a really nice photo... apparently it got pulled because it wasn't clear the photographer had given permission. It might be an idea to contact him. There's a link to a website where you can contact him in the "What the Hell happened to the photo" section. Dinlo juk 21:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

TO OP:Yeah its much better now, thanks for the rewrite! Hope it stays that way for atleast one week. Hope you can help me with that prick that insists on roma and crime though. A matter that already has been taken discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 15:24, 20 April 2007

Nope, I restored that section; though it may have been discussed, there's been no approval here of your unilateral removal of the entire section. +ILike2BeAnonymous 15:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The genetics section is now under the subheading "Genetic Evidence" with "Linguistic Evidence" under a new heading "Origins" Dinlo juk 17:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"tzigane" redirect

I've been wondering about that redirect for a while. "Tzigane" is a French word, and the so-named violin piece by Maurice Ravel is very popular and well-known. I'd think that most people who type "tzigane" into the English Wikipedia would be looking for that piece of music, not the Roma ethnic group. Shouldn't it be the other way around; "Tzigane" goes directly to Tzigane (Ravel) with a disclaimer at the top: "Tzigane" links here. You may be looking for Roma people or something to that effect? K. Lásztocska 19:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

After some thought, I would tend to agree. Dinlo juk 21:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. K. Lásztocska 01:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Tsigan / Tsigane (often spelt in a variety of ways) is a recognised title by many Romani, Sinte and Gitano (cigano) groups around the world and unlike the title "Gypsy" is actually used by by the Roms themselves. Its more likely that the violin was named after the people as this title in connection with Romani people goes way back and is very much a key item in plotting the course taken by the Romani groups. The same is with 'Kale' as this title is also common in all three groups from Eastern European Roms to Spain to Wales to Finland. Its likely that The Greek word 'Atsinganoi' which I'm told means 'people who do not wish to be touched / intergrate' is probably a reference to people of the Indian Hindu culture. In the ancient world Vedic people from India were known as Sindhi from the Sanskrit sin meaning water. From this word we get Hindu / Hindi and also India. Persians changed the 's' to a 'h' but the Greeks used both.

There were earlier Greek records of people called 'Atsinganoi' and they may have been an earlier Indic people. Perhaps left from Alexander the Great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsigano (talk • contribs) 10:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandals at it again!

I cant even turn my back for 5 min. before somebody is at it again. Now some prick wants to re insert crime a matter that has already been discussed. Cant some pro help me here? Or is it as useless as calling the cops when you need them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 20 April 2007

Blanking sections without discussing it on the talk page is vandalism. So yes, vandals are indeed at it again. K. Lásztocska 16:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Finnish guy, in case that went over the head, that last comment was to say that you are the vandal in this case. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about, but can't you at least be civil? Reading this talk page makes me cringe! Steevm 02:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It might help if you made it known who the object of your complaint ("you") is here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

you = anyone who cannot resort to the norms of social intercourse. I think those people know who they are :) Steevm 13:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Persecution section and the Holocaust

The suffering that the Roma endured in the Holocaust, or Porajmos as it is known to Roma, cannot be overstated. It was the culmination of centuries of persecution, which is still happening at an appalling rate today. It was exceptionally significant, such that it cannot be covered in depth in a general article about the Roma. That is why it has its own entry: Porajmos. In the Roma People article it more properly belongs in a general heading of "Persecution". Perhaps a way to keep everyone happy would be for the Persecution section be subdivided into sections with subheadings of "Historical Persecution", "The Porajmos" and "Persecution today" or something like that? Dinlo juk 17:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Persecution: half a million dead citation

The article quotes the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Research Institute as stating "between half a million and a million" died during World War 2, and someone asked for a citation. According to their website, they state that "up to 220,000 were killed." I believe the article should be changed to reflect this unless someone can come up with a applicable source.ndyguy 23:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Both the figure of 220,000 and the between "half a million" and "a million and a half" range have been attributed to Sybil Milton who was senior historian at the Holocaust Memorial Museum. As far as I remember, I've only seen the second one quoted by Ian Hancock as mentioned by her in 1997 and unfortunately, the reference is messed up in that publication.

Milton calculated the 220,000 figure in 1999 and stated explicitly that it was a conservative estimate and the true number was more likely to be closer to 500,000.

There are several other figures that have been published. They go as low as 90,000 and as high as 4 million, but most are between 220,000 and 500,000. I would go with Milton's 1999 range, but mention that higher figures have been proposed (1.5 m, Hancock) and that it could be even higher. Dinlo juk 01:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Article has been edited to reflect this. Dinlo juk 20:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ian Hancock uses in his writings the expression "up to a million and a half". I think it should be included also this in the main article, upped from the footnotes. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 20:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Dinlo juk 21:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I read again today the last article of Ian Hancock on this issue ROMANIES AND THE HOLOCAUST: A REEVALUATION AND AN OVERVIEW (yesterday radoc.net was down), perusing the reason for the uncertainity of the figure, like the habit of killing on spot, the identification of many victims as Jews (for example, a better known case is Settela Steinbach), the interviews by Romani personnel, in the years 2000-2004, who have obtained testimonials at first-hand from survivors and I'd conclude that "the genocide of the Roma in the East is still very much an untold story" (citing from this article). So I think that the expression of Ian Hancock should be on pair with that of Sybil Milton, of course keeping in mind not to transform this issue in a "Suffering Olympics". I will modify the text accordingly, but I welcome further debate. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I've added information to the footnotes to support this and inserted text to say who Ian Hancock is. Dinlo juk 10:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Rom not an endonym?

I deleted the section The term "Roma" recently made by 72.82.13.96, since this is a baseless statement. If there are reasons for that allegation, they should be written first here in talk page, since they are way too much against the mainstream. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Famous people of Roma descent

Is there any real need for this section within the Roma People entry when there is a separate entry for it? No disrespect to him, but does a football player in a team facing relegation from the English Championship League really merit mention on the main Roma People page? Dinlo juk 09:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, well said. Maybe a selection of some of the most important, if this would not create another issue (of who is more distinguished). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 16:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been mulling that one over and to be honest, I don't think it would be that useful. As it is, several of those mentioned are somewhat dubious... Dinlo juk 17:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then, I was bold and I deleted it, any further debate is welcomed. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ricardo Quaresma who plays for FC Porto & Portugal is probably one of the most famous people of Romani decent. Joaquin Cortes is another famous offspring.

Freddy Eastwood is actually English traveller and may have little Romani blood.

Roma and Crime section

I see that user MadeinFinland has deleted this section again. Like it or not, there is a widely-held, unsubstantiated view that Roma are prone to criminality. I'm also uncomfortable with its emphasis in the current form and feel that it would be more appropriate to mention this in the section on persecution. Dinlo juk 22:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I modified it accordingly, including your earlier suggestion of making subsections in the Persecution section. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I found a better idea from African_American#Contemporary_issues, I will rename the subsection accordingly. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a vast improvement. The entry as a whole is beginning to look quite good. Dinlo juk 13:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the revert of ILike2BeAnonymous, do you have any reasons for this? Can you show other article about an ethnic group at Wikipedia, that has a specific crime section? But much more important, what is the reason to present it like this? And the naming of "Contemporary issues" is not euphemistic, it's just about contemporary issues of the superior section named... guess what, "Persecution". Please do not revert until the issue is clarified. I made a reorganization of the "Persecution" section, so it is your responsability to prove that is wrong, firstly at talk page. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Roma People entry has been prone to vandalism, with sections being deleted without discussion. That much is clear. This is the second time in recent days that ILike2BeAnonymous has reverted an edit citing removal of a section when it has actually been recategorised. Is he checking the discussion before doing this? The crime section has not been removed, it has been reclassified.

Can you provide balanced evidence that roma people are more prone to criminality than other ethnicities? This has historically been viewed as an a-priori truism where there is no substantiation. For instance, right-leaning sections of the UK media report regularly about the "fact" of "gypsy" criminality when ethnicity of offenders has never been recorded in the UK. This is not an issue of political correctness, this is an issue of factual accuracy. Dinlo juk 20:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A source about the crime rate of Gypsies in former Czechoslovakia:

http://www.epolis.cz/download/pdf/materials_31_1.pdf

Overall Romany criminality was five times higher in 1984 than the rest of the population (in the CR?, CSSR?). In the long term it rises and starts in the younger age groups (Nečas, 1991). In the beginning of the 1990´s, when the data on Romany criminality became available, the share of Romany people in the overall crime rate of the CR was about 16%, while in Slovakia it was up to 28%, meaning that at the time of the split between the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, approximately each fifth accused was Romany. An especially large share was burglaries (22% of the total) and in so-called plain thieveries (19%). In Slovakia these numbers were 40% and 36%. There was also a considerable share of immoral offences, especially in the crime of sexual abuse (20% in the CR, 40% in Slovakia). The share of Romany people in violent criminality was in the CR 13% (SR 23%). (Socioklub, 1999). “…we estimate that 20-30% of the economically active Romany population makes their living illegally – by prostitution, peddling or other crimes against property. The adult prisons are by more than 60% Romany. (Říčan, 1998).8 In the beginning of the 1990´s, according to police statistics, in the territory of the former CSFR, 2% of those prosecuted were foreign, 82% were Romany people, and 16% natives; Romany people averaged half of the prosecuted and accused habitual offenders (Matoušek 1998). NOTE: In the early 90's, Gypsies made up less than 2% Czech and ca. 5% Slovak population. 82.100.61.114 14:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This only shows the discrimination against Roma, the lower chances for a normal lifestyle, the prohibitions for the normal expression of the Romani culture. In all the East European coutries during the Communist regime, the Romani minority was not recognized as such and suffered a strong assimilationist pressure. The same as in the other examples from the article Race and crime, the assimilationist pressure produces less chances for a normal life, while the racial discrimination induces higher penalties for Roma compared to non-Roma for the same guilt. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You have seen a Gypsy only on a picture - or are you a Gypsy yourself? What you present is a traditional left-wing rhetoric that lays responsibility for any minority's problems on everything except the minority itself. Any "oppression" is not an excuse for criminal behaviour. During the last millenium there was not any other European minority discriminated more than the Jews - and they made up the elite of every country in which they lived. On the other hand, Gypsies have been a nightmare for all European countries in which they lived. When they came to Europe for the first time, they were welcome friendly, but after their asocial and criminal "normal lifestyle" was recognized, they started to be expelled and were chased and hung. And be sure that today they have enough space for the expression of their "cultural pecularities". They utterly devastated new flats that were provided to them during the Communistic regime and "adapted" them to their living standards:

http://nigeldickinson.com/gallery/slovakiaroma/018_lunik_ix_kosice

Naturally, many of them don't bother to pay rent, and in fact, they don't bother to pay for anything. But if you want them to follow some civilization standards, it would be "racist"! Nobody - except noble souls living in Ivory Towers - wants to live with them, and even their own kinsmen, who have succeeded in the European society, have only the worst words for them. 82.100.61.114 19:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't speak for Desiphral, I'll leave that to him.

However, I'm a "Gypsy" who has succeeded in the European society and have quite a lot of good things to say about the people who share my ancestry. I feel sorry for you, that you've been influenced by this racist nonsense. Learn to question the "wisdom" people give you, particularly when it denegrates a specific group of people. Dinlo juk 01:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said, there can't be "criminal ethnic groups". Those who contend such idea are either people with socialization problems or nationalists who support the idea of a monocultural world. It is sad to witness the strength of this vicious circle of selecting only negative things about the Romani people and presenting them as the "true image of the Gypsies", a "true image" that spurs further negative selection. If the contemporary perpetrators of this vicious circle have impunity, at least they should think about the future, when, hopefully this nonsense will end, and their descendants will be ashamed of their ancestors' behaviour. When you say "new flats" this is just propaganda, even an outsider would question the truth of such statement, knowing the official discrimination of the state authorities. The origins of these blocks of flats are in the years of the Communist regime, when entire Romani neighborhoods were destroyed, to make way for Communist systematization projects and because of the Communists' paranoia about compact groups (they wanted a direct relation person - state, to control better the population). The Romani families were dumped in blocks, the least suitable on their list, hoping that in this way it will be crushed the strength of the Romani communities, that they will suit the "Gypsy image" and they will be compelled to assimilate. This presentation of the "Gypsy crime" is really schizophrenic, it has nothing in common with what is happening in the reality, it is an organized straying away from reality. About the comparation with the Jews, one should not forget that they live on a territory with a similar worldview, they and the local majority share the similar Abrahamic outlook. If our ancestors would have migrated towards East instead West, maybe we would have been also a local elite in China or Indochina, areas that share the same Dharmic outlook. An important thing here is that our ancestors were not accustomed with ethnic discrimination, this is something unknown in the Dharmic worldview. For example, the Jews in the Indian Subcontinent and China are the only Jewish communities never discriminated along their history, they just integrated as another caste, as some normal people. The so-called "friendly reception" in Western Europe was, in fact, a matter of life and death. Running from the Ottoman occupation of the Balkans, arriving in an unwelcoming Western Europe, our ancestors had to present themselves as pilgrims who lost the way to Jerusalem to win some time. However, soon the anti-Romani violence and the creation of the Gypsy image as a justifying scarecrow appeared also in the West. Nowadays it is out of hand a migration en masse to the Indian Subcontinent (because the local countries are overpopulated), so we are to stay in the areas we live. And to find out means to get out of this discrimination deadlock. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 12:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding, hmm? Have no doubt that I have enough personal experience with Gypsies to make my own opinion. And I will rather refrain from commenting this incredible, mendacious paragraph, otherwise I would be banned from Wikipedia for life. I have already read similar propaganda faeces, but this would need some expert in psychiatry! 82.100.61.114 12:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably, this is intended for those who wonder why the Czech Republic is one of the most notorious countries in anti-Romani violence. A person not looking too White must be really careful there, the skinheads and "concerned citizens" like this little Nazi scum have done already enough victims with impunity. Somehow the real life tends to be reflected also in this talk page. Before there was that conflict about the intent to lower the number of the Romani people in Romania and Bulgaria, because these two countries were accepted as EU members at the beginning of this year and they wanted to present themselves as European countries (i.e. European = no Roma). Now we have also a sample from the land of skinhead violence. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 16:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Desiphral, your statement only confirms that you have never been in Czech republic (and very probably anywhere east of Germany) and you base your fish stories on the mendacious propaganda spread in the world by Mr. Paul Polanski et al. I actually wonder, why our government didn't issue a warrant against this scoundrel, who blatantly slanders not only our country, but all countries in the former Communist Bloc. 82.100.61.114 22:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh...! Again, could I make a few comments (first to the unregistered user)?

Thank you. Many people have had personal experiences with Romanies but apparently know little else about the Romani people and make hasty generalizations (at least partly based on similar generalizations made previously). Romanies are not inherently unhygienic or criminal. They have strict moral codes and strict hygienic/purification-related rules, and many Roma have been banished from their respective communities for breaking these rules.

Romani crime is probably a much more complex issue than you think. Just a few examples from We Are the Romani People: Many Romanies are accused of crime just because they are Romani. Few (certainly fewer Romanies than non-Romanies) actually commit anything greater than petty theft. Some of the crime-related accusations against the Romani people are illogical, e.g. child-snatching (I quote from the book: "There is no evidence for this; it is difficult enough providing for our own [Romani] children").

Finally, forgive me for my ignorance, but I am not too familiar with this Mr. Paul Polanski. To me it seems like all he did (in the Czech Republic at least) was to interview Romani survivors of the Holocaust. Now what in the world is wrong with that?

Desiphral, I agree that many non-Whites (and probably not just Roma) have been murdered in the Czech Republic. But would you mind toning down the language slightly (in particular, "this little Nazi scum") and not stereotyping all of the Czech Republic ("the land of skinhead violence")?

Also, just a few nitpicky(!) details: Jews actually did suffer discrimination in the Indian Subcontinent, just not as often as in Europe. I don't remember any specific examples, but then again, there are not as many Jews in India as there used to be (due to the migration to Israel). And of course, not all Romanies used the "Egyptian" tag to get into Europe, though of course a good many did! (In fact, that tag was quite often applied by us ignorant gadže :)). --Kuaichik 07:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that keeping a cool tone is a must on this talk page. Probably, in order to keep a sane debate, this should be accompanied with a quick ban on violent users who depend on the Gypsy image to create personal reasons to live. This talk page should be under closer admin scrutiny. About the Jews in the Subcontinent, I was writing about the inexistence of discrimination from local Dharmic people. Probably you're reffering to the Goa Inquisition's persecutions against the most important Jewish communities, which happened to be nearby in Maharashtra and Kerala. About the "Egyptian" tag, I was writing only about the arrival in Western Europe, since this is the only case of a so-called "friendly reception" (and there alomst invariably presented themselves as pilgrims). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

People don't care if the Gypsy crime is "more complex" or anything like that; they mainly care of their wallets, if a gang of Gypsies enters a tram. This is already a Pavlovian reflex everywhere, where Gypsies live. Desiphral is obviously highly allergic to truth, but the truth is that just because of their highly disproportionate crime, Gypsies are universally hated in the whole Europe. And this is their own fault. Until they change their behaviour, they can't complain that they are "discriminated" and people don't want to be in their proximity. They only behave according to the experience. The probability that their mobil phones or wallets "disappear" in the presence of Gypsies is too much higher than in other people. Note please that their crime rate in Czech republic was at least 8-times higher than their share of the population - not speaking about that many petty crimes done by Gypsies are not reported by victims, because they know that it would be futile. Every sane man thus knows that if the geometric increase of the Gypsy population continues, some parts of Europe would be simply unihabitable. People from Eastern Slovakia certainly know it best. See also http://www.geocities.com/ociganoch/About.html 82.100.61.114 11:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I still hope for the day when the non-Romani populations of Europe will be able to stand on their feet and cease to depend on the Romani people as a scapegoat for their personal problems. Just to remember the reaction to a declaration by a Romanian, on evening February 10 this year, at OTV (a TV post in Romania), when he acknowledged the guilt for a crime that at that moment was attributed to a Rom who lived nearby. From the entire country poured phone calls to the Police and to the TV station, made by people considering that the Romanian guy was the hostage of the brother of the charged Rom (who appeared also at TV) or payed by him, or simply to support the Romanian guy. This shows the tough life a Rom has to live, the likelihood for being charged for a crime of another person, if the Rom happens to be nearby, the likelihood of non-Romani unity against him/her. I hope that it will become clear that it is a strong sign of abnormality and insanity this presentation of a so-called "Gypsy crime" exactly in an area that caused so much suffering to the Romani people. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 13:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The unregistered user has a thing about racial links to crime. See here. The unregistered status is possibly due to his being banned under his user name of Centrum99 Dinlo juk 13:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So what? The link between race and crime is just a notoriously known thing. And I was not banned. I am only lazy to register x-times a day. 82.100.61.114 22:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, really disturbing comments. Then let the user to talk alone and, if possible, to ban the IP. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 13:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My comments were disturbing, because I was disturbed by the censorship of two persons, who would like to paint a romantic fairy-tale, about how all people are nice and the same. 82.100.61.114 22:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

From the amount of discussion and controversy generated by this notion of the link between crime and the Romani people, it is clear that, regardless of whether or not a link exists, there is at least a prevalent perception of one. Obviously this link has not been proved or disproved to a sufficient extent that statement of such can be made in the article without people deleting, reverting and screaming back and forth at each other.

That having been said, it seems absolutely bizarre to me that an encyclopedia entry about a people would not even mention that, be it true or false, the perception exists among many that this link exists. --Springreturning 08:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Then the entry would express a bias supported by a "perception" as you too name it, unproved by real facts. The presentation of the perception currently appears in the article at Romani_people#Contemporary_issues: Roma in European population centers are often accused of petty crimes. To make an entire subsection of this, then it would be really biased. I didn't see at Black people a subsection about the "perception" that they have low IQ, at Jew about the "perception" that they do worldwide conspiracies, or at Han Chinese the "perception" that they are less potent and all the other current urban legends. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that this section is important in this case. The thing about the Romani people is that they are very much a lesser-known group, as opposed to ethnic groups about which even the general population knows a lot more (such as the Black people, Jews, or Han Chinese mentioned above).

Nowadays, very few people would dare to claim e.g. that Black people have low IQ, because such claims are well-known to be racist. But the racism in the claim that "gypsies" are "thieves, swindlers," etc. is not as well-known, since Romani Studies is a small field (in size). It is an error in perception that is still very common today, so it must be discussed. (In fact, the "gypsy image" has spread out from Europe even to places where there are very few Romanies (if any). Even in India, where the Romanies came from in the first place, you have films like Sholay in which "gypsies" are mistakenly presented in accordance with the "gypsy image." You don't see Africans portraying the Negritos of the Andaman Islands as "savage cannibals," or Israelis portraying European Jews as "cunning moneylenders," do you?)

In We Are the Romani People, Prof. Hancock discusses the issue of Romani crime in detail, analyzing the stereotypical views and pointing out logical fallacies in those views. I would like to see a discussion of that type here; I think it is necessary. As I had noted in a previous (now archived) post, I have begun to create such a section for this article on my soapbox. I hope I get to finish it and hopefully add it into this article! --Kuaichik 16:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I read your text and I think it is necessary to be added in the article. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry I didn't even notice this last comment of yours until today!! Certainly, I would like to add it in, but only after it's done. :) --Kuaichik 03:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a point of view to be considered. I try not to seem to be a racist or so. The word "gypsycrime" was nearly unknown in the communist era, but now is a commonplace in Hungary, though its root is rarely analysed by common people. In the 19th century, until pre-communist era romani people were tradionally did low-ranking, low-prestige work, like day-laboring, brick-laying. This is partly due to roma traditions, partly to poverty and lack of education, not mentioning some despise of better standing people. Many of these jobs became obsolete with the advent of modern mass-production. In the communist states romani people were employed mainly in heavy industry, like mining and manufacturing. After the collapse of communist block industry, these people were left without job, and qualification. The former worker districts and cities quickly became slums (of course, their inhabitants were not only romas). Moreover, as the side-effect of the change was an increasing nationalism and popularity of the far-right as it was suppressed for decades. They were target of excommunication, discrimination, and sometimes atrocities of Neo-Nazi groups. They were taught in "special" classes to keep them separated from the others. The segration conservated lack of education, thus poverty. The rest is very well written in "Roma in Central and Eastern Europe" article.

Another topic is demography (maybe I just didn't notice). It should be mentioned (I don't remember the study) the roma population has significantly worse life expectancy (about ten years) than the non-roma population. Best Regards, Valdez from Hungary (5 Jan 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.144.228 (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! Is that how the situation is in Hungary? I think in other countries, other factors play into antiziganism as well, so it becomes even more complicated than it was in such countries! --Kuaichik (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Languange and great weasel words

What it said: "Because of the differences in language and culture there has been a great deal of mutual distrust between the Roma and their neighbours."

Really? Here in Finland Roma speaks FLUENT Finnish and or Swedish. "GREAT" deal of mistrust or just mistrust? If we talk about those racist Eastern Europeans i would bet on great mistrust while here in Finland its minor mistrust (Thanks to what racists posts on pages like WP and likes to bring up old out dated stereotypes made up by racists) Both are correct so which one should we go for or both? I could quote what it says in the Finnish law (If you are interested, ill do it) You see here in Finland Roma dont see themselves as "Roma in Finland" but as fully integrated Finns! Just like Jews so have Roma been persecuted aswell so its unfair to give people the idea that the HOLOCAUST only happened to Jews and just like Jews so must Roma also fought for the cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

I am sincerely very happy to hear that the Roma in Finland are completely equal and integrated members of society, that is something all countries should strive to achieve. But PLEASE, for the love of God, stop labelling all Eastern Europeans as "racists"! It's getting really annoying and frankly offensive! Also please remember to sign your messages. ;) K. Lásztocska 22:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Read what it says about Roma and Eastern Europe on the main page, its persecution after persecution after persecution. But what do i know? Maybe TV, the newspapers and internet all told this great lie about Roma peoples situation in Eastern Europe?—Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

I agree there is necessary a better introduction to express better why the persecuton happen. Until then I delete the current phrase. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 07:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised you don't experience prejudice as a Finnish Rom... If that is the case, it's an exception rather than the rule. It's certainly not the case in other Western European countries. Dinlo juk 10:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Finland is different, during WW2 Finns, Jews, Swedes and Nazis were brother in arms. If you want to learn more: Jews_in_Finland —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

This Finnish website appears to disagree:

Unemployment is another major problem mainly due to the generally low level of education amongst the Roma and the widespread prejudice against them among the majority population. The Roma are mainly employed in social and health care, youth welfare, teachers’ training, information technology and entertainment.

The living conditions of the Roma have invariably been poor. As housing was one of their biggest problems, the state authorities have, since the 1970s, tried to facilitate the acquisition of homes by Roma families through housing allocations and low-interest loans. Despite these measures their housing conditions have not improved much and Roma still face discrimination in the housing market. Moreover, modern housing patterns have accelerated the break-up of the customary extended Roma family.

In addition to general prejudice in the fields of employment and housing, the Roma also face discrimination in access to restaurants and other licensed premises. Prejudicial treatment occurs even though the Finnish Penal Code, through an amendment adopted in 1995 (sections 11(8) and (9)), criminalises incitement to racial hatred and racial discrimination.

Dinlo juk 10:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That page is from 2004 the very same year Finland passed another law against discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

Yes, me too, I'd like to know an answer about this. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm yes, this is very interesting...MadeInFinland, you must be a very lucky Roma. :) (PS--wow, am I the only non-Roma working on this article right now?!) K. Lásztocska 13:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Did he/she stated the ethnicity? 86.127.129.62 14:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Finnish guy? No, just a probably foolish assumption on my part. Sorry! K. Lásztocska 14:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No source=Deletion, yes?

I thought every article, claim needed a source if im not mistaken?

Yes, sources are always necessary. Before deleting something though, first try to find a source. WP:SOFIXIT. K. Lásztocska 22:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Romani people

I think it is time now to have the correct heading for this article, which would be Romani people. Romani is the adjective, Rom(a) is the noun, while Romanes is the adverb and these rules are also applied in English. Roma people sounds like "Englishmen people". Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to mention that "Romani" and "Romanians" are two different peoples which have relatively little in common. This is and important difference as the two words are often confused due to their similatity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.181.24 (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--I was actually just wondering about that. :) K. Lásztocska 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Desiphral, those people are known as "Roma people" not "Romani people". This ist not the roma-language-wikipedia. --Olahus 20:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I still can't understand why "Gypsy" is bad, guys. That's a literal word, it's used in science. RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If we are writing in the English language then when writing Roma it should be 'Roms' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Related groups

Why are the Romani being emphasized as if they were South Asians? They are partially related, perhaps 1/3 to half their gene pool, but they left the Punjab nearly 1000 years ago and have intermingled with local groups and are culturally European or Mideastern (depending upon they live). Their ancestors' origins are undeniable, but these people have not been stuck in a timewarp. Tombseye 15:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Relation with other people

The user Tombseye keeps adding at the related ethnic groups section the Europeans and the Middle Easterners. I consider this as the usual assimilationist approach from Europe and Middle East, disdainful regarding the Romani culture, because it does not give an answer about the rejection of our culture in these areas. We are only used as abstract people when they need it, but in real life we are not considered the same as them because our culture is not accepted. How are we related to them? For example, I cite from the article THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CONTROL OF IDENTITY by Ian Hancock, including the case of Guyana in South America:

"One’s identity has to be evaluated in terms not only of what one perceives oneself to be, but also by whether members of the population that one sees oneself as identifying with also share that perception. And it depends, furthermore, upon the attitudes of the out-group, which is the third dimension; in other words, one might be attempting to become part of a population which has no intention of letting one in. On page 26 are the results of a 1993 poll which asked both the Romani and non-Romani residents in Kremnica, Slovakia, whether Romanies “should live together with Slovaks and have the same living conditions as Slovaks have.” One hundred percent of the Romanies said “yes.” Ninety one percent of the Slovaks said “no.” In the late 1970s, Guyana--an English-Creole-speaking South American country with an almost entirely African and Asian population--mounted a national campaign to reidentify itself as a Latin American nation. It did this because of its location, and for reasons of regional trade. The rest of Latin America, however, did not see Guyana as being in any way a part of their cultural and linguistic world, and the attempt withered and died."

I didn't see at the article about the Japanese people at related ethnic groups section the Austronesian people (that partly share the same ancestry and genetics). I'm sure that there are many other examples. Wait... a survey in Romania 2 years ago found that half of the non-Romani population has Romani ancestors, some even with entire Romani ancestry. Do you imagine writing at the article of the Romanian people, Hungarian people or other Southeastern European people that they are related to the Roma? We assimilated some of them, they assimilated some of us, but the populations remained distinct. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What? I have never heard of this study, can you show the references/sources Hancock use for this? I, myself a Brazilian, have absolutely no animosity towards Guyana and its people, nor have I ever met a Brazilian that shared the views Ian Hancock portrayed. This is bogus, as every single nation in South America has a distinctly different culture, some with more distinctly Amerindian influences such as Peru and Boliva, while others more European, such as Argentina and Chile, and others more African. If anything, the Spanish speaking nations have more rivalry between each other than with nations/territories of other languages such as Suriname, French Guiana, Brazil and Guyana. However, Guyana has a culture more associated and similar to that of the Caribbean, but that wouldn't normally impede trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.193.225 (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Another good example: at the article Jew you will see related ethnic groups only the "Arabs and other Semitic groups" (although during the centuries they mixed with other people). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

We're presenting REALITY not personal views on assimilation. As far as the Romany in Spain, they identify with Spaniards culturally. Secondly, the Romany are then their own group as I still do not see how they are "South Asian". Perhaps you are projecting a globalist perspective of linking anyone with some South Asian ancestry as being part of some collective and thus reducing their individual identities yourself. The Roma are, if nothing else, their own group and judging by their languages and own self-identification, perhaps we should just remove the section on related peoples if we are going to ignore the fact that they are, whether some care to admit it or not and whether Europeans and Mideasterners around them see it as such, related. AS for the other analogies, the Japanese aren't quite as close to the Austronesians as the Roma are to Euroepeans. And what do you mean us? Are you somehow representing the Roma yourself here? The article on the Jews is wrong as well. They are related to Europeans, which is obvious as the Yiddish language is Germanic and not Semitic. If one precedent is wrong, then so are the others. I say we either remove this related people entry or make it accurate, i.e. include the fact that the Roma are related to their neighbors. And for the record many have assimilated and even if they have not, their culture is not even remotely South Asian. Tombseye 18:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

We're presenting REALITY not personal views on assimilation. Are you somehow representing the wishful thinking assimilationist view here? What do you know about Roma to consider them non-South Asian? Do you happen to know about the purity rules or the way the internal separations are envisaged? The answer that "the Yiddish language is Germanic and not Semitic" is really dilletantistic. Write this first at the Jews talk page to see if there is support to relate the Jews with the Germans only because of this. The culture as a whole matters, while the cultural elements themselves are able to be assimilated from one cultural area to another. This world is multicultural, there are more cultural areas, but they are not stable and undisturbed monoliths, focused only on preserving their external appearances. The assimilation of foreign elements does not necessarily mean the corruption of the personal culture. I really did not expect such an answer based on personal suppositions about how do you think it would be the reality. Further, I am displeased by the way you avoided to answer the issue of one way relationship, i.e. we should be related to them, but they should not be related to us. Did you go to the articles Romanian people, Hungarian people or other Southeastern European people to tell them to consider the relation with us? You even put the Europeans first, deleted the Desi, you really seem to make the Romani history here. Please do not revert until this matter is solved at talk page. You contend it, you have to prove it first to have the right for any change. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's easy. Look at the genetic tests. They show definite European admixture. Culturally, they follow Christianity and Islam and interact with Europeans. Culturally, the Romany are European, NOT South Asian. Next, the Roma are really only related to SOME South Asians, specifically those of the Punjab, in Pakistan. If all of this isn't evidence, I don't know what is. You are focusing, wrongly, on how Europeans have treated them, in large part due to their itinerant lifestyle. The wanders of Ireland haven't been treated much better. Plus, racism or perceptions of racial purity on the part of the Nazis. Just b/c the Nazis don't think they are European doesn't make it so. Living in Europe makes them Europeans NOT South Asians. This is an inaccurate assessment. As for the Jews article, I don't see why this can't be done for both SIMULTANEOUSLY. Now answer these questions: are the Roma related to Europeans by blood or not? Do they or do they not often speak European languages around them? Are the Roma not culturally similar to the Europeans they live amongst (also the Middleeasterners as well)? These are simple criteria. I'm not saying they aren't related to the Punjabis, but to simply link them to south asians is absurd just based upon this basic criteria. We aren't here to fight persecution or debate assimilation. That is in fact bias. We are here to write about who the Roma are and that's all. Not what they should be or how you think they all think as I think it's safe to say that views vary. Tombseye 05:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You either did not understand what I said before or you rejected it disrespectfully without giving a proper answer. So, first of all, an ethnic group is defined by the culture and this is also the point of view of the Romani worldview. The Nazis are best known for supporting the genetics as the base for ethnic identification, when they killed persons even with just a Romani or Jewish granparent. Persons who many times had no idea about their non-German ancestry, otherwise fully integrated in the German culture. You present again some cultural features assimilated by the Romani culture that give you no right to say that this culture was assimilated by the Europeans. I'm asking you again: do you have any idea about the Romani culture, about its basic tenets? Plus the other issues presented before that you did not answer yet. We are not culturally similar to the people we live amongst, every source will tell you this. Soon, when I'll have time, I will present also the reasons for putting at the religion section the Romanipen (Romaniya), instead the religions written now there. Until then you may read this about how we use to assimilate features from local religions. From your contributions I see you have a strong interest in the Muslim people from Southwest Asia, and here I see you have a problem with our South Asian culture, so maybe you are not the right person to judge who we are, you seem to be influenced by your POV. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well conversely, you seem quite biased if your point is to distance the Roma from Europe based upon the history of discrimination. And you have not answered my questions. I meant no disrespect, but you are presenting a biased perspective tainted by a wrong approach. The Roma are also not South Asian by culture, but are their own group, as are MANY people in Europe like the Sami. Living in Europe for centuries makes them just as European as others. Yes, I know of Roma culture, but it is multifaceted and varies from region to region so that some used to show a link to Indian religion (the worship of Kali) as well as the Dharmic view of reincarnation whereas others don't. In fact, the Roma show clear signs of a fusion culture with elements of the Punjab (and I wrote much of the Punjabi people article so I don't know of what "bias" of mine you are referring to) mixed with Middle Eastern and European traits. I don't have a problem with South Asian culture, whatever that means as it is a very broad region. I still do not see how the Roma are South Asian as they don't live there and left centuries ago. Are the Hungarians Central Asian because some of their ancestors were nomadic Magyars? Come on. Try to be a little objective here rather than accusing me of bias which you have yet to prove. I want academic perspectives in wikipedia and not nationalistic ones. When I wrote Iranian peoples I had to content with Iran centric views which I filtered out as much as I could. If that makes me biased, then so be it. Tombseye 13:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to present a distanced view from Europe, I just show what is the reality. It is pointless to compare Roma with the Hungarians or Saami. They are accepted as Europeans by the rest of the people from Europe. Roma are not, probably because the local majority doesn't want to accept the existence of other cultures? Our desire is to integrate in the European society, as people belonging to the Romani culture, since we respect it strongly. So, integration but not assimilation. Something like the Desi Jews or the Parsis could integrate in the South Asian society without any constraint to assimilate from the local majority. We are Europeans by geography (in fact also Americans, Asians, Africans, Australians), but not by culture, as long as our culture is kept aside. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And I don't base my argumentation on the discrimination. That is a side effect. The fact is that we are closest to the South Asian worldview. We respect purity rules, endogamous caste system, the marriage is conducted in a South Asian way (many times including arranged marriage), we call those of our age brother/sister and the elders uncle/aunt, the respected members of the local community decide the local issues the same as the panchayat and many other important things. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't base your views on discrimination then why are mentioning that the Sami are accepted as Europeans? Kind of contradictory don't you think? And you are lumping all of the Roma together as if they are a collective. Many are culturally as European as any locals. And this does not address why Europeans and Middle Easterners are not included as related to the Roma. Caste and arranged marriage exist in other European cultures (or did moreso in the past) so what does that prove? I'm not saying they aren't related to, really the Punjabis rather than all South Asians, but they are ALSO related to Europeans and Middle Easterners. Thus, why are you excluding that aspect of the Roma? Tombseye 20:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

With your style of diminishing the arguments, don't you think we may consider the Roma related with every other ethnic group on Earth? I think it is obvious you have a problem with the South Asian culture. You consider the Europeans as a whole, but you separate the Punjabis from the South Asians (btw there is no reason to relate Roma specifically to the Punjabis), the Roma are as as a whole when you like it, but separated in assimilated and non-assimilated when you don't like it. Personally I think it is a waste of time what are you trying to do and I see you are not committed to present the truth. You may see that every article on Wikipedia presents only the culturally related ethnic groups. Even the Afro-Americans who, unlike the Roma, do not have the continuity of the community social life from their homeland to the contemporary location, even them are related only to the African people and some of them with the Native Americans. Why Native Americans? Because there appeared ethnic groups like the Black Seminoles, who are meaningful from the Native American point of view, while there did not appear Afro-American groups meaningful from the White or Asian point of view, although they have enough of their genes too. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 21:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a silly devolution of what I said. I mentioned TWO other regional groups, Europeans and Middle Easterners and you extrapolate that to all of Earth? Come on. I have a problem with South Asian culture and that's why I helped write Punjabis and Sinhalese? Really? How about keeping your speculative opinions about me to yourself and stay on topic. To the contrary, I think you are the one who is not committed to rational thinking. You are promoting a single mode of thought based upon a history of discrimination that discards other links the Roma have. In fact, it is wrong for Europeans to exclude the Roma and your way of thinking simply cements that rigid approach. They aren't just genetically related and you know it. And honestly, do you really think the Roma, who were likely a low caste group, didn't face discrimination in India? Does that mean someone else can remove their relationship to South Asia then? This requires some neutral arbitration and other input as you aren't being flexible and purposely mischaracterizing me to suit your own rationale. Tombseye 01:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I continue to say that you have a problem with our identity. You do anything to minimize our South Asian identity and to create a so-called European and Middle-Eastern identity. You do not even answer to the questions accumulated until now, questions about real life, you seem to be concerned about your personal thoughts and about how to make them reality. There is a strong tradition to use the Romani people as abstract persons for the interest of other people, sezing the opportunity of our minority status, and to dump them when they are not needed. Your project of Europeanization and Middle-Easternization (btw, this is OR, start a NGO or a party if you want to promote your ideas) would mean only an assimilation as second-class people, never the same as our nieghbours, because we would not quit our culture. We have in mind an integration in the countries we live, but only as people belonging to the Romani culture. This would be feasible only when our culture would be accepted as normal in the areas we live, when Europe or Middle East would mean also the Romani people, when they would be trully multicultural areas. You do anything in an arrogant manner to discredit us for your purposes, to find resons for a so-called non-South Asiannes, like naming us low caste, when our ancestors are Rajputs from the kshatriya varn. Again, if you minimize our cultural features common with South Asia, saying that also in Europe there are traces of them, then in every other ethnic group on Earth there are traces of cultural features that may resemble the South Asian ones, so after your thinking we should be related with every ethnic group on Earth. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, there are numerous people who believe the Roma were possibly of low caste as well as being Punjabi Rajputs, but that system is archaic and frankly meaningless anyway. I don't know why you would get so agitated over a theory. Secondly, as per your argument below, I can see how one might see this as a situation in which the Roma are European and thus it is not necessary to reiterate this, BUT perhaps a better solution is remove the section on related peoples then as with Greeks and Albanians. Secondly, Ian Handcock does acknowledge that the Roma are derived from many people so your jump at throwing accusations at me is simply childish. I have no "project" and I was simply trying to find a solution to this recurring problem on wikipedia. Instead you seem to be taking this personally, which makes you very unsuitable for this article. Try to calm down and speak with some semblance of rationality. My final suggestion is that the related groups section in this case is not necessary and it may be a good idea to get rid of it in other articles given its inconsistent usage. Peace. Tombseye 19:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as for me, I'm waiting from the very beginning for a sign of rationality from you. Initially, you grossly downplayed the Desi relation, then you chopped and selected only the Pakistani Punjabis that seem to suit your area of interest (but who are not the closest related to us, our ancestors come from Uttar Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh area, see [2]), now you present this link where Ian Hancock writes that our ancestors have been made up of many different jatis from the very beginning and afterwards they assimilated also outsiders to support your view of multiple relations. Those many jatis were all Desi, firmly crystallized into the Romani people, and then we assimilated some local people also, that's no sin in it, I told you before what means a genetical approach in defining somebody's culture. When you can't fulfill your desire you suggest to get rid of the related ethnic groups section. You may take it as you want, but I consider your fluctuations for achieving your goal as a violent approach, it is really undesirable to play with a group's identity in this manner, to take advantage of our contemporary political weakness, we are not your puppets. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 20:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind if I make a comment on the Indian/European identity? In We Are the Romani People, Prof. Hancock includes two chapters: one called "How Indian Are Romanies?" and another called "How European Are Romanies?" Admittedly, the first is longer than the second. In the first of these two chapters, he cites various customs, spiritual beliefs, etc. and their Indian parallels.

In the second, however, he also argues that Romanies "are quintessentially European," since they not only have lived in Europe for centuries but are spread out throughout Europe. And I also quote (from Ch. 6, "The Gypsy Image"): "A millennium after leaving India as an already-mixed people, there are no Romanies anywhere in the world - just as there are no non-Romani populations anywhere - who are genetically pristine." --Kuaichik 05:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what I say until now also. We are quintesentially European by geography, but also American, Asian, Australian, African, we live on every continent (and Prof. Hancock reminds this also, with his example of asking how European are the Peruvian Roma). We are related to the land we live and we have to uphold this. We have also some genes from our neighbours. But this does not mean we became them. The Turkish minority in the Balkans has lived there and mixed also during many centuries with the local European Christians but nobody would think to say that they are related with the latter. In our case this approach is a just a lack of respect by individuals who think they can use us for their purposes. They have no beneficient interest in our people, using even lies to estrange us from other Desis (like saying the old story of low caste). No other ethnic group's article on Wikipedia presents such related groups on this basis, only in the Romani case it is tried the geographic and genetic criterion hoping that our weak political status would help their purposes. This approach would only officialize the discrimiation towards us, the rejection of our culture, since it would not suppose a counterpart relation (I told it before, in Southeastern Europe, many of the local non-Roma have Romani genes, cultural borrowings, linguistic influence from Romani, but I don't see them relating to us). Right now we are not recognized as Europeans by the majority of the people living in Europe, our culture is not accepted as normal. We have to struggle that our culture become an accepted part of the broad societies in the areas we live, this I think is the right focus. Only the Yeniche people qualifies as both Desi and European (the meaning limited only to the old European populations) culturally (in fact, probably mainly European, with Desi cultural borrowings, but I wouldn't venture further in describing them, since I don't know too much about them), but they are not recognized as Roma. If we would be in South Asia, we would have no problem in socializing there, we have the same fundamentals of the mentality. The Yeniches would have some idea, but they would be really dilettants, while our non-Romani neighbours would not understand most of the Desi cultural features. The same as the other Desis, we respect purity rules, we are pure culturally the same as in the day we left the Subcontinent. Now don't tell me that we borrowed some words from our neighbours, since they borrowed too from us, and they did not become Roma (or see the above case, Slavs, Turks, Roma and Greeks living for centuries side by side in the Balkans, yet they did not become the same). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific, we are not related to the Europeans, we are Europeans, the same as Americans, Asians, Australians, Africans. The related approach only underlines the discriminatory approach that does not recognize us as citizens with full rights and duties, but only as second-class people, imagined as permanent (uninvited) guests. Trully related we are only with the other Desi. Living on a territorry does not make a people automatically related with the other local ethnic groups. It has yet to be recognized that European means also Romani people, besides the local non-Roma. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 12:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! :) Yes, certainly, I agree that the Roma are no more related to other Europeans than the Parsis are to other Indians. Indeed, if only "Iranis" are listed as a related people to the Parsi, why should Europeans and Middle Easterners be listed as peoples related to the Romani? Right? --Kuaichik 05:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User MadeinFinland and deletion of sections

Sections cannot be deleted without discussion on this page. Please stop doing so until you argue your case. Dinlo juk 08:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No source = Deletion, WP rules. Otherwise anybody could say this and that if there were no proof needed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

A more appropriate course of action is to check the claims yourself. There is a large amount of information out there on the forced assimilation of the Roma. Dinlo juk 09:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the burden of proof is upon those that wants to prove a thing, not others. MadeinFinland 22:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Christian

Holocaust is Holocaust

Why do you people try to downplay what those NAZI pigs did during WW2 against the Roma people?? While its true that more Jews were killed in Nazi camps than Roma people but the Roma were not that many for starters so in % counted more Roma were exterminated than Jews.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

There is no downplaying of the Porajmos ("devouring" in Romani). It has its own entry on Wikipedia, to which the reader is directed from this page. The Romani People entry is intended as a general introduction to Romani issues and, as such, the Porajmos belongs in the broader context of Persecution against the Roma.

There may be scope for rearranging the "Relations with other peoples" section, bringing "Persecution" to a higher level, but you cannot unilaterally rearrange the sections or delete them without discussion.

Also, please sign your posts. Dinlo juk 10:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Does MadeinFinland mean that most of the people have no idea about the word Porajmos? My survey about this issue found the next things: the entry Shoah is redirected to The Holocaust (as if it would be only about the Jews), in the introduction of the Holocaust's article the Roma are in the category "many other people", the template {{The Holocaust}} is again monopolized by the Jewish side. My conclusion is that a lot of work has to be done to give the proper representation of what happened to the Romani people during the 2nd World War.

As a matter of fact my class mates or i never heard the word Porajmos mentioned when we were in school, the teachers said HOLOCAUST and thats exactly what it was. You are downplaying the HOLOCAUST of Roma people if you name it Porajmos. Jews wants it to sound that they were the only ones persecuted which naturally is a total lie. If you want to know more click this: Holocaust—Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

Regarding the deletion of the section-name "Relation with other people", I'd lean too to the same opinion, to keep "Persecution" (including "Assimilation" as a subsection) as a section au pair with "Origins", "History" etc., and to make another section for "Romani people by geographic area". The current naming would suggest that the relations with the others can be described only as conflictive and also that Roma would be some (uninvited) guests in the countries they live, that those countries are only of those "other people", and Roma some second-class citizens. In the latter section there should be described the problems rezulting from the non-acceptance of the Romani people as citizens with full rights and duties (depending by coutry or area), but also the actual specific in every area, the Romani contributions to the local ethos (again a lot of work to be done in this field too). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that pretty much ties up with my opinion. I suspect it would leave MadeinFinland happy too. I suggest the heading is also renamed "Persecutions" to reflect its heterogenity Dinlo juk 10:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I rearranged the sections' tree. Regarding the issue of choosing either Holocaust or Porajmos for that section's heading, I don't know how it would be more appropriate. To put Porajmos, because right now this is the only wiki article that deals with the WW2 genocide? To put Holocaust, because people don't know about Porajmos? In the second case, however, neither in the Holocaust article is written about the suffering or the Roma. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks good, but the Geographical Areas section needs work. With regards to Holocaust/Porajmos... Why not name it "Porajmos (Holocaust)" or something like that. That way, everyone knows what we're talking about and that we are talking about the Romani experience of it. Dinlo juk 11:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the Holocaust refers to all genocidal deaths during WW2, whereas Porajmos refers only to the genocide of Roma. So, focus, not downplaying. Some Jews also use/prefer the terms Sho'ah or Ha-Shoa over holocaust. As for replacing "Relations with other peoples" with "Persecution" would that not suggest that the only relations Roma have with other people comes in the form of persecution? Roma are more than permanent victims. Relations with non-Roma are far more complex than that would give them credit for. - TheMightyQuill 23:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no continuity from "Relations with other peoples" to "Persecution". The "Relations with other peoples" which indeed is a complex issue has disappeared as a (too) broad section, that previously has misinformed the people by the limited subsections it had. The "Persecution" section deals only with the persecutions, that are important to have a distinct section of their own (see also the Jews, they have also one). There may be envisaged a distinct "Relations with other peoples" section, but I think that it's scope is already included in other current sections (purity rules, presecution, cultural exchanges etc.). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 05:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

May i insert Roma in Finland?

You know parts of the article is very depressing as it is, how about some good news? I mean why do you treat me like i was a child and revert me edits almost all the time? Whats the deal here?

Speaking as one who has reverted edits of yours in the past, I can tell you that one good reason is that you have insisted on major deletions and addition of material without explanation nor good reason (like your continued removal of the entire "Genetics" section). So if you feel as if you're being treated as a child, perhaps it's because you have acted like one at times. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You make major alterations to the article, almost always by deleting whole sections, without any discussion why you're doing it. Latest example, you deleted a photo from the genetic evidence section of Spanish Gitanas in 1917 without any explanation. There may be a very good reason to delete it... I personally think it's unrepresentative, but you've not discussed it and argued your case. Such edits will always be reverted.

A section on the Finnish Kale will be extremely welcome. There's scope for a main article there as well. Dinlo juk 09:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The photos does not represent a fair and balanced view of the Roma people, say what? I see photo taken 1917 thats some 90 years ago! You can call me almost whatever you want just never call me a vandal, what i do is that i remove articles filled with weasel words and racism you see i use common sense maybe they dont teach that in hebrew schools anymore? I dont know. And the HOLOCAUST is still the HOLOCAUST.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

Wait a minute, you are really unpolite here, in fact coming after a succesion of other anti-Jewish remarks. If there are some problems in the Holocaust issue, this does not give you the right to accuse an entire people. You're doing the same discrimination you accuse. I'll just add a quotation from ROMANIES AND THE HOLOCAUST: A REEVALUATION AND AN OVERVIEW for a balanced view and as a disclaimer about keeping distance from views like those of MadeinFinland:

"While it is true that all of the ‘minimizing’ rhetoric originates with some Jewish authors, I must hasten to add that most of the arguments in support of the Romani case originate with Jewish scholars too; indeed, almost the entire body of research on the Romani Holocaust is the result of Jewish scholarship. Despite the naysayers, the Jews are practically the only friends we have, and we recognize that." (by Ian Hancock)

Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti Jewish remarks?? Playing the race card i see, will you also accuse the Romani people for the Lebanon war?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

Romani People by Geographical Region section

We could do with some additions to this section. Does anyone have any suggestions on geographical regions to add as subheadings? France? Germany? Italy? Benelux countries? Scandinavia? Dinlo juk 11:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, probably something like this. I'd add also the subheadings Commonwealth of Independent States, North America, Latin America, Oceania (i.e. Australia and New Zealand). I'd suggest to drop the first repetitive part of the subheadings "Romani people in..", to remain only the geographic area. The construction of these subheadings would involve a lot of work, mostly in searching for sources (and currently I don't have so much time personally), so I'm thinking to make some stub subsections. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

However, I don't know if all the sections proposed for Europe would be imporatant, for example Benelux. Probably if there will appear sourced informations (since the population there is small) then it should be tried a Benelux section. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 16:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Roma boy in bear costume

I don't know why the boy in this image may be considered of Romani ethnicity, so I propose its removal. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you suspect he's not Romani?

There are two other photos that I think could do with being replaced. The image of Spanish Gitanas from 1917, and the photo of the woman begging outside a church in Rome. While it's undeniable that poverty has been a recurrent feature of the Roma, these photos paint a stereotype that doesn't really need to be reinforced. The photo of the Spanish girls is historically interesting, but it doesn't really belong in the genetic evidence section. Dinlo juk 09:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

He does not have... let's say, stereotypical Romani features. But this is not the problem, since there are many Roma with non-stereotypical physiognomical features. He is playing an originally non-Christian ritual with uncertain origin, performed on the New Year's Eve, by both Roma and non-Roma in Romania, dressed as bears. It is not something that would qualify somebody necessarily as Rom. Many non-Roma who imagine the Roma as Gypsies, include also non-Romani persons who look strange, unusual in the Gypsy category. And the main problem here is that the person who took the picture "immortalized" a (probably desired) Gypsy angle, presenting him as smoking happily. It is the usual habit of selecting and presenting only bad things about Roma (some even not pertaining to us, as probably in this picture) to create a negative image. Small things, like this one, that amassed enforce the bigger Gypsy image, which further feeds a vicious circle. Things that most of the time exist also among non-Roma, just there is not this negative selection. For example, among non-Roma in Romania there are a lot of children using to smoke, but they are considered just some naughty children (... or Gypsies, as it may be in this case). So I support to get rid also of the other two photos. There are enough normal things to be presented about Roma, like, for example, the hardworking Romani craftsmen. In Romania, the caste names show the craft or trade the specific caste is doing, like Căldărari (cauldron crafting), Aurari (gold crafting) Argintari (silver crafting), Florari (flower sellers), Lăutari (singers) and many others. I think this would be a normal way of presenting the Roma. I hope I'll find the time and the external sources to contribute in presenting things like these. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 18:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos for use in entry

For a while, the main photo on the page was an amazing portrait of three Romani girls. It was deleted because it was identified as a professional shot and it wasn't clear that the photographer had given permission for it to be here. The photographer was Vasilis Artikos and the photo appears here.

In discussing the deletion it was mentioned by user Istvan that:

"There is, of course, an outside chance that Mr. Artikos was the one who posted the image, in which case he may be willing to release copyright, but a pro photographer is almost always loathe to do this."

I took the liberty of contacting Vasilis Artikos, asking whether he would be happy for the photo to appear in the entry. He replied:

Dear *****

I give you the permission for use my photo with pleasure.

I would place my name with the photo and inform me the place of wikipedia will be.

Thanks a lot!!!!

Now, I'm not particularly experienced at uploading photos to WP, perhaps somebody could do this for me? I propose the photo is placed where it originally was. Dinlo juk 08:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded it at Image:Romanigirls(Greece).jpg. Now you may inform Vasilis Artikos about its location. Right now I'm not sure which copyright tag is appropriate for this photo. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just one small question, since this arose with a recent edit: what is the exact title the photographer gave this picture? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted! The photo's title is "Girls of Gypsies" Dinlo juk 20:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Since that makes absolutely no sense in English (the photog is obviously not a native English speaker), I'm changing the caption back to "Romani girls", without the quotation marks. It doesn't have to be the actual title of the photo, just a descriptive caption. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, what about this photo, what should be the appropriate tag? I think the admin who deleted it was overzealous. It would have been appropriate just to point to the right tag. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why was it removed, and who removed it? I thought that we had gotten permission from its creator to use it here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright laws? Please explain!

We cant copy and paste an entire article even if its 100% fair and balanced? So how come that people can copy and paste an entire WP article and post it like it was theirs on web pages?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 May 2007

It's the difference between plagiarism on the one hand (swiping material and sticking it into a Wikipedia article) and web scraping, the somewhat slimy, but legal practice of copping Wikipedia content and putting it on one's site (as on many sites which scrape content from Wikipedia). +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Guess it will make my major edits about Romani people that lives in Finland much more difficult but ill do it whatever it takes. MadeinFinland 21:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Christian

"Romanes" as an adverb???

The "Etymology" section currently says

... while Romanes is the adverb.

This can't be correct. An adverb modifies a verb; for instance, in "the boy looked longingly at the Romani girl", the word "longingly" is an adverb (modifying the verb "looked"). There's no way, so far as I know, that the word "Romanes" could be used as an adverb. Somebody must have made a mistake in that sentence. Can someone who knows please check this? +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Word by word, translated in English, Romanes means in the Romani way, manner, or *Romanily, if you want an English counterpart. In the Romani language, it is used more often than it would be expected in English, in contexts like xuravel pes Romanes ("is dressing in the Romani manner") or del duma Romanes ("is talking in the Romani manner"). In fact in some dialects, the expression Romani chib ("Romani language") is much less used than Romanes. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Btw, what did you think Romanes is? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that; maybe you could work some of that into the etymological explanation, as it's bound to be confusing for others as well. (By the way, the idiomatic English phrase would be "word for word".) +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks too. I added some explanations in the entry. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Prof. Hancock's book We Are the Romani People could be cited as a reliable source for this claim. If it is appropriate to cite this claim using that book, could somebody cite it as a reference? Otherwise, maybe I'll do it some other time (provided it is OK and not unnecessary). --Kuaichik 05:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Romani girls picture! What gives here ?

Cant post pictures of young and handsome Romani girls? But pictures of old ugly women are ok? Dont we understand eachother yet? Yes, no? And you ask me why im so angry! Anti-jew remarks? Well guess if my best friend is a jew or not. Come on i give you two guesses. Never in his life has he played the "race card" you see we are all equal here in Finland, i know this fact may come as a shocker to evil racist Eastern Europeans.

Like i said what gives? I want that picture back now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 May 2007

I've had enough of your guff. You're behaving like an ignorant shithead, and I have nothing to say to you until you stop. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

For once we agree shithead!—Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 19:50, 5 May 2007

Fair and balanced pictures?

I dont think so. Guess that picture of young handsome Romani girls were too much for Eastern Europeans to handle. Fair and balanced pictures please! Old ugly women are not fair and balanced. And why do i have to ask for permission every god damn time before i edit something? I mean who are you? Who gives you more right than me?—Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 20:28, 5 May 2007

Because you are nothing more than a little teenager with a chip on his shoulder, who obviously has few people he can talk to so tries to vent his frustrations by vandalising wikipedia. If you can't handle the truth about what you are as a Gypsy, then maybe you should do something constructive in life to change the facts, rather than try avoid them. --Hayden5650 08:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To user Hayden5650: you are pretty new at Wikipedia and it seems you did not learn yet to behave politey. You're responding with the same disdain. If you can't stop your anti-Romani feelings don't come here to preach about how the Gypsies from your imagination are. Plus, this page is about Roma, not Gypsies. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oxford dictionaries define Rom (plural Roma) as 'a (male) Gypsy'--Sdoerr 16:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My personal feelings, whichever way they may lean, have absolutely no bearing on how I edit an article. I do get extremely angry though when a little vandal continuously vandalizes an article. I sense alot of selfhatred resonating from MadeinFinland --Hayden5650 08:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of photo from entry

I asked an admin for clarification about this issue and, unfortunately, permission for us to use the photo is not enough:

The image is a professional one that is copyrighted. You have the photographer's permission, but we're not allowed to use images with permission, because it restricts the use to our website. We must either claim fair use (which wouldn't be appropriate for an image like this), or ask the photographer to release the image so it can be used by anyone for any purpose. He would retain his copyright, and he can insist that he is credited whenever it is used, but anyone, commercial and non-commercial alike, would be able to use it, including derivative use i.e. they would be allowed to crop it, add it to a teashirt etc etc.

If you want to ask him to do that, he would have to e-mail you with these words: "I am the copyright holder of this image (link to image) and I hereby release it under a Creative Commons Attribution license." You would then forward that e-mail to permissions at wikimedia dot org. Then you could use the image in the article.

I think that's a lot to ask from Mr Artikos. It's a shame, it being potentially such an iconic photo, but it's not a request I'd be comfortable asking. Dinlo juk 11:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not even a representative photo, they look nothing at all like your average Gypsy. Or roma as you call them. It would be like me having Arnold Schwarzenegger and Miss World as representative photos for the white race. --Hayden5650 12:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So, where can I find one of your "average Gypsies"? The stereotypical pictures we've so far seen are the equivalent of illustrating an entry on "white" people with pictures of filthy, drunken homeless people. The photo in question does not portray unrealistically attractive people in any case. Dinlo juk 12:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been searching extensively for some good photos of Gypsies that will be considered NPOV and I must say it is quite difficult. --Hayden5650 12:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

About the new vandal kid on the block, Hayden5650: after the insertion here of the phrases "They are known throughout Europe as being associated with pick-pocketing, stealing, begging, and scams. But, it is unclear what percentage actually engage in these activities.", it became obvious this user has some problems, so I perused a bit his/her edits. I found that in the second month of activity had added at the userpage this boasting boxes later removed by a concerned user. Most of the edits on articles are in controversial topics, like Holocaust, Roma, Jews, Homosexuals, expressing extremist disdain. The rest (besides some edits about the New Zealand) are concerned about the Nazi regime and its followers. So, I don't think there is much weight one should put on the opinion of this user. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 12:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please try to be a little less ignorant when writing replies. With regards to the user boxes, at the time I did not know how to create them, so I copied the code from an admin page and pasted it, however before I got a chance to change the details it was deleted. This was promptly cleared up with an admin. Perhaps you should do a little more indepth research in future before making such accussations. And I did not create the pickpocketing etc phrase in question, I simply reinserted it. As it is very true, it is a common stereotype or assumption that people make about Gypsies. It was not making a statement that that is indeed what they do. As I have stated previously, my own personal beliefs have no bearing on how I edit an article, unlike your wee Gypsy friend MadeinFinland. I actually feel sorry for you, as personally I am nothing but proud of my race, but you both seem almost in denial about whom you belong to. I hope that in time you stop the self hatred I feel you are harboring. Wikipedia is lightyears from being a NPOV source of information, I just hope I can help. --Hayden5650 12:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate if you stuck to editing subjects you have some knowledge about. Dinlo juk 13:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a video with a typical Gypsy woman from Northern Moravia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5XfGWQHEpU

It is illustrative for a better insight into the Gypsy culture and the realationship of Gypsies with native European populations. 82.100.61.114 13:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is illustrative about the prejudices of the non-Roma, that select every negative aspect they find and present it as "typical Gypsy". The usual racist crap... You want to say that you can't find a non-Romani Northern Moravian getting drunk? And afterwards to present her to people outside Czech Republic as a typical Northern Moravian non-Romni? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Gypsies in New Zealand

There are none, however will get the reference tommorrow and write a proper paragraph. --Hayden5650 13:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What's this? Dinlo juk 13:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats is where your wrong. I am a romani gypsy and i live in New Zealand. I think there is about 20 or so here. Toby Keet 04:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Roma Genetics

I am also going to start a page on Romani Genetics, as unlike some it seems, I was able to understand the original 'scientific' Genetic section just fine. Also for such a unique society in terms of ancestry, I feel such an article will be very interesting, especially tracing the roots back to India, Pakistan, etc. All material to be sourced from world renowned research of course though. --Hayden5650 13:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with the original "scientific" version, was that it was largely nonsense. I felt justified in re-writing it as I am a geneticist and was able to review the data in the original papers. There are three items of interest in tracing Romani ancestry to the Indian subcontinent, and they are covered in sufficient detail in this entry. Dinlo juk 13:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It just seems to be Hayden5650's moment of glory, thinking about being an important person, by making waves here. However, I am asking him/her: don't you think it is pitiful to base this self-boasting exactly on the people you despise? Don't you think you depend too much on us, you prop-up on the Romani people? Where is your identity? You're just a non-"imaginary Gypsy"? So, I wish you a strong be yourself! and get a life!. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There exist certainly more articles on Gypsy genetics than only one

1) L. Kalaydjieva et al.: A newly discovered founder population: the Roma/Gypsies. BioEssays 27:1084–1094, � 2005

2) B. Morar et al.: Mutation History of the Roma/Gypsies. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 75:596–609, 2004

3) D. Gresham et al.: Origins and Divergence of the Roma (Gypsies). Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69:1314–1331, 2001

4) L. Kalaydjieva et al.: Patterns of inter- and intra-group genetic diversity in the Vlax Roma as revealed by Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages. European Journal of Human Genetics (2001) 9, 97 ± 104

5) M. Nagy et al.: Searching for the origin of Romanies: Slovakian Romani, Jats of Haryana and Jat Sikhs Y-STR data in comparison with different Romani populations. www.sciencedirect.com

It should be noted that there exists a genetic difference between Sinti and Roma. While their maternal base is the same, Sinti have a predominance of the male R2 lineage, while Roma posess almost exclusively H. 82.100.61.114 11:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you back that up? I've seen a figure of 53% R2 for Sinta, which can be traced back to the Wells et al paper in PNAS. Unfortunately, the figure relates to 8 individuals out of a sample size of 15... so we're talking massive error bars. H is also represented.

Roma are around 50% H. Dinlo juk 13:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that the article contains information on "Sinte Romani".

6) S. R. Wells et al.: The Eurasian Heartland: A continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity. www.pnas.orgycgiydoiy10.1073ypnas.171305098

But the predominance of R2 in Sinti was proved even by Gresham et al.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1235543&blobtype=pdf

Spanish Sinti (27) - Lithuanian Gypsies (20) - Bulgarian Lom (39)

H (VI-68)...........18,5%.....................50,0%.........................66,7%

R2 (VI-56)..........33,3%....................25,0%........................12,8%

R1a1 (VI-52)......14,8%......................5,0%........................12,8%

R1b (IX-104).......22,2%....................10,0%.........................5,1%

So far it is not clear to me, if Gypsies also brought some R1a1 with them from India, or if it is only a European admixture. Since Spanish Sinti went through North Africa and there is virtually no R1a1 present in Spain, how could it get to them? 82.100.61.114

Gresham et al looked at Kalderash and Gitanos, but not the Sinta.Dinlo juk 15:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't specify, which group they actually studied. But you are true. Spain is inhabited by Gitanos, who came from North Africa, and Kalderash, who came from Central Europe. I don't know, where I read it, but I used to think that the majority of Spanish Gypsies are Sinti. In any case, I would say that the Gypsies studied in the article were rather Gitanos, who make up the majority of Spanish Gypsies. The high R2 and low H is not a sign of Central European/Balkan Gypsies. 82.100.61.114 23:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry for butting in here but from my understanding there is no evidence to support that Gitanos travelled via North Africa as they left no remnents and the only Romani people in North Africa now came via Europe at a later date. It is possible that Gitanos mixed with North African Moors who moved to Spain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you have your terminology correct? Looking at the paper, Gresham et al define VI-68 as a delAT mutation at the M82 locus, which is indeed the H-M82 lineage. However, they define VI-52 as an A-C mutation at M170 (which looks like haplogroup I to me, not R1a1); VI-56 as A-T at M67 (which looks like J2a1b, not R2); IX-104 as A-C at M173 (which defines all of R1, not just R1b. R1a1 looks to be IX-108, defined by delG at M17. These look like geneflow from surrounding populations after they split, but again the sample sizes are too small to attach much significance to the frequencies.Dinlo juk 13:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure. I haven't read the article in detail, I only looked at the results and guessed the modern nomenclature from the description of the archaic terms. I am sorry, but I have ca. 630 articles about population genetics on my computer, and I still haven't been able to read them all. Hopefully sometimes in the near future I will complete a big web site dealing with population genetics. But still, your news are actually a big relief for me, because I didn't know what to think about the high percentage of "R1a1". 82.100.61.114 14:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

USER:Hayden5650 at it again

Vandal Hayden5650 tries racism again...... this time i leave it to the pros. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

"Sedentarize"?

Another nitpick: currently, the "Assimilation" section says

In Austro-Hungarian Empire under Maria Theresia, a series of decrees forced the Roma to sedentarise, removed rights to horse and wagon ownership [...]

First of all, is "sedentarize" even a word? If it is, it certainly isn't one ever used in idiomatic English. This must have been put in by one of our many non-native English speaking editors, who probably meant something else. (I presume this means something along the lines of "being forced to abandon a semi-nomadic lifestyle".) There's got to be a more appropriate word for this. Anybody?

While I'm at it, a note to these same editors: in English, it's customary to include articles before names, so it should read "In the Austro-Hungarian Empire ...". Hope this helps. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A 'Sendentary Civilization' is 'Not Migratory', that is, they do not migrate. In other words, sedentarise would mean 'to settle'. Not sure about the grammar of that word though, but it sounds wrong. --Hayden5650 06:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that's pretty much what I said.

The word "domesticate" comes to mind ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This page on Patrin describes the same thing, using the word "settle." So, would "settle" perhaps be a preferable alternative to "sedentarise/sedentarize"? I suspect that "sedentarize" is, in fact, a word, but if another term is preferred, I have no objection to it being used. --Kuaichik 06:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, "sedentarize" is what I call a "verbification" of a noun; a real word in theory, but extremely dubious. So "settle" is better, even though it's a bit weak and vague. Probably better than "domesticate", which is more often applied to animals than to people. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "settle and be assimilated"? I guess it sounds a little awkward, but if you're worried about the vagueness of just the word "settle," maybe this will help explain it a little better...And while you're at it, why not add the word "the" before "Austro-Hungarian Empire" ? :) --Kuaichik 06:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll second the use of 'settle'. It sounds much more appropriate than 'domesticate', as they have never really done that, nor was it the order of the Empire. --Hayden5650 06:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I stand (sit, actually, being sedentary at the moment) corrected; "sedentarize" is, unfortunately, a real word. I don't care for it (it's an academic monstrosity), but won't fight it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sedentarize" is the correct and most appropriate word to use in this context. It is used specifically in relation to the transition from a nomadic lifestyle to one that is permanently settled. The word "settle" does not convey this.

See for example this link.

"Settle and assimilate" is not the same as "sedentarize", as it is possible to sedentarize without assimilation. "Domestication" is specifically the adaptation of animals or plants by selective breeding for use by society. Yes, that would be insulting.

Oh, and ILike2BeAnonymous, do you think you might be able to edit typographical errors in future without an EFL tutorial? Dinlo juk 09:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In answer to that last, no, not really: these aren't typographic errors, which are mistakes made by typing fingers, but usage and grammatical errors. Let me put it this way: if, by some chance, I were to edit the German Wikipedia, I would fully expect to be bound by the rules and conventions of that language, and to be "mercilessly edited" as they say here, with no slack given me because I don't happen to be a native German speaker. It's the editor's responsibility to know correct idiomatic usage of the language they're writing in. (Substitute whatever your native language is here ...) +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, believe it or not, it was a typographical error, made by my fingers, as a result of typing too quickly in my native language (English). Dinlo juk 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; in that case, all is forgiven (chalk it up to "happy fingers"). +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sedentarise or Sedentarize

Where is the rule on Wikipedia that says we must use American English spelling? Americans butcher English through their lazyness.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayden5650 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 9 May 2007

Great; another editor who can't seem to make a statement without deliberately offending some ethnic, religious or national group.

By the bye, speaking of "lazyness", it's normally spelled (or spelt, if you prefer) "laziness". +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into a debate about the merits of each system, consistency is appropriate here. Moreover, the "-ize" suffix is acceptable in British English and prescribed by the Oxford system of spelling. Dinlo juk 11:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but I'd (also) like to apologize for suggesting "settle and be assimilated" instead of "sedentarize." Dinlo juk, thank you and najis tuke for clearing that up! --Kuaichik 05:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Extreme errors in history

You say origin is in India. Correct answer is Turkey! May i shock and awe people by a total historian rewrite on this one? (I got proof too )—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

The evidence for an Indian origin is overwhelming. If you have evidence that counters this, post it here in the discussion and it will be considered. Major edits made without consensus are liable to be reverted. Dinlo juk 09:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes i do have a link but its not in English but would it be OK if i posted it and you could use a translator programme to check it out? And sorry if i sound so angry, some people here are so mean. There are clearly people here with bad intentions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 May 2007

Really interested WHY in Turkey?!. RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk)

Fictional represenation???

FU! How about Bush and whites? No wait a min. that wouldnt be fictional! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

MadeinFinland, please use less inflammatory language, that way others may take you more seriously. You are achieving nothing by constantly vandalising the article, as you unsourced and POV edits will be reverted every time. Also, before any major changes are made to the article, you must discuss it here on the talk page first. I really am quite surprised you have not been permanently blocked yet. --Hayden5650 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

LESS inflammatory language you say..... what do you think that made me so angry in the first place mr. Hayden5650? You know i dont get it either why the hell they let a person like you post on WP. I know your type prick.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

How to contact a REAL moderator, neo nazi vandals as usual

Those fucking neo nazis revert and revert my contributions all the time, so whats the point unless i can speak with a REAL moderator? Some of those people ya know should perhaps get a visit from me and my best friend who also happens to be a JEW he speaks Nazi languange too (Not German but by force)! So A-hole dont come here and say that i make anti jew remarks when you know shit about me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I hope by "Nazi language" you don't mean the German language. German is a fantastically rich and quite beautiful language in which has been written some of the greatest poetry in the Western world. Also, I don't understand your frequent references to Jews (unless you think we're all antisemites as well.) Please grow up and learn to discuss matters in a mature and civilized fashion. K. Lásztocska 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your contributions are limited to the deletion of entire sections that you don't like or don't understand. You refuse to discuss your concerns about the entry... many of your attempts at editing in the past have no doubt been for legitimate reasons, for example the stereotypical photos and the undue emphasis on crime. When the subject was discussed properly, edits that you appear to like were made.

Your use of language is completely inappropriate as well. Try to swear less and stop calling people Nazis. Dinlo juk 10:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have my Zyklon B ready. Get off wikipedia, I don't care about your ethnicity or religion, only facts, which is all that counts here on wiki. --Hayden5650 07:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why dont you just leave Zyklon 2 B boy Hayden? "Very funny" Hayden! Zyklon B......! Guess you go loco unless you cant see black, white and red at the same time? Facts? What do you know about facts my little friend with very very very short hair?

"very very very short hair?" Is that an insult in Finland?? K. Lásztocska 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

MadeinFinland

MadeinFinland, you seem to have made a special bond with unsourced information. I realise you may cherish that bond, but as an impartial observer I can see it is clouding your judgement. Perhaps you should edit some other articles that hold no sentimental value to you, so then you may get a feel about what NPOV editing is all about. --Hayden5650 10:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody that double clicks your nick should have enough info but dont let that cloud your judgement! There are other people you can hate for no reasons whatsoever. Hate another day, today we are too tired. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Anyone else who feels that MadeinFinland should be blocked from editing here, because of persistent edit warring, virtual vandalism and just on general principles of making life extremely unpleasant here, please discuss here below. I'm serious about this, about taking it to someone who can slap a (temporary) block on him. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Support permanent banning MadeinFinland continually disrupts articles with both unsourced and POV edits and unexplained deletions. Then when questioned on the discussion page, is downright abusive and completely immature. --Hayden5650 11:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Support a temporary ban: Since this is starting to look like a poll, I propose a ban, but a permanent ban is pretty draconian. Let's not go overboard here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Support temporary ban. Permanent ban is too draconian, but he's one of the most disruptive editors I've ever seen in all my time here. I would suggest a temporary ban followed by probation--if he returns from the ban and continues calling us all Nazis and referring to all Eastern Europeans as "evil racists", he's out of here. K. Lásztocska 23:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Well, he has been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia twice already. Maybe he should be permanently banned; I don't know. By the way, I know an admin who takes care of vandalism on all kinds of pages. He's Indian (sort of like me), so in a way, this page is relevant to him. I was wondering whether I (or someone else) should ask him to take a look at this page? --Kuaichik 03:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, go ahead and ask him. K. Lásztocska 13:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Support a 30-day ban - This page attracts more than its share of disruption (Remember the Worclaw Troll?). When a bad actor shows up, the page starts to fall apart. Therefore I support a long but not permanent ban. Note that such a ban is not for speech that some (self included) find offensive - this is a free-speech zone, after all. It is for observed disruptive behaviour. If MiF is also found abusing sockpuppets or other such rulebreaking then a permanent ban is warranted. István 14:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

MadeinFinland (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a period of 3 weeks on account of his disruptive editing. If he continues to edit war and make personal attacks, you could consider opening a requests for comment.--thunderboltz ^(TALK) 14:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hiding the Romani identity

Since this the current meeting place of most of the users interested in Romani topics and there is no current project for the Romani people, I'm pasting here a short essay I had to write to defend the truth against the habit of hiding the Romani identity, from Talk:Anton Pann:

"It looks like I got into another problem with the Romanian users and in another mirroring of the discrimination and racism from Romania. I told to the user who suggested Category:Romanian Romani people that I use to stay out of anything involving Roma and Romanians, including the very racist and innacurate article Roma minority in Romania, because most of the time it determines verbal violence from some of the Romanian users and revert wars. It did not last long and it appeared the first problem involving the Romanian Romani people. And, as usually, the Gypsy is guilty.

Here the issue on stake is that Anton Pann is the composer of the Romanian national anthem's music, plus an appreciated writer in the Romanian language. Of course, this did not match the Gypsy image and and many Romanians' racist dream of a pure European culture, so, until recently, his ethnicity was presented as Romanian or not named, to be assumed as Romanian. It is something usual in Romania that most of the positive things regarding the Romani people to be appropriated as Romanian or Hungarian, while many negative issues of the Romanians or Hungarians to be presented as Gypsy. The vicious circle of hiding the good things about the Romani people and branding them as backwards is mirrored in a very low number of Roma declaring the true identity (2.5% in the last census, while the estimations of the reality are of 10-12%). Recently, after it began to come out that Anton Pann was in fact Rom, it appeared also a theory that he was not the actual composer of the national anthem (allegedly, because he published it later, when the song was already popular) but the one who merely published a popular song. [3]. I consider that it is the time to recognize that we have also a contribution to the culture of Romania, that the work of Anton Pann is part of the Romani culture and, if you can accept his real ethnicity, also of the Romanian culture.

Now, coming back to the evolution of this issue at Wikipedia, after the insertion of Category:Romanian Romani people and other Romani categories, the user Bogdangiusca made an edit putting on a second plan the Romani ethnicity and the fact that he was born outside Romania, in the Ottoman Empire. Then, when I corrected the due importance of these two issues, he reverted and added an info coming out of nowhere about a Greek mother. This is the first time I learn about a supposed Greek mother, while the obvius reason for this was to dilute the Romani ethnicity, by putting as first the Category:Greek Romanians (the Greeks being considered more acceptable, as they are Europeans). A google search "Anton Pann + Greek", or in Romanian "Anton Pann + grecoiaca", "Anton Pann + greaca", "Anton Pann + grec", although it gives enough results, it doesn't say anything about a Greek mother. Everytime it is presented the Romani ethnicity or the alleged Romanian ethnicity. Even if the mother was Romni coming from a Greek speaking area (as the father is many times named as Romanian too, because he was from the Kalderash caste, a Romani caste crystallized in Romania) or even ethnic Greek, this has less importance, because, in the Kalderash tradition, she married young and after marriange she became part of her husband's caste, accepted as Kalderash Romni, spending most of her life identifying as Kalderash and rigurously respecting the Kalderash purity rules.

I reverted back, asking for sources, but then Bogdangiusca put again his version, writing contemptuously "is it that hard to ask on the talk page instead of reverting me? please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith". Good faith is for the newbies and it certainly does not replace a need for sourcing such unknown allegation. I mention that this user is an old one, now with almost 30,000 edits, even an administrator. The previous edits and reverts were done without any edit summary, although it can be seen that, in other cases, he usually makes them. Together with the last comment they express the usual racist contempt and lack of desire for communication of may non-Roma from Romania. It is not the first time I have such problems with such users, every time I had to write such short essays to support the reality, and to defend it against disrespectful attacks. I ask the Romanian users who do not share the views of Bogdangiusca to do something for creating a sane debate and for allowing a normal presentation of the Romanian Roma on Wikipeida."

Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This post has reminded me of something. Why is there no Wikiproject:Romani people? It would make it far easier to keep track of Romani-related articles and to make improvments on them. Just a suggestion. The Myotis 06:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I had this in mind, just until now I distributed my available time to make new very necessary Romani related articles and improve the older ones. And somehow, I was thinking about creating a Wikiproject when there will be presented more about real Roma not about Gypsies, since now many articles are in a sorry state. But in fact this may not be necessary an impediment. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Desiphral! I am a Romanian (an unusual one maybe:) ) and i have to say that what you said about Romanians its pretty much the truth: most of the Romanians are racists to the core. And its not just the racism but as i got to know other nations i think that the Romanians are one of the most intolerant people in Europe, generaly speaking and against the image that they have of themselfs. And this 'way of being' accentuated after the revolution as the situation in the country deteriorated.

I see that you know very well the situation in Romania, so you're probably from Romania, too. I have tried to balance some of this racism against Romanies, but because of lack of time and other reasons i didnt do it as much as i wanted to. I'll try harder:) Your comment attracted my attention because of the story related to Anton Pann.. i watched myself this ridiculous attempt of making him Romanian or denying him the paternity of the National Anthem and he is just one example. We were told at the music lesson how great Barbu Lautarul (1780-1860, the 'godfather' of Romanian traditional-lautareasca music) was, how impressed by him was Franz Liszt when he met him, but they never told as that he was a Rom. I saw recently another attempt of denying the ethnicity of Grigoras Dinicu. I am absolutely sure now that there were more 'great Romanies' in Romania whos origins were lost because of this phenomena.

About the hiding the Romani identity, we both know that this is a very common thing among the Romanies who get integrated into the Romanian society (and they are not few!). I have a lot of colleagues and friends who are clearly Romanies, but that would get upset if i would mention this thing. And considering the hate of Romanies that exist in the Romanian society these days and the image they have you cannot even blame them. As you said, most of the Romanians identify the Romanies on how they correspond to the stereotypes. A 'dirty' Romanian will be made a 'gypsy (ţigan)', while a well behaving Rom wont be considered a Rom any more. And so its no wonder that most of the Romanies are 'bad'. And what complicates even more the situation is the fact that this is happening unconsciently. I know very racist people that dont even realize that they have Romani friend and even relatives who are Romanies, because they dont fit to the 'gypsy' image! Not to mention the integrated Romanies who pretend to be Romanians... and hate the Romanies too!!! Yes, you probably encounter this, too!

Any way, its a problem with many faces, and i dont know if ration will ever beat the instincts, but we can only hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKoan (talk • contribs) 14:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Neuter Gender in Romani?! Pshaw!

From the History Section: "This [Teljaripe or Exodus from India] occurred between 1000 and 1050 AD. This departure date is assumed because, linguistically speaking, the Hindi words that are used in the Romani language have a neutral case, whereas most neutral words were converted to masculine in Hindi after about 1050 AD."

Uh...no, they don't! Romani, just like Hindi, has only two genders: masculine and feminine. I quote again from We Are the Romani People, Chapter 1, "O Teljaripe: The move out of India." "...Romani has only two [genders] and, what is more, its nouns that were originally neuter have virtually all become new masculine nouns in Romani just as they have in Hindi and other languages still spoken in India" (emphasis added). --Kuaichik 23:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I never read entirely that section, since at a quick view I saw it has major problems and need serious changes, like many other articles about Roma (which I can only improve step by step, depending on my available time). I put there what I wrote before about this issue at Romani language#History. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 09:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Desiphral...you had agreed that this assumption on the date of migration of roma based on gender factor in language was wrong.....Long time has passed since then...why haven't you changed it yet???Is there any genuine historical evidence linking Roman migration to Mahmud of Gazni's invasion? Also to the claims that they followed hinduism and served the temple of Narasimhav? --jitblitz 16:25, 16 Jan 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jitblitz (talk • contribs)

Vote on Racial History

Do Roma Fit the category of Population groups of mixed ancestry? The answer is obviously yes, but Desiphral seems convinced that if you go back to the time of Homo Neanderthals, everyone was of mixed heritage. I think we can all agree that this is being very pedantic and just plain dumb. So let's end it here and throw out the political correctness. --Hayden5650 11:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes they belong in the category. Mixing has occurred constantly throughout recent history, therefore it should be in the category --Hayden5650 11:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No Of course the Roma have mixed ancestry, as do almost all populations, but the purpose of categories is to provide useful links to articles about peoples who are defined as "mixed", like Mestizos, Mulattos Blasians etc. if you are going to add the Roma, you may as well add the French or the English to the category, since these populations are also of mixed origins. Paul B 11:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No The Romani people are no more mixed than the Normans or Anglo-Saxons. A mixed ethnic group does not originate in any one geographical area. For example, it is incorrect to say that the Mestizos "come from" Europe or Latin America. But it certainly is true that the Romanies come from India. Also, may I point out that there have been numerous genetic studies done on the Romanies showing that the Romani people are generally most closely related (genetically) to Indians (specifically Punjabis and Rajputs)? --Kuaichik 14:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes The Romani mixed with every ethnic group/race from India, Persia, Arabia, Europe and the Americas. Each Romani subgroup has a unique ethnic and cultural identity, aside from their Indo-Aryan origins. Relir 21:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
No While there has been limited gene flow from surrounding populations as is the case with every ethnic group, the dominant and key defining feature of the Roma is their Indian heritage. There is little value in defining them as mixed. Dinlo juk 09:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No. Calling an ethnic group 'mixed' is redundant. Unless two or more specific genetic groups play an equal role in the identity of said cultural entity, the label is meaningless and could apply to any ethnic group. The Myotis 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes Even if other the fringes of other ethnic groups mixed, as is alleged above, none have mixed on such a great a scale as the Roma. They definately belong in that category. Even the (former) genetic section shows quite clearly that there are many other ethnic bloods clearly visible in the Roma. --202.124.103.146 23:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
No I'm given to understand that the category as it stands is supposed to include "culturally mixed" groups (which aren't as common as one would think- influence is one thing, complete amalgamation is another), not "genetically mixed" groups (which applies to virtually every ethnic group apart from small undiscovered ones in the Amazon, I guess). Dewrad 00:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes They are not even accepted in India, let alone any other country. They may like to think of themselves as Indian, however real Indians do not consider them Indian.
No Roma are no more genetically mixed than their immediate neighbours, and likely less so as Roma have existed outside their host societies for centuries. It's a moot point anyway; discussing "mixed origin" is a fruitless lightning rod for disruption. A (competent) presentation of (published) genetic data, alongside linguistic evidence, indicating geographic origin is the proper approach. This fits the purpose - i.e. informing those who want to learn objective facts about the subject, not a hodgepodge of conflicting opinions. István 17:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes Per Relir's statement above - I agree with it completely CanadianMist 21:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

New block for Hayden5650

This user well known for disrupting behavior just came back for a blocking (more info at User talk:Hayden5650 and User_talk:125.237.116.59), but it seems he did not corrected the demeanour ("euthanasia of Jews"). Personally, I gave him an initial advice, then I made a presentation of who this user is. However, the verbal violence increased (just to mention Romani issues), or repeated abusing words like Gypsies, Negroes and so on. Now he is following me in my edits, opposing me, in all kind of fields he has no knowledge about, like also in this mixing issue (more info about it at User_talk:Desiphral#Disruptive_Edits). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 12:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See the holocasaust talkpage, I can't be bothered copying and pasting every argument --Hayden5650 12:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And as for the use of words like gypsies and negroes, those words are accepted here. In NZ, if Romani would be interpreted as Romanian, ie from Romania. Gypsy is the used term. And as for Negro, well what else would I say? --Hayden5650 12:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: delete of texts from talk pages: [4], [5]. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 12:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! Desiphral, all I did was initiate a debate on the talkpage about a category. You have turned it into a personal attack war. Please try to remain civil, like what civilised races do, who by the way invented the internet which you are now so happily using. --Hayden5650 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Now this issue may be discussed also at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#New_block_for_Hayden5650. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Phrala, I realize that you are annoyed with Hayden5650's differences of opinion. In fact, so am I, to some extent. But the evidence you provide mostly just shows that he does not agree with you and that you have become opponents. He has made a few personal attacks, I suppose, but I wouldn't say anything so serious as to result in a permanent ban. Rather than talking about banning other users, I would suggest a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Unfortunately, I might not be able to join in; I'm rather busy with research, and my temporary editing spree (see the top of my userpage) might come to an end today, or sometime pretty soon. (Of course, I'll try to edit later, but who knows when that might be?) --Kuaichik 14:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Phrala, the time for a cup of tea was already, as I presented in the history of this case. I don't get how somebody can talk to a person who only makes inflamatory and disruptive edits for some months. I was expecting a quick block even after the expression "euthanasia of Jews". I consider this verbal violence is much beyond the annoyement level, this kind of opinions is not admissible. I don't know on what basis such user may be considered part of the community. Plus, this user did not change the behavior after the precedent block, no improvement. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that when a user starts bandying phrases such as "like what civilised races do" around, the time for a cup of tea is over. I'm relatively inexperienced at the Wikipedia thing, but I assume there must be a no-racism standard. No-itsme 01:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that for many users the specific repeated racism against Roma is not part of the standard and probably it will receive also an official endorsement if the appropriate measures will not be taken in this case. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 09:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

From the Romani point of view, the Holocaust and the Nazis are no joke, but a painful memory of our direct relatives, while the contemporary racists a daily reality (for many of us). Personally, I am surprised that nobody took action against this user after uttering expressions like "euthanasia of Jews", "I have my Zyklon B ready", "give the negroes a category of their own, so the better part of the list isn't filled with afro-this and afro-that" and many, many others that can be found at the edit History. There are already some months and this user is still respected as a normal one. Again from a Romani point of view, failing to take some action may be considered as endorsing such opinions. They may be childish behavior of a certain Hayden from New Zealand, but the context is sensitive and I see no way that this user may edit here. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 21:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hayden, you are starting up with those personal attacks... as for the populations with mixed ancestry debate, I am with Desiphral. Most races have been mixed with others. Including the English with the Germans, Scots and Scandinavians. The concept of people with mixed ancestry on Wikipedia has a less archaic definition than in Hayden's opinion.

Celtic Emperor 21:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, racism cannot be settled over tea. I apologize. I've put up another comment here. --Kuaichik 16:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thaj žavo mange. I wanted to apologize in Romani, too, but for a moment I forgot how! --Kuaichik 16:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's OK and thanks (about apologizing I use to say yertisar man). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sterilisation of Czech romas

Maybe this needs more coverage than it's currently given by the article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6409699.stm

Thanks for pointing out, I added some info in the article, in more detail it will be included in a future article History of the Romani people in the Czech Republic. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 09:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you must come with this rubbish again? In Slovakia it already showed to be a hoax. The humanitary workers simply have nothing to do and they must always fabricate such stories to show some activity. 82.100.61.114 13:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Genetic Section

I feel that the current section on genetics is very lopsided, providing halftruths and conclusions being brought from semi presented facts. I propose we reinstate the following Genetics section, as it was written on April 18th:

Genetic data strongly supports linguistic evidence that the Roma originated on the Indian subcontinent. Studies of Bulgarian, Baltic and Vlax Roma genetics suggest that about 50% of observed haplotypes belong to Y-chromosomal haplogroup H. Similar studies of the same population with mitochondrial DNA show 50% belong to female mitochondrial haplogroup M. Both of these are widespread across South Asia.

This genetic evidence indicates that approximately half of the gene pool of these studied Roma is similar to that of the surrounding European populations. Specifically, common Y-chromosome (i.e. male-line) haplogroups are haplogroups H (50%), I (22%), J2 (14%), and R1b (7%). Common mitochondrial (i.e. female-line) haplogroups are H (35%), M (26%), U3 (10%), X (7%), other (20%)[43]. Whereas male haplogroup H and female M are rare in non-Roma European populations, the rest are found throughout Europe. However, female haplogroups U2i and U7 are almost absent from female Roma, but are present in South Asia (11%-35% approx).

By contrast, male Sinti Roma in Central Asia have H (20%), J2 (20%) and a high frequency of R2 (50%) which is found frequently in West Bengal and among the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka[44]. The M217 marker, which accounts for about 1.6% of male Roma, is also found in West Bengal[45]. Haplogroup L is found in about 10% of Indian males but is absent from Roma (though Gresham et al. does not seem to test for it), and also from West Bengal and Central Asian Sinti[46]. However, a search of the YHRD database shows that some Roma populations in Europe have considerable percentages of male haplogroup R1a1. YHRD gives few matches with South Asian populations, but a large number of matches on haplogroup H with British Asian Londoners, a population that has a large proportion of Bengali and Sri Lankan groups.

All these genetic studies indicate a South-East Indian origin of the male Roma population. Haplogroup R1a1 occurs around 35-45% in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent, but only 10-15% in the southeast. On the other hand, Y-haplogroups H, R2 and J2 increase in frequency towards the southeast. R2 occurs around 20-40% in West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh[47][48][49][50]. H and J2 occur 20-30% in South and East India. A study published in Nature[citation needed] associates the Roma with the Sinhala, and must be viewed from this genetic profile of Roma. The Sinhalese are mostly descendants of East and South Indian communities.

Luba Kalaydjieva's research has shown that the original group appeared in India some 32-40 generations ago and was small, likely under 1,000 people.

I feel this is much less opinionated, as it is unbiased facts, and brings the reader to a true conclusion. Not an opinionated one. Any objections? --Hayden5650 00:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the original section is at least partly dubious, and it would certainly be too much genetic detail to include on the main page. I guess it makes sense to include a more comprehensive article on Romani Genetics on Wikipedia to cover the many studies that have been done on the subject. I don't know whether you will be able to create one, but I might consider the idea—again, if no one has any objections :)

This section is still terribly opinionated, at least in one way: it claims that "(a)ll these genetic studies indicate a South-East Indian origin..." This statement completely ignores significant studies that support the generally accepted view in Romani Studies, i.e. that Romanies have much more in common (genetically) with North Indian populations, particularly Punjabis and Rajputs. --Kuaichik 01:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you'd care to notice what has already been said about this version of the genetics section (as of Apr. 18), Dinlo Juk (who is a geneticist of partly Romani origin) already considered it "largely nonsense." --Kuaichik 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just one question: how comes that a Nazi aficionado user should make an article about the Romani genetics? I have to stress again that the presence of this kind of users is inacceptable. Such behavior is considered as a crime in most countries, why should it be accepted at Wikipedia? If this user will continue to be accepted, this may be considered as endorsing the Nazism, as considering it something normal. It would be like accepting someone who supports the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities to edit articles about Bangladesh, someone who denies the Armenian Genocide to edit Armenian articles or an avowed pedophile editing articles about children. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 12:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's stick to the issues please, and keep your own POV out of here. Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. It doesn;t matter who someone is, Desiphral, or what their politics are, they can edit. You should know this, as for someone who is part of a group that is discriminated against, you are doing plenty of discrimination yourself. --Hayden5650 14:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone with a normal behavior, and I'm certainly not the first one to say that this user's behavior is not normal [6]. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Pathetic, now your attacking me with another attack which is not even true! I put an image, about halfway down the article under the Iranian section of two homosexuals being hanged in Iran. The photos were well known, from the ISNA. It was not in bad taste at all. So stick to attacking me atleast with something you have the slightest bit of knowledge about. --Hayden5650 14:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And Desiphral, why should I be forced, by you, conform to what you think is acceptable politics? The last person to that was, I don't know, a certain Adolf Hitler. The man whom you so actively despise. You say I am breaking the law? It seems you are much more anti free speech than myself. In fact, all I have done to spark your little outbursts is insist you discuss, on the talk page, the deletion of a certain category. However, you were unable to do even this, and your abuse started. Don't think that because you're a minority, I'm going to bend over and accept your version of events, like PC people may in life. Only unbiassed facts belong on here, and if you can't even discuss your deletions first, as I am discussing my proposals, you are not fit to be a wikipedian. --Hayden5650 14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Again this user tries to divert the attention from the main issue. I presented already the reasons for the inaceptabiltiy of that category and I considered the so-called appeal for consensus the usual stalking and Romani bashing of this user. The main problem is that free speech does not mean the possibility of supporting racism and criminal ideologies. Wikipedia is not based on chaos, and it is not the first time when a user would be blocked or banned because of repeated disruptive behavior. In almost all of the democracies of the world the behavior of this user would be a crime, an offence. Also I never focused this issue on the minority status. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that the "so-called appeal for concensus" failed 2 to 1 ;-) --Kuaichik 22:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I object to reinstating this material. It was badly written by somebody who had a limited understanding of the science. It gives unwarranted attention to data that is statistically insignificant, such as the incidence of the R2 marker in Sinta... 53% sounds impressive until you read that this represents 8 individuals out of a sample size of 15. No conclusions can be derived from figures like that.

There was too much irrelevant waffle in the article as it was. In its present form it is unbiased and factual. I fail to see what objection you have to it. Dinlo juk 19:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Firdawsi = reference?!?

LOL, surely no one here thinks Firdawsi Tousi should be cited in the References section just because he wrote something in the Shah-Nameh about some Luri musicians who were sent to Iran and then went west? I suggest deleting Firdawsi from that section.

After all, if you're going to include him, what about the poor, unrecognized author of The Life of St. George the Anchorite? And for goodness' sake, what about John Sampson who (in addition to doing interesting research on Welsh Romani) sort of proposed the connection in the first place??? (Sorry for the irreverent tone, everyone. I just don't understand what he's doing here!). --Kuaichik 00:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, get rid of it. It'd be a different story if it was under notes and something was specifically quoted from it. --Hayden5650 03:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Spelling details

Kaale/Kaalee

In Finland, the Roma distinguish themselves as "Kaalee" for example "ooksä sä kaalee (are you kaalee, spoken slang)" or "Oletko sinä kaalee (are you kaalee, written Finnish)". In Finnish slang, the -ea suffix of adjectives such as "komea ( handsome)" is turned to -ee, but "kaalee" is an exception, since it is not an adjective but an import substantive from the Roma. Also, if the Roma pronounce the word with a long suffix "-ee", it cannot be written with a short one, slang or not. This point brings out the right of self-determination and cultural independence of the Roma, since they do not regard themselves as being part of Finnish nor any other official master culture. If they call themselves "kaalee", they are the kaalee, and the finnish grammar cannot be applied. People have the right to be called what they please. Teemu Ruskeepää 09:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So by "Romans" I assume you mean the Roma, right? (Otherwise you might be talking about the ancient empire, or citizens of Italy's capital.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same thing, actually, but I'm pretty sure that's what he means. If I'm not much mistaken, however, the word is usually spelled "Kaale" in academic sources that mention Finnish Romanies. If the "e" is in fact long, I don't know why it should ever be spelled with a short "e" (ignorant non-Finn spelling??). --Kuaichik 12:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This website, for instance, uses the spelling Kaale. It also includes the spelling Kàlo, presumably the Finnish Romani spelling (this is definitely not the standard Vlax Romani spelling, because in Vlax, the stress falls on the second syllable. It makes sense that it might fall on the first syllable in some dialects, though, just as in the Hindi cognate kaalaa). --Kuaichik 18:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A Google search for "Finnish Kaale" produces 603 results, and even the first ten results are obviously about Finnish Romanies [7]. But a search for "Finnish Kaalee" produces only 35 results [8], and the only one of those results that has to do with Romanies is one link in Swedish that mentions a performance of Finnish Romani music. --Kuaichik 23:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Just want to add a little info for those studying = In Sanskrit Kala means 'black' & Kula means 'lineage / race' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The G word

If this article were about blacks i dont think many people had liked the word Nigger for blacks and that is exactly the same thing for the Gypsy word —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazi catcher (talk • contribs) 21:22, 18 June 2007

Call us how do you like but please NEVER SAY THAT ANYONE OF OUR NAMES IS DIRTY. Thanks for attention. RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk)

This issue has already been discussed, although you can't see it here. You'll find a little bit of discussion about it here and a good deal more here. As TheMightyQuill notes in the latter discussion, many English-speakers do not realize that it can be offensive, since it is in such common usage, is not always (though often) used in a pejorative sense, and has no clear-cut alternatives (some say "Roma," some say "Romani," many switch between the two such as Prof. Ian Hancock). --Kuaichik 21:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You said: "many English-speakers do not realize that it can be offensive, since it is in such common usage,"

Then my question is this: Should we not tell the English speakers that the word Gypsy is considered very offensive to Romani people? I mean if you were black would you like to be called a nigger? In many countries the media refuses to use the word gypsy and instead use the PC word roma. I hope you get my point and that we hopefully can rewrite the intro.

Sorry I took so long to notice your post. We already have told English-speakers that the word "Gypsy" is considered very offensive. It clearly says: "The Roma...are often referred to as Gypsies or Gipsies, a term that is generally considered pejorative." --Kuaichik 04:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is about a black people. What else do you think they are? I think the word Gypsie SHOULD be used because that is what people in the US know. This politically correct term Roma is European and is unknown to most. I came here looking for Gypsies, not Roma. I am tired or everyone wanting to change words or names of things to make them seem less offensive or just to change the ideas associated with such words. When people use the word Roma, some may think it is about Rome. Now Gypsies are now trying to change the name. I even watched a show when a guy called somone with bi-poplar crazy. The judge took offense to that(People's Court. She may be bi-polar) and tried to correct the man. People know that people with mental disorders are commonly called crazy, not people want to change the meaning or everything. Trans-sexuals are now 'trans-gendered.' People who do not AGREE with gays are called 'homophobics.' All of this and African-Americans are still called niggers! What gives?--71.235.94.254 19:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see my recent comments in the section below, Romani, really the right term? for my take on this. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible Checkuser

After seeing user:Nazi catcher's edits, memories of user:MadeinFinland came flooding back. Just wanting to say it first, so we may all be mindfull of future edits. I'm thinking of listing User:Nazi catcher as an offensive username, as i doubt a name like 'Jew Catcher' would be allowed. Take this as a heads up ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.103.146 (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2007

As soon as I saw those edits and that handle, the exact same thought popped into my head. I'd bet good money that it's our old "friend" MadeinFinland. In any case, those annoying edits are just as unwelcome. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, I wonder who the above IP address is? If I'm not much mistaken, has the person with that address not been blocked three times, for increasingly long periods of time, before promising never to edit Wikipedia again? --Kuaichik 21:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm; are you referring to the "Wroclaw troll" of yesteryear? +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No. See the link I provided above, in my last post ("blocked three times"). --Kuaichik 22:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, at this point in time, more attention should be paid to preventing the stream of obvious racially motivated deletions of information by user:Nazi catcher. user:MadeinFinland continuously vandalised and deleted information while he was here, and user:Nazi catcher is following the exact same editing patterns. We need to put the integrity of the article first, before any personal differences.

I disagree. I think that editors of this article who think Romanies are criminals are as much of a problem as editors of this article who mistakenly label parts of the article as right-wing propaganda. If you are Hayden5650, and if you really were more concerned about the integrity of the article than about personal differences, you probably wouldn't edit here. (In this case, whether you are Hayden5650 or not, you seem to have personal differences with User:MadeinFinland and User:Nazi catcher). --Kuaichik 23:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides, there's no evidence that Nazi catcher's edits are racially motivated. All we can say, at most, is that he has mistaken parts of the article for right-wing propaganda, when in fact the information in the article often comes from Romani activist sources (which tend to be fairly left-wing), such as Ian Hancock. --Kuaichik 23:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact the address 202.124.103.146 was labelled as likely to be Hayden at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hayden5650, being the reason for extending the block (as you can see currently there are added new ones). Just check the history edits of those IPs to see that this user continued to edit after the new block with the same style, which strongly suggests having no intent to improve, or the last comments from his userpage, or yesterday's mocking of an unblock. Probably it is necessary a permanent ban or to extend the block. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Margita Bangová article for AfD

I want to announce that I have opened a deletion request for this article. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Romani people

I want to announce that I have started this WikiProject. There is also Wikipedia:Notice board for Romani-related topics for announcing such topics. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea Desiphral, good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.100.214 (talk)

This user is a member of WikiProject Romani people.

Userbox, anyone?

The Myotis 00:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey!! Thanks! I'll add that later; I think I've run of time for today. --Kuaichik 01:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Population

Its not 8-10 millions its 15 millions as reported in the news. And since Soviet Union no longer exists it should state Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazi catcher (talk • contribs)

Which news? Please cite sources when making such a change.

The area which is described by the expression "the former Soviet Union" is very different from that of Russia.

Regards, High on a tree 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that is why it says "the former Soviet Union." There are (apparently) Romanies in Kazakhstan, etc., not just present-day Russia. --Kuaichik 23:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I counted the population numbers from the article Romani people by country and the unofficial estimations give more than 15 million (which does not include the Romani population from some other contries ans also while many of the sources are outdated and/or present only the information available about a part of the Romani groups present in a certain country). So I think it is safe to present the estimated numbers that are sourced. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 13:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, how should it be OK to source it there, by adding "as rezulting from counting the sourced population numbers by country on Wikipedia"? I remember that somewhere in Wikipedia's policies it was written that a mathematical conclusion, like for example a mathematical counting, does not need an external source, this is on what I based the adding of 15 million number. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of any policy or guidelines Wikipedia may or may not have, don't you think it would be a good idea to give some explanation of how that figure was arrived at? I mean, otherwise it has the possible appearance of being pulled out of thin air, as so much other information here is ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I should have done it from the very beginning, I was too much focused on the relation with the discussion page. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 18:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Balinese? Why Balinese??

One sentence in "Society and culture" (towards the end of the second paragraph) reads: "Many of these practices are also present in cultures such as the Balinese."

Many of these practices are present in Indian culture(s), too. In fact, I bet a lot of the Balinese practices were adopted from India. So, isn't it a bit misleading to compare the Roma to the Balinese?

Just think, somebody reading this page could be thinking, "Oh, the Balinese must be similar to the Roma, related to them in some way," when in reality, they are no more related than South Indians like me! Therefore, I propose changing "Balinese" to "Indian people," or "Indians," or something. Or maybe even "Indians and Balinese," perhaps with a parenthetical note "(who adopted many of these customs from Indians)" --Kuaichik 23:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be one of the old info from the times when in Wikipedia the need for sourcing them was not so pressing, simply remaining unquestioned until now. I don't know any external source that would present how the Roma have significant cultural similarities with the cultural features that the Balinese borrowed from the Subcontinent. Because of this and because it may be misleading, lacking the presentation of the common cultural features with the Indians (personally, I have in mind to add them when I'll have available time), I consider it would be appropriate to delete this statement. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 07:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would've been fine, if not for the sentences that follow: "However, in contrast to the practice of cremating the dead, Roma dead must be buried. It is possible that this tradition was adapted from Abrahamic religions after the Roma left the Indian subcontinent." It doesn't make much sense to include these sentences without preceding it with a sentence like: "Many of these practices are similar to Hindu practices." That statement certainly is sourced, We are the Romani people demonstrates the similarity between Indian and Romani culture in terms of many of these aspects (e.g. dowry). So, would you mind me adding that in? --Kuaichik 15:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, plus this is not the way to present the Hinduism. There are,in the Subcontinent, castes that bury the dead too. Hinduism is not focused on on following a prescribed doctrine, but on a specific way of life. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rajputs, not Rajasthanis...right? :-P

Prof. Hancock's studies mention that the Romani people are most closely related to the Punjabis and Rajputs, I'm pretty sure - not Rajasthanis. He calls Proto-Romani "Rajputic." The distinction is important; if they are partly descended from Rajputs, who were never really confined to any one part of India, that would explain the linguistic variation within the Indic words in Romani.

For example, why the use of "-o" instead of "-aa" at the end of masculine nouns/adjectives in Romani? This is certainly a characteristic of Gujarati and Sindhi, but is it a characteristic of Rajasthani languages? Anyway, if I'm wrong in making the last change I made as of now, I'll be happy to revert it myself.--Kuaichik 00:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, of course, Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL, sorry for the unnecessarily long explanation of Rajput vs. Rajasthani :-D --Kuaichik 00:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

- I have given examples of Rajasthani in the "Evidence that Dom and Romani people are not related" discussion topic.

Rajasthani does use 'o' as masculine. Rajasthani / Rajputic words such as Thakar (Tahkar) meaning 'King' are also proof that the Roms left India after 1000ad as these I'm told are later introductions. - Tsigano

Related Ethnic Groups

I was wondering. Why does it say that Gypsies are only related to South Asians. The stats in the article show that only one-third to one-half of their gene-flow descents from the Indian sub-continent...so would that not show that they also half European descent which makes up the balance. I went to Italy last month. There are not that many gypsies but I saw a few in big cities like Milan, and much of them had dark red hair with green eyes. I dont know...to me that just seems to me that they have significant relations with the European population.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.147.211 (talk)

Seems to me that the above comment is well intentioned. Is there some way that we can indicate in the article what has been discussed here? --Kuaichik 18:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be useful, but personally, I don't know if it is a possibility at Wikipedia to do this. I invite others who might know to take the appropriate measures. The main idea is that there is no genetically pure ethnic group and the identification is rather cultural. While it is true that there is an addition of some genes from the indigenous population of Europe, the two features you selected are not representative. The red hair is very common among women, at least in Central - South Eastern Europe, because, if they want to dye the hair, most often they choose the red color (see also that picture from Romani_people#Central_and_Eastern_Europe). As a cultural hint, for not getting into more details, I would say that the color of preference for the dressing of Romani women, again, at least in this geographic area, is red. Sometimes, also the men dye their hair and they tend to choose the same color, for the same cultural reasons. About the green eyes, they appear in Northern India, you may ask anyone from that area. They are not necessary from the genes of the White populations of Europe. If it would be so, there should be also blue-eyed Roma (they might be, but personally I don't know anybody). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, Milan is in Western Europe, and generally Romanies in Western Europe have mixed more with the local non-Romanies than Romanies in Eastern Europe (according to Prof. Ian Hancock in We Are the Romani People and a genetic study by Mastana and Papiha cited therein). --Kuaichik 23:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this may be also a good point. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that the idea that only half of the Romani people has South Asian origin, originally presented by 24.150.147.211, now was assumed and promoted in the article by 213.48.46.141 and 212.85.12.211, established vandals, judging from their talk pages. First of all, to draw the conclusion from the info of the genetic section that half of the Romani population has South Asian ancestry and the other half does not shows a lack of understanding of what means genetics. Those percentages show the genetic pool, the average percentage of the contemporary Romani individuals. The same as in any other contemporary ethnic group (as their IPs are from UK, a good start for this realistic vision might be 100% English), almost all the Romani persons have a degree of mixture of originally South Asian with non-South Asian genes. The same as for the contemporary people living in South Asia or in Europe as compared to the 11th century, when the Romani emigration occurred. However, in all these three cases, this influx of other genes occurred at a slow pace along the centuries, the number of foreigners in any of these populations at any time was small and it did not alter the cultural features of the group. Thus both the Romani people and the people living in South Asia did not alter the original culture (also for the people who remained in South Asia the 11th century meant the beginning of a challenge of the social structure). Although in both cases there was an influx of foreigners, today also, as in the 11th century, both branches respect the purity rules, the caste system and other Desi specific ways of socialization. It was not a flow of other genes in a short span of time for altering the original culture (as it happened to the Mestizos or the Griqua).

The same for the Europeans. The branding of the Roma as mixed by people from Europe, who most probably know very well their own history, might be considered as aiming a soft target in the contemporary context of weak Romani political position. They should clarify first what means European. There are enough cases of contemporary European populations with high percentage of originally non-European genes. Just to remember the Italians and the influx of foreigners during the time of the Roman Empire and the later African Moorish occupation of the Southern area, or the Spaniards & Portuguese and the 8 centuries of African Moorish administration and the later exchange of population with the Latin America and other colonies. Or the Russians in the East. It is well known that the physical features of the Italians that immigrated en-masse in USA at the beginning of the 20th century raised many doubts regarding their categorization as Whites (which until nowadays is considered as a condition for being European), the same as during the times of the White Australia policy. Why don't you contest also their Europeaness? Because you feel that the cultural features matter most? The same as in the case of the Fino-Ugric populations from Europe which assimilated culturally among the originally European populations? It is not correct to switch between the genetic, cultural or geographical criteria, depending on which is the most advantaging. And every time it should be remembered that the geographical criterion implies rather a multiculturalism, which should be accepted as such, for the benefit of the entire local societies. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Gypsy

My impression is that the term "Gypsy" is not all that pejorative in of itself, but rather that Gypsies have been extremely discriminated. I've even listened to a radio interview with a Gypsy woman in Sweden who thought that using the term "Roma" was outright ridiculous (since it means "husband"). And the argument that the pejorativenss of "Gypsy" is based on the factually erroneous nature of its etymology is really silly. If that were the case "Dutch" and a whole slew of other foreign names for ethnic groups should also be discouraged.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing about the term "Gypsy" is that, in addition to being of an erroneous etymology, it often is used to denote a lifestyle rather than an ethnicity. This, I think, is the main reason why it is considered offensive - because it suggests the "gypsy stereotype," i.e. the images of Romanies as thieves, swindlers, kidnappers, etc. It is also used as an English translation of the Romanian word ṭigan, which is also considered pejorative (probably more so than "Gypsy") because it specifically means "slave" (or something similar). In this usage, it is a bit like (only some of?) the names used for African Americans during slavery, e.g. "Negro," "nigger," etc.

And certainly, there are many Romanies (especially in Western Europe) who object to the term "Roma." However, many (most?) of the Romanies who object to that term would accept "Romani" as a proper, unoffensive adjective describing themselves (just as most Germans would accept "German" as an adjective describing themselves). For this reason, the word "Romani" is preferred to "Rom" (or "Gypsy" for that matter).

Anyway, yes, if this article does claim that the inaccurate etymology is all that makes "Gypsy" considered pejorative (or conveys that impression), then it probably needs to be changed. --Kuaichik 21:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, a word is only pejorative based on its intent. Take for example the word 'nigger'. One negro saying this to another, is not taken as offensive. Even a white friend may be permitted to use it. However when someone uses it to cause offence, then it is pejorative. With the Gypsy case, I had never heard of the term Roma before reading this article. Gypsy is the word we were taught, the word that is used on the TV and in publications. It holds no pejorative intent at all. --Hayden5650 12:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You again? Last time I saw you named Wikipedia a place for "left wing liberal baffoons". Now what? Should we expect again seeing your disruptive editing? Who are you to say that Gypsy is not pejorative, when you have such a editing history of prejudicial stereotyping? Also as you write here, you have no idea about who really are the Roma, besides the prejudices the society taught you about the Gypsies. Gypsy is a malevolent fiction, Romani is the reality. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 13:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've served my block and am entitled to partake in discussion, no matter what statements I may have made in the past. --Hayden5650 13:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oooookay... --Kuaichik 05:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What is this - negro? --71.235.94.254 19:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The term Gypsy is in official use in the UK: see http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingmanagementcare/gypsiesandtravellers/ for instance. --Sdoerr 17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as i saw, there are 3 kinds of Romanies that dont use or reject the term Rom/Roma/Romani:

1. Romanies that dont speak the Romani Language, and so they use the term that is used in the language that they speak (usually the language of the country they live in).

2. Romanies in places where the exonyms have rather a romanticized positive meaning (like 'gypsy' in the USA).

3. Romanies that feel that the use of the term Rom instead of gypsy, cigany, etc is only a way of running away from the negative side of these terms.

Personaly, i believe that the use of the term Rom/Romani for the entire ethny is the most corect, without rejecting the other terms that some Romani groups (or individuals) prefer.--AKoan (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Misrep by Desiphral

The article states that 47% and 30% of dna is from South asia .So how can 'all' Roma be from India.The second most common male haplogroup is I,an exclusively European marker and the most commom female marker is H a very common european marker.So don't lie or misrepresent data.Roma are mixture of European and Asian groups,that is what the genetics show.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.12.211 (talk)

Did you read above the section Related Ethnic Groups? Plus, you seem to not understand what means Genetics. There are no populations with a single haplogroup as you suggest, when you select that info about those two haplogroups. How can you imagine that people living in South Asia have only those two haplogroups? Every time there is a pool of haplogroups and the percentage of one among them is relative, it has a meaning only compared to the the percentages from other areas. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus, what do you expect, 212.85.12.211? How much DNA do you expect an entire population, separated from its country of origin for more than 600 years, to maintain? Look at the Parsis, for instance; some genetic studies actually show that the Parsis are (now at least) "genetically closer to Gujaratis than to Iranians." Nevertheless, no one would say that the Parsis are related to the Gujaratis; they would say they are related to the Iranians. And of course, it is quite well established that all Parsis are from Iran. --Kuaichik 02:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus, in our case, the genetic studies present us as closer to the contemporary people of South Asian than to the surrounding populations. We were never like the Parsis, accepted by the majority, every time we remained culturally distinct, thus rejected for not becoming assimilated and with less connections with the surrounding population. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 09:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Desiphral, take this hypothetical situation (unlikely to be encountered but illustrates my point.): A group of Indians leave India, and they become what is known as Gypsies. They migrate to Romania and begin mixing and breeding with Romanians. How much breeding and mixing must take place before their historical origin then becomes Romanian rather than Indian? Once their blood is 50/50 Indian/Romanian? That would be one generation of race mixing. The following generation would further dilute the Indian blood. They then hop across to Serbia and mix with Serbs. The Indian blood is now well and truly a minority in the blood stream. So surely it is somewhat incorrect to make such a statement as Roma (Gypsies) are of Indian origin, when there is so much else in their blood. --Hayden5650 13:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No amount of "breeding and mixing" or "mixing and breeding" can change anyone's place of origin. You may think that everything was in the past, but you can't change the past, either. A group of Indians left India, and they had descendants: those descendants will always be of Indian origin. Even e.g. the Mulattos are of White origin, though they are also of African origin.

"They...hop across to Serbia and mix with Serbs"? Please do not make human beings sound like fleas, grasshoppers, or rabbits! And please don't make conclusions so "surely" based on a hypothetical situation. --Kuaichik 05:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What defines someone as Roma?

Hello,

I never have been able to really understand what makes a person be considered an ethnic Roma. Historically, a person was assigned an ethnicity following a variety of criteria:

self-identification
identification by the community
some form of inheritance from the parents
a person living in some region

For instance, the most common approach is to consider someone as ethnic Romanian if it declared he/she is ethnic Romanian (self-identification). This is the basis for the statistics used in the Romania article.

OTOH, I always wondered what is the criterion used to identify ethnic Roma. I presume there are various approaches (hence different results). It would be interesting to compare the estimation techniques used by the various sources, so that the reader is not left with this huge gap between the various figures. Dpotop 11:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, a mans ethnicity is defined by his genetics/DNA, and this is what should be used as identification. In my opinion --Hayden5650 12:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Isn't that a bit extreme? I mean, I saw genetics used to compare populations on average, but your proposal is certainly impossible to apply to individuals. The only case I can think of and where what you talk of can be used is the Kohanim Y chromosome. And even there, it's just the Y chromosome, the rest of the chromosomes and the mtDNA can have huge variations. You can therefore end up with a Kohanim Y chromosome on a person that's otherwise completely unrelated. Nope, can't work in practice. Dpotop 13:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, there's a strong ethical argument against this criterion, and I share this belief that it is racist. Dpotop 13:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Its an excellent question, the best one on this page for months. In central Europe there is very little confusion about who is/isn't Roma, yet a written set of criteria is elusive. Moreover, I would strongly suggest that cultural- should weigh over genetic criteria - not to avoid "racism" but rather practically speaking - genes may split 50/50 each time, but cultures don't. Many Roma who consider themselves to be 100% are likely not, genetically speaking; but that is hardly the point - I believe that self-identification is likely the most accurate definition in Europe, but perhaps not in North America. István 14:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A kind of a discussion about this issue is here (although only in Romanian). However, that categorization they propose there between "traditional" and "modern" (somehow underlying that everything that is more modern then is less Romani) is not at all realistic. There are enough Roma living a modern life from the point of view of the Romani culture.

These criteria that you offer, indeed are those usually used to assigning an ethnicity in the broad society. The self-identification, in the case of the Roma, is strongly constrained by the discrimination, thus the information about it depends on the interlocutors that receive it. The identification by the community may be sometimes also an issue, because every Romani group tends to consider itself the "purest" from the point of view of the purity rules and to consider the others as not pure Roma (only from the point of view of the purity rules, not genetically). In this case every group may be considered as self-sanctioning its identity and thus to be accepted the multiplicity of the Romani groups. Some form of inheritance from the parents: yes, this is obviously an important criterion (including the children adopted at small ages). Obviously again, the last geographic criterion is not applicable here.

From a Romani point of view, a person is recognized as Romani by a Romani parentage (here too, including the children adopted at small ages) and by respecting the purity rules of a certain Romani group of whom the parents belong. The community is the reference for the identity. However, until now, this Romani identity did not evolve into a popular nationalistic one, the same as the identities of other ethnic groups, thus some of the other people accustomed to see an identity only from a nationalistic point of view may have the impression that a Romani identity does not exist. In Eastern Europe this is complicated by the assimilation policies of the previous Communist regimes that destroyed the social fabric of many local Romani communities, leaving many Romani persons to fend for themselves without the support of a Romani community, making them more exposed to prejudices and certain degrees of self-identification with the stereotypical Gypsy. Many live as individuals not as parts of the community. For example, in Romania about two thirds do not belong to a community (many of them also because of the previous slavery system). This is somehow an uncertain area also from a Romani point of view, because the "classical" way of socialization is by belonging to a community. Also from the Communist age onwards it appeared an unprecedented percentage of inter ethnic marriages (at least this is the case in Romania), again a situation that from the point of view of many Romani groups is not something "classical" and needs too clarification. The Romani Party from Romania currently recognizes someone as Romani if identifies as Romani and at least one parent declares as Romani (as in the case of giving recommendations for the quota of places reserved in the schooling system to the Romani pupils and students). Perhaps there are necessary some more generations to clarify who is Romani and who is not (probably the same happened to the Kale of Spain and to the Romungre of eastern Habsburgic Empire after the assimilation policies at the end of the 18th century). In their case, they revived the community system, in the contemporary case of Eastern Europe it is to be seen how will be the outcome, how will be reorganized the expression of the identity.

Thus the bigger picture of the Romani public identity is strongly conditioned by the current discrimination, by the minority status that gives a easy available formal identification with other ethnic groups (which many times does not mean a real identification) and by the lack of a popular definition of the identity from the contemporary nationalistic point of view (however, this lack of definition does not mean that the identity does not exist!). From this, it results the underrepresentation of the Romani population in official censuses and the strong variations of the results of such censuses caused by the overall trends in the broad society and the easily identifiable current social and political stances of the non-Romani majority. As I presented before the case of the censuses from Romania (now it is in the archive, thus I think it is appropriate to past here again the info):

In 1838 there were 139,225 Roma in Moldavia (9.81%), and 119,910 in Wallachia (5%).
In 1930 declared themselves Roma 262,501 (1.5%).
The census of 1956 found 104,214 (0.5%).
In 1966 there were only 64,197 (0.3%).
In 1977 there were 229,986 (1.07%).
In 1992 there were 409,723 (1.7%)
In 2002 there were 535,250 (2.5%)

The discrepancies in figures and percent observed from 1838 until today do not reflect at all the real demography, they are only influenced by political reasons. The first census maybe is the most accurate, because at that time all Roma were slaves, nobody could pass as non-Rom or be unaccounted because of the lack of ID cards. Afterwards it begins the underrepresentation because of the two causes: fear of self-identification or lack of ID cards and the figures evolves according to the political situation. The dramatic decrease in the first part of the Communist period is explained by the official policy of assimilation. After its failure more and more Roma identified their true identity, the number growing with every new census (evidently, the demographic growth alone could not explain the changes). The growing self-assurance for right identification is proved also by the sociological studies. The study of Ion Chelcea, Tiganii din Romania.Monografie etnografica (Bucharest, 1944) found 525,000 Roma. The study from 1993, done by the University of Bucharest under the supervision of Catalin Zamfir and Elena Zamfir, published as Tiganii intre ignorare si ingrijorare found 1,010,000 Roma. The sociological study done in 1998 by the Institute for the Research of the Quality of Life (branch of the Open Society Institute) found 1,452,700 - 1,588,552 Roma. Again figures not supported by the demographic growth.

The estimations made unofficially are based mostly on the cultural criteria and on the parentage. For example, again in the case of Romania (this is the one I know better), a sociological survey presented on 8 April 2005 at Realitatea TV (I didn't find an on-line source for this) concluded that about half of the officially non-Romani persons (the non-2.5% according the the last census) have partly or entirely Romani background (the percentage is so high also because of the previous slavery system). This is based only on the background. Then the cultural criterion estimates that about 9-12% of the Romanian citizens are of Romani ethnicity. Obviously, this criterion may give only some estimations, that's why the large span 1,800,000 - 2,500,000. For example, I included Ştefan Bănică, Sr. in Category:Romanian Romani people, but not his son Ştefan Bănică, Jr. as long as the latter does not identify publicly as Romani, although he has plenty of chances to do this. Only the time will tell the ethnicity. Probably if he and Andreea Marin Bănică (she too with Romani background) will have children, their next generation will be more clarified about their identity (or at least they should ask themselves who are they, when the grandparents with outward Romani cultural features will not be anymore, this is what it tends to happen in such cases). Obviously, the outcome will depend also on the future status of the public assertion of the Romani identity. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there are problems with both the criteria you provided:

For the cultural criterion, I'm not sure that people understand what "cultural criteria" mean. Me, for instance. I mean, it's easy to identify traditional Roma, living in "Satra", dressing traditionally, a.s.o. But when going to estimates like 2.5 mil for Romania alone, these cultural criteria must be enlarged, as a large part of those 2.5 mil dress like usual Europeans and talk Romanian. I think it's important you explain a bit this enlarged **cultural** criterion making, for instance, Stefan Banica Sr. or Madalin Voicu a Roma. Note that I put emphasis here on "cultural", as opposed to "assuming the ethnicity" or "ascendancy", as you call it. Dpotop 08:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
As concerns ascendancy: There's a problem in assigning ethnicity to a person having one Roma parent and one parent of some other ethnicity (Romanian or Hungarian). I mean, you cannot be inclusive for one ethnicity (Roma) and exclusive for the other. Dpotop 08:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

About the cultural criterion, this is the one known by a person born and grown up as Romani. I don't know of the existence of a written codification of what means this cultural criterion (this I understand that you request), but this is something normal, I don't know either of the existence of codifications of other cultures. However, in real life, when meeting a person, it is possible to see if belongs or not to the Romani culture. Regarding the non-Romani dress and language, I think again that this is aiming a soft target. Almost all the contemporary population dresses European, but are they European because of this? In fact, at least for the Roma in Romania, it is obvious that they preserved and use more than many non-European populations the ethnic dress, on daily basis. Talking Romanian? Is a culture defined by a language? The Jews did not speak for millenniums Hebrew, even now it is used popularly only in Israel after the recent revival. Did it mean that they were/are not Jews? In the Romani case it happens the same as for the Jewish languages. There are other languages borrowed by Roma, but expressing the Romani culture, many times evolving in Romani specific variants or dialects. For example, in variants of Romanian as used by Roma it is said draga mini (not draga mea) or vǎ rogreşte (not vǎ roagǎ). These are older forms of Romanian or different evolutions, the same as is Yiddish when compared to German. These variants of Romanian are used in areas like America, South Africa or Australia, from the second half of the 19th century, after the liberation from slavery in Romania, long before a sizable emigration of ethnic Romanians in those areas. As a whole they belong to the Romani culture. Plus, the same as the Jewish languages compared to Hebrew, these Romani languages tend to have a fair amount of original Romani vocabulary. If you consider that someone speaking Romanian is Romanian or that is a problem in the using of variants of Romanian (or many others like Romani-Serbian, Angloromani, Kalo etcetera) by other people, then do explain.

About the ascendancy from mixed marriages: where did you see inclusiveness for the Romani ethnicity? On what do you base such assumptions? On the contrary, I gave the example of recognizing as Romani in Romania of a person who identifies as Romani and has one Romani parent. If that person chooses to identify as Romani and is accepted as such by the Romani community, where is the problem? Why should it be inclusiveness only for the non-Roma? At least this is what I understand from your presentation, that you wish inclusiveness for non-Roma, after I made clear previously that it is the person's choice. It seems that in this way we are going back to the genetic criterion, that would dismiss almost all of the contemporary individuals as not belonging to their ethnic groups, that every ethnic group would be a fiction, because there would not be "adequate" persons to populate it. Plus, in Romania, the sociological surveys show that a person with a Romani parent tends to be perceived as Romani in the broad society. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Three days after I wrote the main answer, I feel the need of shorter and more clear presentation. So, I showed how the usual means of ethnic identification used in broad society have some particularities in the Romani case. The info about the self-identification depends on who receive it, thus, in the context of discrimination, making the official censuses so unreliable. The acceptance of the community is particularized by some differences among Romani groups in defining who is Romani and who is not. Note that in the Romani culture it is not at all enough for a person to identify as Romani in order to be accepted as such, the identity is caste-based as for any other Desi people, implying certain rules for the parentage and the way of life. However as long as it is considered that any Romani community is self-sanctioning its identity, the Roma belonging to them have a clear identity (which may be presented as such among non-Roma or not). A contemporary issue about the self-identification and the community sanction is the case of the Roma in the former Communist Bloc in Eastern Europe. Nowadays many of them do not belong to any community because of the previous Communist assimilation policies (in Romania such a situation is more widespread and already centuries-long also because of the former slavery system) and it did not appear yet a clear self-definition of these people (however, this does not mean that these people do not exist!). The definition of the Romani Party of Romania presented before may be considered as an ad-hoc one. In the context of the continuation of strong anti-Romani prejudices in this area and of unanswered questions about the former policies, the degree of self-identification at censuses is much lower than elsewhere, with wide gaps between their figures and the estimations of the real numbers. Many people which are known in their local environment as Romani choose to appear in censuses as belonging to other ethnicities, thus these censuses do not reflect the ground reality. In Romania and Bulgaria, this situation is further complicated from the beginning of this year, after they were accepted as members of EU. Many tabloids in Western Europe wrote sensationalist and disrespectful articles about the Romani people in these countries with the underlying message: Beware! The Gypsies from Romania and Bulgaria will flood Western Europe!. The mass-media in these two countries took also the message and, as usually they made the Roma as scapegoats for the countries' slow adaptation to the EU norms (Look, because of the Gypsies we have to wait some years to get full rights to work in West for our citizens, because of the Gypsies we are perceived as an area slow to adapt.), instead to concentrate in solving their real structural problems. The reverberations of this issue appeared also at Wikipedia, with users from these two countries coming to this page for contesting the level of Romani presence in these states. In Romania, the last high level comment was on 10th of July, when prime-minister Cǎlin Popescu Tǎriceanu said on the public radio station that in Italy there is an an organized Romanian Romani crime that makes the other Romanian citizens of other ethnicities to have a bad repute. Obviously, a speech based on prejudices, not on reality, to give an "explanation" for some failures of his government. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many things that distinguish the Roma people from the main population but the most important are:

1. Low personal hygiene 2. Tattered clothing 3. Bad manners 4. Uneducated and unwillingnes to be educated 5. Unemployed and unwillingnes to work 6. Large percentage of them prefer begging at the street to working 7. Stealing other people's property as a major source of income 8. Large families of underfed and vagrant children 9. Urinating and defecating on the streets 10. Noisy 11. Tresspassing on other people's rights 12. Disregard for all social norms 13. Unreliable for everything they do or say 14. Extremely high inclination for alcohol and drug abuse 15. Very high proportion of people with criminal offences ranging from pickpocketing to prostitution and murder This is a hastily collected list that certainly missed some main Roma characteristics. Lantonov 12:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That is why to me this Gypsy image is looking so similar to a public schizophrenia, to an organized straying from reality. Such people opted for denying the Romani culture and their pattern was, and it still is, to claim any Romani feature or fact (about whom the public conscience does not have an obvious ethnic label for it) either as Bulgarian or Romanian or something else, if it is perceived as positive, or Gypsy, if considered negative, even when it is of non-Romani origin. For the Romani features that have an obvious ethnic label, they already were rejected as void of any value and because of the inability of most of the non-Roma among whom we live to accept the existence of our culture. Also the level of negativity is perceived as much more increased when it is situated by non-Roma on the Gypsy side of the world (as compared to a similar fact placed by non-Roma on the non-Romani side). This is reflected very much at the official level, on the behavior of the state authorities. It is well known that many times a Rom receives a higher penalty than a non-Rom for a similar offence. Also, too often, when there are not found the perpetrators of an offence, there are accused and convicted with concocted proofs Roma who happened to be nearby when the perpetration occurred.

There is enough Bulgarian criminality (btw, you too are known abroad as fitting the stereotype of Bulgarian mafia and of lazyness, somehow the same as the rest of the Balkans), but the local mass-media presents everything as if everywhere there is the guilt of the Gypsies. Malevolently they distort everything, nothing good about Roma appears in public, thus usually the normal and hard-working Romani persons are told, if they are darker: How could you manage to get out of the Gypsiness?, if they are whiter: Oh, but you can't be a Gypsy. Why do you lie? You are a Bulgarian, Romanian, or God knows what!. Sadly beyond this madness of prejudices and stealing of the public image there is the reality of the hardships of the Romani individuals, who have to work ten times harder than a non-Rom to achieve the same results, because too many doors are closed.

On daily basis there is such a bombardment with anti-Romani verbal violence, yesterday too I had to listed at about 14.30 local hour at TVR 1 (the public, governmental station!) to a person saying that the unwritten laws of the jails in Romania are similar of those of the stabor (the Romani institution that makes justice in the community, it's one of the names, there are also others). Obviously, they have nothing in common. Why to make such a spurious comment, with no connection to reality? The stabor is the usual Indo-Aryan institution that governs at local level the life of the communities (the panchayat is the contemporary correspondent in the Indian subcontinent). What has it to do with the jails' life? How would it be if the panchayat would be compared with the unwritten regulations of the USA jails? Isn't it something fundamentally abnormal here? An abnormality sanctioned at the highest levels, that creates this current public schizophrenia. Unless there will be recognized the reality of the Romani people, that we are a people with a culture, different as it may be from that of the non-Roma among whom we live, but still a valid one, then I don't see an unblock of this sad and inhuman situation.

Given the level of your accusations this is your first and last warning, next time when you will present the world of your violent dreams, you will be likely to get a block. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 16:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly do not subscribe to what the Bulgarian above said. However, I have to note the utter incompatibility between modern institutions (such as the state of law and human rights) and things like stabor, child marriages, tribal organization, a.s.o. If Roma ethnicity is culturally based on them, then you have a problem. One of my questions (where you did not get into details) was what defines (culturally) the Roma. Dpotop 18:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Typically, a person's ethnicity is defined by two things, A. Ancestry (the person must be at least partially of Roma descent) and B. Self-identification (the person must identify themselves as a Rom). Being of a certain ethnicity does not entail praticing any certain cultural characteristic. One does not have to practice child marriage to be a Rom any more than one must join the Mafia to be an Italian. The Myotis 19:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that. But there's much confusion about the criteria used to count Roma minorities. On one hand, you have official data of people self-declaring Roma. On the other, various "estimates" for which no methodological data is published. Given that the estimates are all different, and hugely different from the official data, how are they obtained? Dpotop 20:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally find the Roma quite adaptable, e.g. to societies without child marriages, etc. Besides, many of these traditional Romani practices are still found in India, yet India is certainly modernized. In fact, sometimes that very modernization actually reinforces certain traditional practices; I remember hearing that when non-Indian (esp. American) companies outsourced to India, people started demanding more dowry (because people now had more money). But Thuggee, for example, no longer exists because that movement eventually became dangerous for its members. It was impractical to continue such a tradition.

Anyhow, this is an interesting discussion... --Kuaichik 21:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Now comes also my answer, it took me some time to write it. Regarding the unofficial data, sometimes I don't know too how were they obtained, but they are used and accepted as such, even by the European Council, see the book Jean-Pierre Liégeois, Roma, Tsiganes, Voyageurs, Conseil de l'Europe, 1994, which I used extensively at Romani people by country (it includes also the 1,800,000-2,500,000 for Romania). Regarding the questioning of some Romani cultural features, I consider too this as an important part of the problem. But I perceive this as a fear of anything that does not belong to the personal culture, that in many cases may result in a rejection of other people's culture. I mean, these features that you contest are the current framework of the Romani groups (keeping also in mind the diversity among them), it is the Romanipen, the Romani culture that supports and keeps alive millions of persons in diaspora. If it rises the eyebrows of the non-Roma among whom we live, they should try first to understand what it means, why does it exist and then to engage in a dialogue to see how can we, Roma and non-Roma, can establish a common ground for a society that would include both lifestyles. But not to dismiss quickly the Romani culture as abnormal and impose the other worldview (in this sense, we always had a moral upper hand in this issue, we never tried, even thought, about imposing our worldview to the others). Because this is a situation that goes nowhere, we will live in different worlds for ever. I see very well how the Romanian mass-media highlights any Romani feature that is not fitted in the current framework of the Romanian state, but is this really only our guilt? The issues on stake are relative, if we would live in the Indian subcontinent, we would be just another jati, caste (with subcastes) among hundreds of others, nothing special (btw the expression "tribal organization" is misfitted, in fact it is a caste system, based on purity rules, not on territory as is for the tribes). Now, that we are in diaspora, what we should do? To assimilate? Never, we did not see yet anywhere something to amaze and please us more than our culture. To go back in the Subcontinent, now that we found out our origin? No, an en-masse emigration is strongly dismissed, because, first, it is unethical to force an entire population to move, there should be just the freedom of movement without any direct or indirect pressures, and second, the contemporary South Asian countries are overpopulated. The only solution is the dialogue, in order to end this living in different worlds. As far as I know, there are no good cultures and bad cultures, everyone is good for itself. This should be the beginning of a dialogue. And an openness for the multiculturalism, which some non-Romani societies still fear to apply. They may see the example of the Indian subcontinent. There a minority is respected, it is considered that adding a minority is like mixing milk with sugar, together is better than separated. There took refuge, were never mistreated by the local people and became fully integrated in the local societies without any pressure to assimilate Jews fleeing from Babylonians and Romans, Christians fleeing from Romans, Parsis fleeing from Muslims and so on (who knows, probably it is the only civilization on Earth doing this). They did not imagined conspiracy theories, about the others trying to destroy or overrule them, for example, in the moment I'm writing now this text, the President, the Prime-minister, the leader of the ruling party and the leader of the judicial system in India, all belong to minorities. They were and are never scared of other people, the same as us. In this sense, from our part there is already a strong beginning of a cultural dialogue, for many centuries we created bridges between the cultures, see, for example, the music produced by us or traditions of other people that sometimes we keep alive. We are not afraid of doing this, for us our identity is in a safe place, we don't feel as loosing anything, on the contrary. This I think is the strength of a culture and of a morality. The truth is that we are deeply polite and respectful people (and you'll see that in the future, when we will break the current obstacles and we will succeed in making public our normality, this is how we will be known), but we request the same from the others, otherwise there is no possibility of a dialogue.

Thus, I agree to a polite debate about anything that is perceived as strange for other worldviews, but certainly not to an outright dismiss as an "utter incompatibility". The Romani culture is a normal one for itself, the same as any other culture, it has its own evolutions, the same as any other culture, there are debates about how to adapt it to the modernity, the same as in any other culture. The same as for other contemporary Desi populations, among us there appears too the question: Are you married? Was it arranged marriage or free choice? To describe the Desi way of life as non-modern shows at least a very localized vision, that has no idea about the economic developement of India, which, if keeping this pace, around the year 2050 will surpass USA, or the fact that the Indians are the richest ethnic group in USA itself (this because they emigrated in the last decades and had the possibility of equal chances, not like those who emigrated in the 19th century as almost slaves in Guyana or Fiji, who now are just slightly better than the Roma). See also this article of Ian Hancock, Romani Origins and Romani Identity: A Reassessment of the Arguments, he too saying that the non-Romanies in their droves have decided that arranged early-teen marriage among Romanian Romanies is reprehensible (though no similar outrage has been directed at India, where it is also common and where the Romani custom originated; see BBC 2003). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 21:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Kuch phrala, I haven't read your whole comment above, but I happened to notice the following part of it: They may see the example of the Indian subcontinent. There a minority is respected, it is considered that adding a minority is like mixing milk with sugar, together is better than separated. There took refuge, were never mistreated by the local people and became fully integrated in the local societies without any pressure to assimilate Jews fleeing from Babylonians and Romans, Christians fleeing from Romans, Parsis fleeing from Muslims and so on (who knows, probably it is the only civilization on Earth doing this).

It is very kind of you to try to portray us Indians as such generous people, but I think you are not accounting for certain facts of Indian history. I think the Parsis were basically accepted partly because (according to legend) they had some royal patronage in India. They were very fair-skinned and thus fulfilled the main criterion of "beauty" in India; this may have helped, too. But perhaps most importantly: they assimilated into North Indian society to a large extent. Parsis abandoned their language, a critical part of any culture, and do not speak Persian; they usually speak some combination of Gujarati, Hindi, and English.

As for Christians and Jews: in some parts of India (I'm thinking specifically of Kerala), there had been a long history of foreign trade. In Kerala particularly, all kinds of foreigners eagerly went to Kerala to trade Chinese woks (cheena chaTTi in Malayalam), Portuguese scarlet, etc. for spices that grew very well in Kerala (especially black pepper). But as I understand it, since Malayalees themselves did not venture outside of Kerala, they needed middlemen to communicate in Chinese, Arabic, Portuguese, etc. Jews established themselves in Kerala primarily as businessmen, and possibly middlemen as well. Some Christians were in a similar situation; others were simply converted Jews. Apparently, there also used to be a large Chinese community there, possibly more middlemen.

On the other hand, elsewhere in India, Hindus and Muslims have been murdering one another for centuries. And the later arrival of Christians was (and is) not appreciated there, either. Why? Because Muslims did not assimilate and were not offering any prospects of business, either. (Same with Christians in those parts.)

So basically, it has nothing to do with the "Desi" generosity or anything. The historical framework was simply very different and opportune. --Kuaichik 02:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, about the Muslims and Christians, isn't it the same rejection of the Dharmic way of life (the same thing as the "utter incompatibility" expressed before by non-Roma) and the desire to convert them? They are not received well the activities of the Christian missionaries or to see the children from Bangladesh's madrassas saying how they are taught to convert willingly or unwillingly the Dharmics. And in fact it is not just about a desire, but a centuries-old active policy of assimilation from their part. If they wouldn't do it, there is nothing to suggest that there would not be cordial relations the same as with other minorities. See the case of the Christians in Kerala, I don't think that all of them were engaged in trade and thus they were just necessary, since they are a sizeable minority. Also, there is nothing to suggest that if the Parsis would have retained the language then they would have had integration problems.

For a person living in diaspora, it really is a big difference of approach to minorities, that I don't know to happen elsewhere. See that example of the current leadership in India. Nowadays it is hard to imagine a Romani prime-minister in Romania or, let's say, an Arab president in France. And in spite of some assimilation policies from some Christians and Muslim, still people from these minorities can be appreciated as individuals (again, their part in that leadership, or in the Indian army or elsewhere). It is really a big difference, which should be appreciated as such. Also the lack of any willingness in the Dharmic history to convert other people or to try a political expansion. See also this saying among Romanian-speaking Roma: Un ţigan între români e ca mâţa între câini/Un român între ţigani trăieşte o sută de ani ("A Gypsy among Romanians is like a cat among dogs/A Romanian among Gypsies lives a hundred years.") Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 09:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comparisons are not well chosen. As proven by the recent elections, anyone can be a president of France if he/she respects and promotes what is called "Republican values", which include the Western conception of State of Law and Human Rights. There is no place here for parallel justice, community-centric organizations, etc. Or this is exactly what you advocate. In Romania, this sort of organization posed no problem while the society was feudal (I presume this is why there are far more Roma in Romania than elsewhere). However, in the last 150 years Romania has adopted at a fast pace another society model, whose main trait is normalization, in the sense of introducing and enforcing social norms. This is something the West knew for a long time through the Catholic Church, and which in the former Soviet space was introduced forcibly. Nevertheless, you cannot expect to preserve a "Dharmic way of life", whatever it is, in the Western world. The only things you can preserve are some outer signs such as garment, some traditional crafts, and that's all.

Note that the Romanians, too, were traumatised by this fast transition from traditional to modern (for instance, the urban conversion is far from completed). However, there is no institution left to contradict the modernizing social organization.

Insisting to preserve what you call "Dharmic way of life" places you, I'm afraid, on a collision course with the normalizing Western civilization. If you persist in it, you will certainly remain rejected and treated as marginals. Dpotop 09:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you don't want or you are not ready to accept the normality of other cultures and thus to understand that the Dharmic way of life is modern the same as is the Catholic way of life. This assimilation that you would like to see will never happen and already there is some dislike to the approach of the EU officials that support the same vision as yours, see this article. Its underlying message is that we are not guilty of belonging to our culture and as the example of other Desi people shows, the Dharmic way of life is modern and has its own evolutions. I consider this expression "normalizing Western civilization" very disrespectful to other cultures. Again, although unwanted, the Romani moral upper hand seem to remain. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that! :):) You really think those guys care about Roma? You should really visit Roma communities in Western Europe. Everybody rejects nomadic Roma. They have huge difficulties finding places to stay with their caravans. I've seen people blocking roads to prevent caravans from installing.

You must understand that those guys are criticising Romania and Bulgaria to comfort anti-enlargement electors, not because they care about Roma. Of course, there may be one or two notable exceptions, but probably not in the European Popular Party (which is right-wing). Dpotop 10:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, "normality" is not universally-defined. Normal means "complying with norms". You say that the norm of Indian society is "Dharmic", so behaving dharmic is normal in India. But in Europe the norm is different. So, behaving "dharmic" is not normal w.r.t. western way of life. It can be accepted, which is a different word, but not "normal". Of course, behaving "dharmic" is normal inside a Roma community in Europe. Of course, here we enter into philosophical and moral discussions. Dpotop 10:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What guys are you talking about? The EU officials or the ERIO? Ivan Ivanov is Rom from Bulgaria. About the discussion regarding the "normality", isn't it the multiculturality the answer? Otherwise we will be stuck in this history of anti-Romani marginalization and violence, which unfortunately made until now the European experience of the Romani people. A step that in fact would recognize, officialize a 8 century multiculturality that exists in Europe since the Roma arrived. And, as I wrote before, this is not at all a bad thing or something to scare. And keep in mind that, as I said before, I don't exclude a polite and respectful debate about how a European society with a Romani minority integrated would look like, a debate that would emphasize the continuity from the contemporary Romani way of life (the normal evolution of the Dharmic society, I wrote before). Again, see the example of India, there the Dharm is not the norm, as you say, is just the way of life of the majority, but other ways of life are accepted too. In fact this is the base of the Dharm. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What 8 century multiculturality are you talking about? No contry accepted Roma, so no multicultural society existed. What existed and still exists is the "mainstream" society, and the Roma, at the margins, rejected as a community and rejecting integration. That's all. No multi-cultural society. Dpotop 12:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming interesting, it seems to bring to light all kind of current non-Romani notions about us. So, the multiculturalism exists, even in small things like the debate I have with you now. I assure you I am no fiction, I am a Romani person born and grown up in Europe. It concerns the simple presence of the Romani people (see the presentation of what it means at the article Multiculturalism, there too it says how the modern state of India was the first to accept it officially after a long history of active multiculturalism) and it goes further to the cultural bridges I wrote before, although until now only stemming from the Romani side. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 13:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice point! Of course we discuss, and of course there's no prejudice involved. But there are two differences w.r.t. the society at large:

We are not average members of our communities.
Here on wiki we are both bounded by a conduct code we both respect, regardless of conventions of our real-life communities. There's another adjacent point here: No traditional rules apply to the new online communities, so we are left to create new rules.

Similar hypothesis are satisfied in other communities, such as arts, university, a.s.o. But, unfortunately, these two hypothesis are not satisfied in "real-life" societies. Frankly, I wouldn't bet on Europe choosing fine-grain multiculturalism anytime soon. Side note: The Canadians tried to do it (even introduced some forms of community-specific law) but now they don't like it any more, because it doesn't really work. Back to Europe: The only way to get rid of discrimination in the near future (I think) is to integrate, in the sense of dropping traditions contradicting the current Western model. Dpotop 14:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree to the two differences. Well, about that Canadian approach, it was really childish to promote folk dances and ethnic dishes. This is not even a Romani point of view about what means identity, we are not at all interested in cultural museum items to boost the pride, if something is not felt anymore as socially alive, it is dropped. If we would have been misleaded by praising cultural museum items we would have been assimilated long time ago, because the children would have find the non-Romani stuff more lively. Starting from this understanding that the Romani way of life is really a lively one for its people, a culture in itself, there should appear clarifications of what means identity (isn't it? there is even no clear definition of what this means, some agree to Samuel P. Huntington, Arnold J. Toynbee approach, others to that of Benedict Anderson and countless others) in order not to fall in these amateurish state policies and to find concrete ways of living together, otherwise, it will continue the current state of affairs. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not just dances and dishes. As I noted above, what poses problem is the use of Sharia Islamic law for marriages. Which parallels well the subsistance of "stabor" in Roma communities. You cannot have one society and two laws. Dpotop 15:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't compare the stabor to sharia, they express different worldviews (in fact sharia is closer to the current Christian-based Western values, than to the Romanipen). Also regarding the "technical" data, sharia is a law as a whole and it is justified to say one society and two laws, it is also codified, while the stabor regulates the life of a Romani community not excluding the existence of the state's legislation, it is based on an unwritten core of values with an application in continuous evolution. It makes me remember rather the case of modern Japan, where the "Western style" judicial system is present, but it is largely unused, because it does not conform to the unwritten core of Japanese values, thus the matters are mostly settled in private. It is something effective, because, the same as in the case of the Roma, it is a matter of honor, thus unavoidable. But the judicial system, national or international, is used when involving a Gaijin part. Thus, I continue to say that this is not the problem itself, there are many Roma living a modern life from a Romani point of view. The problem is mostly the nonacceptance of the majority.

For example, there are many Roma in America, emigrated from Romania after the liberation, who respect the Romanipen and are also an active part of the society. The other side of the story here is that, having in mind the discrimination from Eastern Europe and because from the second half of the 19th century countries of immigration like USA and Argentina prohibited the arrival of Roma (on racial grounds), they choose to identify publicly en-masse with other ethnicities locally accepted, darker if possible, like Greeks, Italians, Hispanics. They became a part of the local society, albeit keeping a very low profile, and restricting strongly to the private space the Romanipen (in USA they are dubbed sometimes "the hidden Americans", about one million people, but few non-Roma know about their real ethnicity). It was possible, because the other local people have no idea about the Romanipen, and probably to reject it as foreign. They could even renounce to the Romani dress for becoming less visible, but not to Romanipen. See this video from Argentina or this from USA. What's abnormal or non modern in these people? There are some millions of recent Desi immigrants in USA, Canada, UK, with similar caste based organization, I see that somehow they keep also a low profile, while they become integrated and successful in the local societies.

However, personally I hope for a public presence of the Romani people. At least in Eastern Europe where, Roma and non-Roma, we know each other's identity external visible features, there is no other choice. We have to come forward with visions of living together. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 17:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your last statement: No, except for extreme cases, I do not know how to distinguish a Roma from a Romanian. The ones I can distinguish are:

women with many robes
men with large hats
people that speak a language I assume it's Romani

There is also a sort of "convention", which I consider weird, but somehow justified bywhat you call "genetics", to consider Roma any person with India-like traits.

But what I counted here do not make up for 10% of the population (2,500,000). The only way to go up to that number is to count as Roma every single person in Romanian that is dirty and poor. Which corresponds to the use of the word "Tigan", which is less an ethnonym, but more a name for a social class. Dpotop 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This prejudice regarding the economic status seems not to care for any formal logic, Romanian Roma are either accused of being too poor or accused of being too rich (like those from Zanea), exaggerations go in both directions and they coexist although they deny each other. As for the "visibility" of the 10%, your presentation is concerned mostly about the people you would see while walking on the street, which obviously can't give the necessary information. In this way probably you would consider the village of Zece Prajini as Romanian, because they speak Romanian, do not dress specifically Romani, they are not poor, also I don't know how far your visibility for "India-like traits" goes (among Roma it is known that the non-Roma, especially when not living among many Roma, do not make very well these distinctions, the same as when many Indian citizens from Northwest are not distinguished as such when they are in other geographic areas, Punjabis, Kashmiris are known to be mistook for Greeks or Italians, although it would have been possible not to make this mistake), however, they are Roma. To me the 10% looks perfectly reasonable, it confirms my perception of the Romanian society (dismissing any connection with that economic status prejudice) about the Romanian citizens who are Roma. Only some days ago I listened at Romanian BBC, about some Romani villages in Botosani, which on that local level are known as Romani, however, they declared Romanian at the last census, because of the reasons explained above. Now it was sought to make official the Romani ethnicity in order to receive development grants the same as other local Romani villages. If you wonder about the high Romani presence in Romania, it is determined by the former slavery, a historical event that now is mostly hidden in the Romanian society, thus poorly known by non-Roma. By the middle of the 19th century in the contemporary area of Romania there lived an important part of the worldwide Romani population, because for 5 centuries any Romani person entering Moldova and Wallachia (except the Ottoman citizens) became state propriety and was prohibited to leave (this while the rest of the European countries mostly banished the Roma), determining also phenomenons specific only to Romania (like Roma living in villages, working in agriculture). Also rulers like Stefan cel Mare, Vlad Tepes and others brought thousands of captive Roma from the neighboring countries in their military campaigns. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 21:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Coming back to where this started, it is imposible o have an absolute criterion on what makes somebody to belong to a certain ethnic group, and this is even more complicated with the Romanies. The genetic criterion is the most primitive and its based on the idea that each nation is a race which is plain stupid. I personaly believe that it should be a combination of ancestry, cultural afiliation and identification (by itself and by the others). When it comes to self-identification i have a tricky idea that problaly many wont agree with it. But i say that it doesnt matter when people hide or deny their ancestry 'when they know inside' that they have ancestry in a certain ethnic group (in our case the Romanies). And nobody can tell me that Stefan Banica Jr doesnt know that he has Romani ancestry. I know that this not resolve our problem, but as i said its imposible to give an absolute answer to this question.--AKoan (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You cant use the G-word for Gods sake listen up

I removed parts of the intro where the G word was high lighted because its politcally incorrect and the word itself is repulsive and offensive to Romani people. 3 murders thanks to the G-word here in Finland (There are probably more if you give me time to dig it up). I was blocked/banned whatever you wanna call it for a period and what happened here in Finland? Some guy called a Romani guy a "fucking gypsy" before the abuser was shot point blank in the head dead! Yeah! So sleep well tonight blocker!

*chuckle* so much for this [9] then ay, MadeinFinland? --Hayden5650 11:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, who got shot? The Finnish man or the Gypsy? reading it the way you wrote it, it sounds as if the man called the Gypsy a 'fucking Gypsy' then shot him. But you could also interpret it as the man said 'fucking gypsy', then the Gypsy shot him. --Hayden5650 11:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What does the section on "Language and great weasel words" have to with anything? No one mentioned the offensiveness of the word "Gypsy/gypsy/gipsy" there. Both of you are trying to portray the Romani people with no evidence of actual knowledge. I strongly suggest the pair of you leave this page alone, at least until you have actually learned a good deal about the Romani people. --Kuaichik 06:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm Gypsy. I use that word, oh yes. I'm Gypsy. And what? RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Origin, India????

Thats weird because on the Swedish WP site it says Turkey! Time for huge changes dad? -reinserting statement deleted by MadeinFinland sockpuppet

What on Earth are you talking about? "(O)n the Swedish WP site it says" Romerna utvandrade från Indien ("the Romanies left (from) India"). --Kuaichik 22:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Lysnna nu! Det stod Turkiet på den Svenska sidan före någon editerings glad person omskrev den! --I don't know much Swedish (just a little, plus German which helps), but if I'm not mistaken, this statement inserted by MadeinFinland reads, "Listen now! It said (lit. "there was the") Turkey on the Swedish site before some edits; [some] gay person overwrote it!"

Who are you to counter 240 years of research that has proved, and established, beyond reasonable doubt that the Romanies are from India? Even the first post "on the Swedish WP site" read: "romer kommer från indien penjab" ("Roma come from India 'Penjab'," i.e. Punjab, India).

If, in fact, "gay" was the meaning you intended with the Swedish word glad, stop making personal attacks. It is very rude, very unwise, and very illegal by Wikipedia rules. In addition, to call a user "gay" in this way is blatant discrimination, no better than racism. Stop! --Kuaichik 20:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

To remove racist statements are considered vandalism?

Or why did a person warn me about removing things? Ive noticed it here and there on WP its called TONE or something.... could we please change it you think?

Lantonov 11:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I for one..

Am proud to call myself a Gypsy. Sure, I've been called a 'fucking gypsy' before, but that doesn't make Gypsy any more pejorative than calling someone a 'fucking asian' or 'fucking american' makes 'asian' or 'american' pejorative. Well that's how I feel anyway, as a proud Gypsy. --Euro Gypsy 07:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! Well, about the Gypsy word, it conveys only stereotypes and prejudices, it is a fictional character part of the non-Romani culture. What does it have in common with the Romani culture? Unless a person with Romani ascendancy is too much assimilated among non-Roma, but then usually that person is not considered Romani. Gypsy and Romani are two different worlds, two unrelated social meanings, I don't see how a person can live in both (unless, who knows, one of them is fake). And Gypsy with its similar words in other languages are generally pejorative, this is the common accepted point of view, unless someone would prove that the anti-Romani prejudices and stereotypes are true. From a Romani point of view, they are perceived as opposite, Gypsy is anti-Romani, it negates Romani. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding something: You reject the word "Gypsy", as you probably reject "Tigan" because it carries a lot of prejudice (I agree it does). But this has nothing to do with the word not being "fictional". There is nothing fictional about it. It's the old name everybody else used for Roma for centuries.

The reason the word is replaced today is related to current political correctness practice. The example being followed is that of "nigger" in the US, or that of "Jidan" in Romania.

Mind you, however, that rejecting and replacing the word as a token of stigma is not the only solution. For instance, the cognate for "Jidan" did not change in other countries, such as France ("Juif") or England ("Jew"), even though the prejudice was comparable in other centuries (such as 19th and early 20th). In these countries, the traditional word losed its pejorative sense along with the negative perception of the minority in the population. And I'm not sure that rejecting the word "Gypsy" will ease discrimination of Roma. For the time being, I see it as just an artificial calling by the "enlightened" or "vote-hungry" elite, as well as the "civil society". Dpotop 08:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is not fictional, then you consider true the Gypsist prejudices and stereotypes? The comparison with "Jew" is obviously inappropriate. Jew is an endonym (in Hebrew is yehudi), the same as Romani is an endonym. As for an artificial calling, I consider this again as the usual centuries-long imposition of non-Romani stereotypes. This is the endonym, how could it be artificial? The other word is artificial, a fiction. If it is true for you, this is your problem, but this should not impede me to express my own reality. As a side note, do you have a problem with the public expression of the Romani identity? Its branding as an artificial calling by the "enlightened" or "vote-hungry" elite suggests that you are not very happy about it. For the benefit of the societies as a whole, of those that include Romani minorities (including that of the Romanian state), this thing should be clarified. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 09:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You mix up in the matter the problem of endonyms and exonyms. For instance, Greeks call themselves Elens. "Greek" is an exonym, but nobody is going to change the way Romanians or Americans call the Greeks. It's normal. Each language has its own way for calling the other nations/languages/etc. Justified by tradition. Dpotop 09:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Second, the fact that the term "Gypsy" is used (which is real) is different from the stereotypes associated with it. For instance, Jews managed to get rid of these stereotypes in France and in Britain. In Romania, for some reason, they preferred replacing "Jidan" with "Evreu", which is another endonym. Dpotop 09:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And NO: I have no problem with the public expression of Romani culture and identity. But I do not understand how imposing the word "Roma" instread of the traditional exonyms "Gypsy" or "Tigan" is going to improve the public perception. I mean, the average French/Romanian/German/whatever will have the same prejudice , regardless of the way you call yourself. The problem is getting rid of prejudice, not getting rid of an exonym. Dpotop 09:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Greek is not far away from Elen, while Gypsy is a negation of Rom, they are very different cases. And the idea that the main focus of using Rom is "to get rid of these stereotypes" is probably an outsider's perception. An important necessity derives from the spreading of the Romani population across many countries and continents, and the need to have clear identification everywhere. Many of the contemporary Roma do not speak Romani (however, this does not imply that they lost the culture, the contemporary Kale or Romungre do not speak the language, for example) they use other languages to communicate and the endonym Rom(ani) consequently is used also in these languages (including Romanian). It's not like the Greeks who have their own country, use their own language, and thus have their own private space. In the case of Roma this minority status implies also the public use of the endonym. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 09:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And getting rid of the stereotypes is also an issue (probably it depends on the context which is the most important). It is normal to use the word implying the reality, when the discrepancies are so wide. If I got my hand in a pot with hot water, I should first get my hand out of there, I should not wait the water to cool. And the Romani case is not the only contemporary one, see Inuit-Esquimo, Saami-Lap, KhoiKhoi-Hottentot and others. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 09:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here in New Zealand there's a sizable group of families (a few hundred) who are ethnically white but have converted things like buses or trucks into big ornate motor homes. They call themselves 'Gypsies' and travel around the country like a circus. Each year the 'Gypsy Fair' comes to my town. They sell and peddle all sorts of things. Paintings, handcrafts, metal work, candyfloss, all sorts of things. They also have trained bears and other animals which they keep on chains (well the bears are on chains) which perform for the people. The also sell various carvings, especially of Celtic things. Including swastikas (not Hitlers one). They dress somewhat oddly on show days and burn alot of incense but they are white people, not ethnic Gypsies. Just thought I'd throw this in for anyones' interest. I must get some photos and put them on the talk page just for any other editor here's curiosity. --Hayden5650 09:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC) They also do those tattoos the punjabs do on their hands, but they do them as normal tats that last a few weeks. --Hayden5650 09:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's another issue that supposes the use of Rom to clarify the ethnicity. There are White folks that converted the Gypsy fiction into their own reality (with a peak probably during the years 1960s-1970s, by young USA people dissatisfied with the war in Vietnam and who choose a perceived counterculture, fancying as Gypsies, see Woodstock and stuff like that). Also there are many non-Romani women who pretend to be Gypsy, when giving astrological advices. However, this active use by White people is mostly in Western Europe and countries populated by emigrants from this area, Eastern Europe doesn't have something like this. Regarding Western Europe, I should bring also a clarification, namely that except Iberian Peninsula, a part of the Romani population living there may have physical features more similar to the White European population and sometimes at a first glance it would not be clear who are Romani and who are not. Only the expression of the personal culture in the private space, not at "Gypsy fairs", would clarify this issue. Also, again in Western Europe, there is a millenarian now tradition of indigenous nomad people, who are also named Gypsies by the majority (like the Irish or Norwegian Travellers, the Quinquilleros of Spain, the Yeniche of Germany, Switzerland and others). Thus another point in making a distinction between Gypsy and Romani. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Euro Gypsy, there are many Romanies like you who are proud of calling themselves "Gypsies." There is nothing wrong with this, but most Romanies take offense at that term. Most of the people reading this article are non-Romanies, so it is best to give them the safest advice, i.e. (basically) "when in doubt, don't call a Romani a 'Gypsy.'" (If you wish, as a Romani yourself, you may substitute "Gypsy"/"Gypsies" for "Romani"/"Romanies" throughout this message.)

Dpotop, you say there is nothing fictional about the exonym "Gypsy"? Do you know what the etymology of this word is? (If not, here it is: it is a corruption of the word "Egyptian," used because the place of origin for Romanies was, at first, popularly thought to be Egypt rather than India.)

Finally, about Whites who masquerade as "Gypsies," I think this also makes the "gypsy stereotype" even deeper engrained in non-Romani populations. --Kuaichik 23:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No matter how they are called: Gypsy, Tsigans, or Roma - that word quickly gathers negative meaning because of negative qualities of people themselves: stealing, lying and uneducated to almost 100%. Lantonov 11:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to subjects you know something about. If there is anything we need on this page, it is fewer, not more, antiziganists editing this page. --Kuaichik 17:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, brother!!! Sastypen tuke!!! RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Romany girl from cz 2005.jpg

Does anyone have any evidence that this girl is infact Roma? --Hayden5650 09:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Completly agree!!!!....I really dont think she is a Roma girl..she look pure Indian(or parents from India).

I want to take a big book of how to write English correctly and slap you with it ;) --Hayden5650 11:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

true i agree haha..sorry.. 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this picture should be singled out. Just because this particular girl happens to look wealthy? For that matter, what evidence is there that the people in any of the other pictures are Romani? --Kuaichik 03:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to the original post: of course she looks Indian, the Romani were originally from India! I've seen plenty of Romanies that look Indian-esque like her. Frankly, I think she spruces up the article quite nicely--she's quite beautiful! (Makes a nice contrast to stock images of impoverished "Gypsies" in dire need of a shower huddled in their hovels, anyway...) K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 03:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I support her being kept there because there are no other pictures of rich Romanies in the whole article. This would be a nice way of presenting the wide variety of Romanies that exist in Europe: a balance of rich and poor Romanies, Western and Eastern European Romanies, etc. rather than a portrayal skewed in any one direction. --Kuaichik 00:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of Romani celebrities that could be inserted into the article if one wanted to present richer Gypsies. But that girl looks REALLY desi, is there any verification that she is indeed Romani? If I were to insert a random picture of a French girl and claim she was Romani, I would be projecting falsehood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.193.225 (talk) 17:59, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Did you not happen to notice my reply when you asked this question before?! I already answered the fact that "that girl looks REALLY desi." And yes, of course there are many Romani celebrities who are rich, but they are not the only Romanies who are rich. --Kuaichik 21:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I never asked this question before.. Anyhow, as compared to the other photos present in the article, I don't this she is a representative of the Romani people because she looks fairly different from the surrounding pictures. Perhaps if you found and posted more desi-looking Czech Romanis, I wouldn't mind, but she's quite distinct and clearly stands out. And sure, Romanis may have derived from India and the Punjabi, but seriously, don't you think that after centuries of migration, (sometimes forced) assimilation, and mixed marriage in Europe, it would make it quite rare to find darker, more southern-asian looking Romanis? "And yes, of course there are many Romani celebrities who are rich, but they are not the only Romanies who are rich."- So you'd prefer to choose a desi-looking Romani over many other more suitable representations? My only issue is that, quite frankly, I have never seen an "Indian-esque" Gypsy (to this calibre), and although she is beautiful, I don't feel she represents this ethnicity. I'm not saying "put up more pics of emaciated/impoverished gypsies", but back in Brazil, the Ciganas looked quite differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.193.225 (talk) 05:00, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Could it be that maybe the Romani are more diverse as a people than you think? Unless there is a *real* reason to suspect that she is not Romani, she stays (especially while we still haven't gotten those Greek Roma girls back yet...) K. Lásztocska 11:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, well w/e. I found these pics of actual Romanis dancing a traditional Romani dance in Italy.Heres the article[10]and here the pics [11]. There's also this that goes along with this article. Greek girls? These girls?? []?

Those pics are excellent but they're copyrighted. We would need to get permission from the photographers. K. Lásztocska 16:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The picture of the Greek Roma girls, seen in this article, doesn't seem to be copyright. Well, at least, I couldn't find any copyrights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.193.225 (talk) 17:37, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

That page was copied from an earlier version of the wikipedia article which ommitted the copyright information. The photo is by Vasilis Artikos and copyright information can be found here Dinlo juk 10:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the author of the picture. Eh, I have not been here for a while, so I did not know that there is this question asked by Hayden5650. Sorry for coming rather late. The answer is: Yes, the pretty girl in white dress is Roma. She lives in Brno, Czech Republic, her name is Lucie. The picture was shot in summer 2004 in Brno (neighb. Husovice) when there was a wedding. Lucie was one of the bridesmaids. Lucie did not want me to shoot her picture at first, but her mother ordered her to pose, because she had asked me to make some photos of her daughter. Later that year printed some of the pictures on HP premium paper I gave them to her. She was very pleased. And, of course in June 2007 I asked her for the permission to use her picture for Wikipeda (I had to explain her what wiki is as she is not too familiar with Internet) and she kindly agreed. Lucie is quite ordinary, although very pretty. And no, she is not rich :-). I often see her as we are neighbours. Her native language is Czech, but her mother can speak Romany language quite well. Really not all Romanies in the Czech Republic are poor, not all of them live in ghettoes, not all of them are bad criminals. I have many personal friends who are ethnic Roma and many of them are educated, intelligent, and very nice people. --Anglos 20:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of 'Desi' Romani girls in Eastern Europe and some of them are quite beautiful. I was surprised to see that there were in Italy, too.--AKoan (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation

There has been a WP:3RR violation here i think - and at least some edit warring over the picture. Jddphd 18:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ILike2BeAnonymous, similar as in other cases, refuses to talk at the discussion page about the controversial edits. The fact is that there are added pictures painting stereotypes about Roma, the issue was discussed at Talk:Romani_people#Roma_boy_in_bear_costume. Also it is notable the arrogant attitude of this user. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 18:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussed, yes, but by no means settled. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how posting that picture of the man with tattoos etc is inappropriate when it represents far more romas than the girl further down the page in the dress who is obviously well groomed and financed, certainly not representing a majority of romas. --Hayden5650 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have posted 3RR warnings on your talk pages and this will suffice to be my notice of 3RR for admin reporting. PLEASE sort it out amongst yourselves. Can you find a different picture perhaps? Jddphd 18:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would revert it back to before this contentiousness started but I'd rather see you all come to an agreement. Work it out. I'll be back. Jddphd 19:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

To Hayden, you personally said and also it is obvious from your edits that you don't have contacts with Roma, why you keep then supporting what is in your imagination? To Anonymous: then do you have arguments? How comes the picture is representative? Also what do you mean by useful? There is already a picture inthat place. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you addressed me, I've been to Bulgaria (I think I've even been to that very town), seen Roma there, marvelled at their music, their zurna/tapan bands, and I think that picture captures at least part of their essence perfectly. So I'm not completely unqualified to comment on this, you see. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that Gypsies are blocked out of many towns for scenes exactly like this. Remember, wikipedia is not an advertisement or brochure, it is an encyclopaedia and therefore presents the good on an equal footing as the bad.

And it's hardly in my imagination when clearly there are pictures documenting it. --Hayden5650 19:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but neither is wikipedia a place to antagonize others is it. There is some basis for being civil and perhaps even considerate and recognizing this person's concerns on a matter that is surely not a finding of fact. Jddphd 19:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You are not on a course that is going to lead to agreement on this picture. As a neutral observer can I suggest that it simply be REMOVED? Jddphd 19:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No, we can't simply remove something everytime someone is offended, whether they are a minority or not.--Hayden5650 19:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree to a point, but you are not being asked to remove a fact, just a picture. Jddphd 19:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what I'm saying, this is an encyclopaedia, you can't promote here your disregard for what you (Hayden) name "Gypsies". Other users with views similar as yours made the article List of Romani settlements with all kind of bad settlements to cast a bad image, without adding info about how many times the local authorities from South Eastern Europe stop any systematization projects (like water, electricity etc.) where the non-Romani neighborhood ends and the Romani one starts and to present also examples or Romani neighborhoods that are normal or even look better than the surrounding non-Romani, in order to dismantle these prejudices. Poor Roma is a prejudice. In Romania it is also the prejudice of rich Roma (like those from Zanea and other localities) also harmful as the other prejudice. The Roma outside Europe, which are about a third of the Romani population are largely successful economically. Thus the picture is used only to enforce stereotypes. Also I'd like to add that Hayden was blocked twice for disrupting behavior on Romani issues, promoting prejudices about the "Gypsy crime". Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Enough

The goal of pictures in this article is to show Romani people, right? This picture is contentious and the reasons underlying the contention are not shared. There are two rational solutions:

Remove the picture entirely
Replace the picture with something that still shows Romani people but is less contentious.

I am not necessarily representing Desiphral's point, but I do not see how acquiescing on the picture is somehow a compromise of principles or commission of a lie. Please decide what to do. You all obviously care about this page. If you truly care about its content and the principles of wikipedia then there has to be a way to reach a consensus. --Jddphd 19:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There is the other picture that the current contentious one is replacing. I consider that this would be ok. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You're all too PC. I'm going to work, hope this is sorted by the time I get home. --Hayden5650 19:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No Hayden. It's called consensus and it's an official policy of Wikipedia. -- Jddphd 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thanks to Desi for batting down those edits by MadeInFinland's sockpuppet, and not removing the picture in contention in so doing.

Looking through the article, I'm actually pretty flabbergasted at the fight over this picture, since there seems to be a pretty good variety of representations of Roma people here.

Here's an idea: how about including a small, tasteful "gallery" of pictures of Roma, maybe near the end of the article? Hopefully with a range of pictures depicting the spectrum of faces and types of people included in this diverse population. What do you all think? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable. If you need a WP:3O let me know. Jddphd 19:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

To Jddphd: most of the users editing this page are non-Roma attracted by the Gypsy image. I say this as a disclaimer, they have nothing in common to the Romani people. What is happening on this discussion page is not representative for this people. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Desiphral, I appreciate your concerns. I am just trying to find an acceptable solution. Like I said, if you want a 3rd opinion let me know... Jddphd 19:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

@Anonymous: actually I changed back the photo, because Hayden renounced and you said nothing. About the gallery, yes, it's an idea, but it should be representative. As I said many Roma are living well economically, in fact this is another prejudice. The main impediment is that there are too few free photos available to choose some representative for the reality. @Jddphd, yes 3rd opinions are always welcomed. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I take back the nice things I said about you a moment ago, because I in no way "withdrew my objection", and Hayden simply threw his hands up and said he was taking a break. Please put the picture back. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Then what is your objection? Plus, you did not even answer to the reasons I presented before. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Desiphral - I believe your actions were premature as I cannot see how there was any consensus here. You have violated 3RR. Jddphd 20:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, the things that go on here when I'm gone just for a little bit! But I'd like to point out that the picture of the Romani woman in Rome is the only modern picture of Western European Romanies in this entire article. If we replace even that with a picture of Bulgarian Romanies (and that too a seemingly controversial picture), how are we being representative?

I'm a bit confused about what exactly is being said in this discussion... --Kuaichik 00:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this sockpuppet still here?

Just wondering why User:Bob Lee Swagger is still allowed to rampage around here and wreck this article. Isn't it established that this is merely a sockpuppet of the (banned, I believe) "MadeInFinland" of not very long ago? If not, has anyone bothered to do a checkuser? Inquiring minds want to know. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Report "him" then? Jddphd 19:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This user has been reported as a suspected sock and for abusive comments and has been banned. Jddphd 20:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Gallery of pictures of Roma

I'd like to get started on that "gallery" of pictures I proposed. The idea is to assemble a small collection of pictures showing the range of Roma faces and surroundings from around the world. Could people perhaps submit candidates here on this page so we can select from them? (Other, better ideas always considered.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Er, is this meant to replace the Romani woman in Rome? --Kuaichik 03:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of this as a replacement for any specific pictures, though I think we could move some of the article's existing pictures there. Apparently this idea hasn't caught fire yet ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Romani, really the right term?

I happened to go to the article Romanian, not to edit but just for a read. Got through the first line, couldn't believe my eyes. The first line reads;

The Romanians (români in present-day Romanian and rumâni in historical contexts) are an ethnic group; they are the majority inhabitants of Romania.

Wow. My cigarette almost fell from my lips. That really leaves only one term to describe the people this article deals with: Gypsies. --Hayden5650 11:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

... until one considers that români in Romanian is a completely different word from Romani used here; did that ever cross your mind? +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It probably didn't. He's just looking for an excuse to use a derogatory term. Reginmund 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a rather large coincidence. What do proper Romanis (Romanians) call Gypsies then? They obviously wouldnt call them Romani. And I assume that all surrounding European countries would refer to actual Romanians as Romani too? --Hayden5650 21:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Romanians call themselves "români", while calling the Romani people "romi". The Romanian equivalent of "gypsy" is "ţigan", but this is nowadays almost never used in academic or political contexts, or even in the media. No surrounding country refers to Romanian people are "români" or "romani", with most of the exonyms for Romanians beginning with "ru-" (rumuni, Rumänen, etc). Hungarian is an interesting case: they call the Romanians "románok" and the Romani people "romák". Ronline ✉ 11:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"Proper Romanis" are the Indo-Aryan folks who are the subject of this article, not Romanians. Români are Romanians- that circumflex is important. Also, dudes. Seriously, what the fuck. români is the Romanian-language term for Romanians. It's not used in English, so why does it even have a bearing on this article at all? Dewrad 22:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. "Proper Romani" is not a phrase in the English lexicon. Unless one is speaking English. a person from Romania is Romanian and a person from the Romani ethnicity is called a Rom. They are not called Gypsies for the umpteenth time. FYI, Romani people in Romania are called Romi[12]. Reginmund 22:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that (small nitpick) they are called Gypsies, even though that term is seen as pejorative, is based on a misconception, etc., etc., as explained in the article. You can't ignore that reality. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not on here... That's why we don't use those derogatory terms. Reginmund 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "on here"? And who's "we"? I don't recall there being any kind of prohition against writing the word "Gypsy" around here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

When we/Wikipedians write about Romani people on the article, we don;t call them Gypsies, but we only make note of it as being a derogatory term. Reginmund 20:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition to being outdated and offensive, the term "Gypsy" is when used, five out six times not referring to any specific ethnic group, but to any fortune teller or hippe on con man, etc. The article title is used for the sake of accuracy, if nothing else. Also note that, even if we had to abandon the use of the term "Romani", we could go back to "Roma people", or perhaphs just "Rom". Or maybe even "Roma and Sinti". Heck, even "Zigan" might be used. You really think you were gonna get the article changed over a little thing like that? The Myotis 21:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here. I am not saying that I advocate the use of the term "gypsy" in preference to Romani or the other more correct terms. What I am saying is that we (editors of this article) need to recognize reality, which is that many people in the world use the term "gypsy". It's not going away. As the article points out, even some Roma advocacy groups use the word "gypsy" in the names of their own organizations. My guess is that most people who use the term don't do so pejoratively, but simply out of ignorance. This article should (if I can be allowed to get prescriptive for a moment) try to dispel such ignorance. But please give up the idea that you're ever going to eliminate the use of the term "gypsy". It's too deeply embedded in the languages where it appears (tzigane, cigany, etc.). +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No I don't expect to completely eliminate the term, (though it is certainly too generalized to be used regularly in a Wikipedia article) and, in any case, I was talking to Hayden.The Myotis 01:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ILike2BeAnonymous that there is a movement to reclaim the word "gypsy" as a symbol of pride. This is similar to a wide range of other derogatory words reclaimed by minority groups. Many Roma of course prefer the word "Roma" or "Romani" because it does not have the same pejorative connotations and describes an ethnic group rather than a cultural stereotype. However, there are also many Roma who define themselves as "Gypsy". In Romania, for example, I have met several Roma who state that they are "mândru să fiu ţigan" (proud to be gypsy). This should necessarily be seen as a negative process. If the word "gypsy" can be reclaimed by the Roma community, I see that as a good thing. On the other hand, when dealing with the ethnic group, we should always use "Roma" or "Romani", since that is the correct academic term and the autonym. Ronline ✉ 12:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Before coming here to Wiki, the most specific term I had heard for Gypsies was 'Romany Gypsies', both spelt and phrased like that. To English speakers, white people particularly, saying Gypsy is not intended as pejorative whatsoever. It is the only term used to describe Romany Gypsies, 'Romani' by itself would never be used. --Hayden5650 02:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the context. In academic or political contexts, the most common term is "Roma" or "Romani". This is also the main term used in the media, which often refers to them as "Roma people" (i.e. "Roma" becomes both an adjective and a noun, often both plural and singural). In any case, the point is that "Romani" or "Roma" by itself is used quite a lot. Ronline ✉ 11:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, români sounds like roo-myni or roo-many RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk)

Besides, if you want to advocate the use of Gypsy as an ethnonym, you should probably do so on the page, Gypsy. Sizeable back-literature backs up Romani, Roma, and Rom as appropriate terms for academic usage. The best things this discussion seems to have come up with is showing how often Gypsy is derogatory :( (It usually is) and that Romi might be a term that should be strongly borrowed into English. Considering that Romani language lists r(r)omani ćhib as the native term and that http://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_chib lists Romani though, I see no reason for Romani's use to be discontinued.

The only sensible ethnonymy for academica, like Wikipedia, is to keep R(r)om as the singular/male noun, R(r)oma as the plural, and R(r)omani as the adjective/language and possibly to add R(r)omi as the adjective and some other word for the female noun, if either of these are correct. If Romani has no separate consonant of r and rr, I think strictly using r instead of rr in Roman/Latin script makes sense. BTW, I'm interested in starting [[13]] . Anyone else? :)--Thecurran (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

On "Advice for retailers"

This section of the article on Romani people is very relevant (and true) to people wishing to gain knowledge on Roma people. If you wish to delete it please discuss your reasons below this comment. If you are arrogant and in denial that Romani people act in such a way (i'm not saying it's a bad culture, I'm just saying it is their culture, and non-Romani people need to know this) please do not delete this section. I wrote this section of the article. I work in shop and on every single occasion (yes EVERY occasion) that a Roma person came in they stole goods. THIS ARTICLE IS TRUE DON'T DELETE IT!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.39.45 (talk) 00:09 27 July 2007

My reason for removing it is: You must be a complete ass if you think you were going to get away with including that piece of ... whatever in this article. As I said in my edit summary, you can't be serious. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh i'm serious alright! I'm so serious I'm super-cereal! p.s. you live in denial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.219.202 (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2007

Perhaps the section could be better improved with a different title, or generally integrating the information into the article itself. Remember WP isn't a brochure or advice manual, so 'Advice for Retailers' doesn't belong here. Remember all sources must be cited and referenced. --Hayden5650 00:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. That material was utter nonsense, which, in my opinion, can never be backed by reliable sources. The only grain of truth in it was that there is a common perception that Romanies are criminals; that perception should be addressed in more detail, and I have started working on a potential "Rom and Crime" section on my soapbox. I still have to finish it up, though :-P --Kuaichik 03:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying people imagine that they see Romani people commit crimes? THAT is utter nonsense!

What's nonsensical is assuming that all Roma are criminals on the basis of crimes committed by some Romani individuals. K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 17:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"(O)n the basis of crimes committed by some Romani individuals" or sometimes on the basis of just popular imagination/misinterpretation! For example, Prof. Ian Hancock discusses the popular belief that Romanies "steal children." How realistic is this claim, considering that most Romanies have enough trouble trying to care for their own children? It is true that non-Romani Europeans who had an illegitimate child would sometimes leave the child in the care of Romanies; perhaps this is what led to that widespread belief.

It is not utter nonsense at all to say that people often imagine that Romani people commit crimes. People have been finding scapegoats (usually minorities, including the Romani people) throughout history. --Kuaichik 21:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Cripes, I didn't mean to lend any credence to ridiculous myths like the child-stealing thing! I just wanted to make sure the discussion didn't end up being between two outlandish extremes: on the one hand, the "Romanies are all filthy criminals" nonsense, but on the other side, some sort of "Romanies never commit crimes, it's all in your imagination." Of course there are Romanies who commit crimes, just like any other ethnicity--but it's also obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that the Roma get blamed for about 100,000 times more crime than they should. It really saddens me how if, say, an ethnic Hungarian guy robs a store he's just an ordinary criminal and everyone forgets about it the next day, but if a Romani guy robs a store, it inevitably blows up into a big political shouting match and turns into a race issue. (remember the Olaszliszka scandal? Ugh!) K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 00:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops!! Sorry I gave you that impression. I didn't mean to even suggest that you were lending any credence to such myths, either. I was just trying to add to what you were saying. Yes, of course, some Romanies steal, just as e.g. some Italians are involved in some sort of crime, but by no means all. I was just trying to say that in some cases (e.g. "Gypsies are thieves!"), the association between Romanies and crime has a little bit of truth to it (i.e. some Romanies do steal, at least sometimes, just like people of any other ethnicity), and in some other cases (e.g. "Gypsies steal children!"), it has no truth at all. --Kuaichik 00:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Article needs to be protected—again.

"MadeInFinland" is baaaack. The article ought to be protected (meaning no non-registered IP edits.) Small price to pay for removing that source of annoyance. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I second that request. The IP in question essentially smashed 3RR and with personal attack to boot. This page has always seen a lot of mischief, yet must exist in a proper encyclopaedia, improving along with the rest of the wikipedia. The problem is that vandals, cranks and trolls (and their IP socks) often put this page into paralysis (or regression) for weeks. Locking out IP users here will not solve all the problems (this page touches on many bona-fide controversial subjects) but at least raises the discussion process to a more functional level.István 18:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows what happened, MadeInFinland appeared in the guise of 217.141.249.203. That IP was blocked, whereupon they simply moved to the next computer over and continued their mischief as 195.76.242.227. So an IP ban is what's needed (for now, at least). +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

zOMG!!! He must have blown an entire day hopping from one computer to the next, it takes up two pages in the article history! I would go so far as to suggest that this article be permanently semi-protected--anybody with me? K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 23:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh...right, I guess that's what you guys were suggesting in the first place. D'oh. Well anyway, count me in favor of such a move. K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 23:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't what I had in mind (permanent semi-protection), but it doesn't seem like a bad idea. I wouldn't oppose it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Permanent protection seems a bit extreme at the moment, as it is only the one editor who's being a right muppet. --Hayden5650 00:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the other guy who added the "advice for retailers" nonsense? It's pretty obvious that this article is a complete troll magnet--permanent semi-protection would at least cut down on the drive-by nonsense and maybe give people a bit more breathing room to actually improve the article instead of just mopping up vandalism all day. K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 03:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes; we hardly need to enumerate the plusses of (semi-) protecting the article. So let's look at it the other way: what are the downsides to it? I really can't think of any, apart from the remote chance that some anon. IP is going to visit here and grace us with their wisdom and knowledge, which will be made impossible by such a move. Requiring them to register in order to edit seems like a pretty small barrier. I say let's do it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I just don't like the idea of permanent protection. How about 1, 2 or 3 months. If it still isn't better, then permanent semi-protection. --Hayden5650 04:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe calling it "indefinite" rather than "permanent"? I'm pretty sure it's an ongoing problem though: for a few months it's Finnish guy, then when he gets bored some other troll would come along, and another....K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 14:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: I just requested such semi-protection on WP:RFPP. K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 15:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Request needs to be made again, it wasn't read properly first time.Dinlo juk 13:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry--I just re-requested it. K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 15:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: we got two weeks of semi-protection, the guy said that permanent semi protection is almost never used. If it's still an issue we can apply again once the two weeks are up. K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 16:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, I think that will almost inevitably happen. If it isn't an outright vandal, it's a racist who causes problems on the page. And this isn't the only such page; I think there are many other Romani-related (or Romani Wikiproject) pages that are often vandalized. It's all due to the (current) lack of information, just as even scholars used to write about "Negroes" based on a similar lack of information...*sigh* :( --Kuaichik 03:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Roma emigrating to Romania from Serbia

You should add this source to the article, when it is unblocked. http://www.gandul.info/actual/tiganii-serbia-trec-ilegal-granita-tot-neamul-solicita-statutul-.html?3927;867008 Dpotop 20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem: the site is in Romanian, making it useless to most editors here. Can you provide an English translation, or an equivalent site in English? +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know quite as much Romanian as I used to (I had a Romanian neighbor, but he moved many years ago). However, if I'm not much mistaken, this article is suggesting that "gypsies" are migrating "illegally" into Romania from Serbia under the "excuse" (whether this particular word is used in the article, I don't know) of "asylum." Such wording makes the article look rather dubious. To me, anyway - certainly, I could be quite wrong.

I'm also unsure as to whether Gândul is a reliable source or not. It doesn't appear to be among Romania's major newspapers, but maybe that's just my misinterpretation of this. --Kuaichik 04:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. See also here. Cheers. --Olahus 19:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Roma, Romani, Romanies...

Sorry, but I'm confused!! This article appears to use the words "Roma" (plural) and "Romani" interchangeably, and I've also noticed "Romanies" as a plural form. My grasp of the Romani language is non-existent (all I know is "naj soske"), so can someone please explain the exact meanings of these words, and maybe some ideas for at least partially standardizing our usage here? K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 03:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Rom and Rrom! --Hayden5650 03:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me try. In Romani, Rrom (or Rom) means a Romani male (a Romani female is Rromni or Romni). The plural of R(r)om is R(r)oma (= Romanies, including males). (The plural of R(r)omni is R(r)omnja, i.e. "Romani females").

R(r)omano and R(r)omani are the masculine and feminine adjectives (respectively) meaning "Romani." Hence, e.g. o R(r)om (the Romani guy), e R(r)omni (the Romani lady), but o R(r)omano amal (the Romani friend) and e R(r)omani čhib (the Romani language).

A note on pronounciation: "R" is pronounced like the "tt" in the American English pronounciation of "little," or like the "r" in Spanish/Portuguese "para" (for). "Rr," on the other hand, is pronounced more or less like the French "r" (or is it more like the German/Provençal "r"? I'm not sure whether it's a voiced uvular fricative or a voiced uvular trill). Some groups (apparently not all) distinguish between "r" and "rr" in minimal pairs (e.g. raj = "gentleman", rraj = "twig").

If you're wondering why "Roma" and "Romanies" (or "Rom" and "Romani," etc.) are often used interchangeably (especially why I use them interchangeably!!), maybe the first note I posted [[14]] will help. (Note that I may well have screwed up a bit on the grammar, saying e.g. "the Rrom are").

But the basic idea is as follows: among some groups, R(r)om means specifically a married Romani male (R(r)omni = married Romani female). Many Western European Romanies (e.g. Romanichals in England) believe that R(r)om refers to Eastern European Romani refugees (e.g. Hungarian Romanies in England). However, all Romanies are more likely to agree that they are "Romani" (rather than "Roma" ).

Note: I did have to refer to American English pronounciation here, since the RP "tt" is a different sound (voiceless alveolar aspirated plosive, as opposed to GA voiced alveolar tap which is closer). --Kuaichik 06:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

While we're discussing names for the Romanies in Romani, I might as well make a note about Romani names for non-Romanies, which you may well come across. ("Oh, great," you're thinking. "Three more paragraphs!" But no, I'll try to keep it short.)

The word for a non-Romani (male, usu. married) is gadžo (gorgio in some British dialects of Romani). The plural of gadžo is gadže. Gadžo is often spelled gajo or gadjo as well (and similarly gaje and gadje in the plural). (A non-Romani married female is gadži, plural gadžja). --Kuaichik 00:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Esma Redžepova

I really think that Esma Redžepova has to be mentioned in the Roma music section of this article. Maybe not too many details about her, but a single sentence should do the job. Please think about it, she is a very important part of the Romani culture (as well as for music itself). INkubusse 14:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

While I don't want to take anything away from Esma's greatness (I've seen her live), I don't want to see her stuck in here as just another random fact, as happens so often in this so-called "encyclopedia". If someone mentions here in this article, then there should be some context provided, not just the fact that she's a very popular artist within Macedonia, for instance. What is the wider import of her music, outside that small place? And it would be good to say something more about the charitable work that she and her husband undertake, how they "adopt" kids and turn them into world-class musicians. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think she should be included just yet. You see, I always find it strange when a main article talks about things that are not even mentioned in the relevant subsection. So I propose that some info about Esma Redžepova be included first in the Romani music subsection, and then I would like to see her mentioned here.

But do not just leave her out, by any means. Romani music is not very well-known to non-Romanies (esp. outside Europe), but among Romani singers, Esma is the most notable. To not include her while including various other (esp. lesser-known) Romani musicians would be like talking about Sergei Rachmaninoff, Igor Stravinsky, and Mikhail Glinka in an article with a subsection on Russian music, without even mentioning Tchaikovsky! Or like including Sonu Niigaam, K. J. Yesudas, etc. in an article on Bollywood music without even mentioning Lata Mangeshkar...that would be sacrilegious!! :) --Kuaichik 22:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

holy cow! --The previous unsigned bad pun was offered to us for our entertainment by Istvan (talk · contribs).

"Bad pun"? I thought it was just a minor remark. Or was it a more clever joke referring to Indians worshiping cows? :-D --Kuaichik 01:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Knowing István, I would guess it is indeed an expression of surprise carefully chosen to include a cheeky reference to Indian cow worship. Am I right, István? ;-) K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 01:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

of course you are right, madaram....;-) --The previous post was again left unsigned by Istvan (talk · contribs). ;-)

Természetesen, barátom. ;-) K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 21:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I second that emotion above (first putting Esma in the article on Romani music). After that is done, a capsulized version can be placed here.

But while you're at it, please don't forget the equally popular and important Boban Marković either. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...Boban Marković? I've listened to a bit of Romani music, including Esma, but I'm afraid I've never heard of him! Prof. Hancock never mentioned him. Anyhow, you probably know better than me how important he is :) --Kuaichik 04:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC) BTW, István & K. Lásztocska, it just so happens that most people actually do eat beef in the part of India that my parents and K. J. Yesudas come from (i.e. Kerala). Even Brahmins (provided they're not really strict)! :-D --Kuaichik 04:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Dom people???

The Dom and Lom peoples are not Romanies (in the sense that e.g. Sinti and Kalé are); they are another ethnic group. I think this is fairly well-accepted in Romani Studies; my impression is that what is under controversy is how closely/distantly related they are. In fact, as far as Prof. Ian Hancock would be concerned, the Dom and Lom are no more closely related to the Romani people than Indians (esp. Punjabis and Rajputs)!

I know that the article on Wikipedia concerning the Lom people is called Bosha (Roma), but that is because of J.W. Sampson's theory that the Dom, Lom, and Rom have common ancestors in India (a theory later disputed by R.L. Turner and, eventually, Prof. Hancock as well). --Kuaichik 04:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that is pretty clear today that the Dom and Lom peoples are not Romanies. They should be treated separately.--AKoan (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But they are our relatives, they are Gypsies too. That's strange to keep them apart of us. Really relatives. There live some Romani Gypsies in Israel, they say Dom are obviously relatives of us. Hancock looks from his Britain, so he often makes mistakes. For examples, he uses DIRTY word Porajmos (violation, raping) for the genocide of Roma. RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk)

Evidence that Dom and Romani people are not related

The Romani language is from a much later time period of India than that of the Domari original source. The Romani language is very much a Rajasthani language that has gone through Panjabi regional changes. The Domari language is from a different origin to Romani and is more Hindi based.

I will give example

        ENGLISH         ROMANI          PANJABI          HINDI          DOMARI
        Brother         Phral / Phal*   Phra / Pha (ji)  Bhai           Bharos 
        Sister          Phen            Phen             Bhen           Bhenos
        Horse           Khuro           Khora            Ghora          Ghoryos
        There           Ote             Ote              Udhar          Hundar

        * The English Roms gave the English the word 'Pal' for friend.

In addition to this Romani uses the Rajasthani / Rajputi mascaline 'o' at the end of words whereas Domari like most other Hindi styled languages use the normal 'a'.

e.g.

        ENGLISH          ROMANI          RAJASTHANI         
        Uncle            Kako            Kako           (Domari = Mamun)
        Fat man          Thulo           Thelo
        Hot              Tato            Tato
        Infant boy       Tikno           Tingar
        My               Miro            Mero           (Domari = Mura, Hindi = Mera)
        Dirty / greasy   Chikno          Chikano  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsigano (talk • contribs) 19:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Kawliya

In Iraq, the Qawliya people are a small Roma minority group who trace their history back to Spain.

Is there any source proves that kawliya of Iraq trace their history back to Spain?. It is believed that kawliya of Iraq came to Iraq during the Abbasid era from India, then they were deported to Turkey by one of the Abbasid caliphs and later they spread across Europe , refer to al zutt revolt (ثورة الزط) in Arabic sources--Aziz1005 02:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If that were true, they wouldn't be Romani; rather, they would be (probably) Dom people. Also, aren't the Qawliya and the "Zotts" (زط) completely different peoples who happen to both be classified as "Gypsies" (like the Dom and Rom)?

Anyway, I admit, I don't actually know anything much about this :-P --Kuaichik 02:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to link many things together but It is really confusing!! What about Spain? is it related to Kawliya?--Aziz1005 11:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

shrugs shoulders* I have no friggin' clue...To be honest, I personally was not sure whether they were Roma (as opposed to Dom people) in the first place!! But that seems to be the consensus; I don't know what sources there are to back up even that claim. --Kuaichik 05:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Those two nasty vandals

I think you know who i mean why are those two vandals allowed to trash these pages as they do? Genetics? Aint that slightly a bit over the top? Why cant a moderator take a look at those twos posting history? Bob Lee Swagger

Genetics is an entirely legitimate and respectable branch of modern science. The brief section on genetics in this article simply describes the genetic evidence for the Romani people's origin somewhere on the Indian subcontinent. I really fail to understand what you see as so objectionable about that! It makes no value judgements, it doesn't even make any mention of old-fashioned concepts of "race" as they were thought of in past centuries. (If it's the very fact that ethnic ancestry can be at least partially traced with biological research that distresses you so much, well, I'm afraid there's not much we can do about that.)

In fact, far from being some sort of "racist" science, I would say that genetics has made significant progress towards demolishing racist arguments and outmoded, old-fashioned concepts of race and ethnicity. Far from showing that "races" are fundamentally different and separate and even (as was once seriously thought!) different species altogether, modern genetic analyses have shown that essentially, everybody has a little bit of everything in them. You can take some random white guy and find African genetic markers in him, you can take an African and find Central Asian traces, you can take a Central Asian and find basically anything you can think of. Race, ethnicity and nationality are very complex concepts, and genetic research only makes that so much clearer. K. Lásztocska 20:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

MadeinFinland a.k.a. Bob Lee Swagger, please, please leave this page alone! What do you think you are accomplishing by vandalizing it again and again? Do you think you are defending the Romani people? Obviously you are not, since even Romani users here who are strong advocates of Romani rights do not approve of your comments here.

Or do you think you are protecting the page from other vandals? You are not doing that, either. Believe me, if any user (no matter what his perspective) vandalizes this page again, that will not go unnoticed. True, there are some who have committed vandalism in the past who are still editing here, but they have not vandalized this page since. Why don't you also stop vandalizing (and repeating the same complaints again and again, even after they have been addressed, sometimes to your previous satisfaction)? --Kuaichik 20:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing this page as a matter of fact i helped to improve it atleast 10%. Weasel words here and there and outright racist statements are now gone thanks to me so dont you dare call me a vandal. Not really what a vandal would do is it? BTW maybe you can tell us why the Spanish government banned the word gitano (gypsy)? And that was centuries ago. But what do i do when i meet those 2 vandals again? Edit war? For goodness sake look at those 2 vandals posting history. It would be nice if you could tell me how i deal with fanatical racists like that. - Bob Lee Swagger

True, you did help to improve the article...three months ago, at best. Since then, you have been breaching WP rules, often by attacking other users personally. I have pointed out, under the section "Origin, India???" of this talk page, that you may have even called an editor "gay" (and I'm not even sure which editor you're talking about since the article said from the very beginning that the Romani people are from India). In addition, even when you agreed that the "Origins" section of this article was fine, still you continued to vandalize it and claim that it was written by Nazis (rather than a partly Romani geneticist). If such an irrational editing pattern does not make you a vandal, what does it make you?!

I don't know where you got this strange idea that the Spanish government "banned the word gitano...centuries ago." The Spanish version of this article is called Pueblo gitano and says that there has only been "a recent proposal to replace this word [gitano] with romaní or simply 'rom' (in Romani: man or husband)."

When you meet any editors you dislike again, leave without saying anything. I think that is your best option. --Kuaichik 19:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea who the two nasty vandals are, but since you mentioned the genetics section (which I wrote), there's a good possibility you could mean me. What is your problem with it? While the Nazis showed an interest in it, the science of genetics owes nothing to them. Dinlo juk 09:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think MadeinFinland means you, Dinlo juk. I think he means Hayden5650 and ILike2BeAnonymous. And of course, as I said, I still don't understand why he finds a problem with it after agreeing to the current version. --Kuaichik 16:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I never called an editor here gay, homosexual etc. But i confess that i have strong opinions about some Eastern Europeans, can you really blame me when you read the main article about Romani in Eastern Europe? Can you? I also confess that i most likely breached WP rules when i was provoked by those two nasty vandals, interesting that others that i didnt bash felt offended. Men var så säkra angående Genetics sektionen att jag kommer att fråga på den svenska versionen om det här inte är att gå för långt. (Roughly translated: Rest assured ill ask on the Swedish WP if this genetics stuff aint going too far) however i checked on other races and suprise NO morbid genetics section, surely there must be a reason wouldnt you say? Yes i would like an Origin section but cant you write it in a kinder way it feels so cold blooded as it is. -Bob Lee Swagger

What is so "cold-blooded" about modern scientific genetic research? What's so "unkind" about it? Incidentally, I am Eastern European (well, Central- really) and have always been a firm supporter of Romani rights. I know a lot of other Central and Eastern Europeans who think the same way. Maybe you should revise some of your own prejudices before claiming to point out our own. K. Lásztocska 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Genetics per say are not cold-blooded, its the tone i talk about here its written in a way too academic style 2.Its too hard to understand please write it easier so average Joe knows whats going on here! 3.I would be much happier if 2.1 and 2.2 were melted into section 2. 4.Why do only Romani people deserve this honor, when no other race have one? Surely there must be a reason! Prejudice? Saw this documentary on Finnish TV about Romani in Eastern Europe, i see so in Slovakia Romani children are thought they are retarded from a very early age and EU had reprimanded some Eastern European countries to take good care of the Romani people if they want to be seen as full EU members AND now this again PHOTOS! Roma Granny?? Fair and balanced pictures please! Some Romani people have black hair while others have brown hair. Mark Wahlberg could easily pass for a Romani guy. -Bob Lee Swagger

This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA!! It's SUPPOSED to be academic! K. Lásztocska 20:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Its not encylopedia when it becomes offensive and others have agreed with me on the too academic

part aswell but please reply to my above questions!

Cold-blooded? I'm guessing you just don't understand it. Y-chromosomes are inherited from your father (if you're male). There are lots of different types of chromosomes and the "haplogroup H" stuff is just the names we give to the different types.

WP is NOT Harvard vs. Yale! -Bob Lee Swagger

Of course it isn't, but this is high-school level science, the kind you'd learn by age 13. Dinlo juk 00:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Its high school stuff nowadays?! Interesting indeed! By the age of 13? I call that BS. I remember how the teachers loved to torture us about electricity when we were 13 years old, it only took 6 weeks! Genetics were NEVER mentioned. You have a link or something about your claims?

Just think of it like surnames. I inherited my surname from my father and my son has inherited it from me, just as he inherited my Y chromosome. Would it be cold-blooded to suggest that a family called "MacDougal" was Scottish? (That's not my surname, by the way).

While we're at it, you've called me a Nazi in the past for writing this piece, and compared me to Mengele. Ignoring for a moment how deeply and utterly offensive that is (and how you owe me a big apology), the Nazis did not conduct any research in this area at all and had very limited understanding of genetics. What limited work they did on heredity is utterly rejected as pseudoscience nowadays. The modern science of genetics has nothing to do with them.Dinlo juk 16:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Im not really sure if i can agree with you 100% there, guess which country that thought the nazis about racial purity? Sweden. There was even a documentary about it on Swedish TV 4 they also showed a documentary series "Svenskarna som slogs för Hitler" (The Swedes that fought for Hitler) WP Sweden (and its sinister WW2 past, not really innocent bystanders wouldnt you say?) But OK im sorry that i called you a nazi i guess those two nasty vandals brought a lot of fuel to the fire -Bob Lee Swagger

The technology involved in these kinds of studies has only existed since the mid-1980s. It was American scientists that first suggested DNA was the hereditary material through which genes were passed on, in 1944, but it wasn't taken seriously until the 1950s. Don't confuse eugenics with genetics, which says nothing of "improving" populations.Dinlo juk 00:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The technology has not been around that long yes (Mid-1980:s?) however the ideas have been around for long, they talked about chromosomes, racial purity in Sweden and that was in the 1930:s something they happily passed over to Hitler and his gang.

We're talking specifically about the use of genetic markers to trace relationships between populations. "Racial purity" is a meaningless term and has nothing to do with the science of genetics. It's time you dropped this line of attack, you're only managing to make yourself look ridiculous. Dinlo juk 12:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So you want answers to your questions, eh, MadeinFinland? Or at least that's what you asked for. As far as I can see, you have the following three questions, to which I am trying to provide answers:

...i have strong opinions about some Eastern Europeans, can you really blame me when you read the main article about Romani in Eastern Europe? Can you? Yes, we can blame you. Not for holding strong opinions against some Eastern Europeans (most of us do), but for previously calling all Eastern Europeans racist. Anyway, that does not explain any of your edits, all of which were reverting statements by primarily Western European editors.

however i checked on other races and suprise NO morbid genetics section, surely there must be a reason wouldnt you say? Yes, there is a reason. In fact, there's a very good reason. The reason is because very few people knew where the Romani people had come from (after they arrived in Europe), though everyone knew where Afro-Americans, Jews, etc. came from. Plenty of linguistic evidence surfaced in the 18th century (and from then onwards). But linguistic evidence doesn't tell you where an entire people comes from (the Welsh, for example, speak a Celtic language but are relatively closely related to Basques).

For this reason, many genetic tests have been performed since the 20th century. They have proven that the Romani people are indeed related to Indian peoples, particularly the Punjabis and Rajputs.

PHOTOS! Roma Granny?? Fair and balanced pictures please! What is wrong with having a picture of an elderly Romani lady, wearing perfectly decent clothes? Among many Romani groups, elderly women are treated with great respect, just as in India. If we are to have fair and balanced pictures, I think we should have a variety of Roma: old and young, rich and poor, Western European and Eastern European. --Kuaichik 00:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Time to (semi)-protect the article again.

They're baaaaaack, this time in the guise of 88.195.14.243. (Same guy, you-know-who.) Someone call in the sheriff and have the protection thingy put on. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I specifically requested semiprotection "for the longest period of time possible." K. Lásztocska 03:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Aaaack, you beat me to it! Well, before the tag expires (I'm assuming it does), I'd better read up on how to request these things. That way you don't have to do it all the time, I hope. --Kuaichik 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I want that photo removed because she is old and ugly (NOT fair and balanced) or WE could demand to see old and ugly AMERICANS aswell. Couldnt have that photo with young hot Romani girls here could we now? Even the photographer said it could be used here!! Then those 2 vandals showed up again shouting about some strange copyright laws!

Well, I guess that's all a matter of opinion. I don't think she's ugly at all--yes she's old, but even Romanies get old with the passage of time. Personally, I think it's a very nice picture. K. Lásztocska 16:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonIP user, can you please provide reference the a.m. permission by the photographer of the three Roma Girls? If there is indeed permission, I will be the first to put them back up. BTW, this refers to the stunningly good photo of three Greek Roma girls (in which 1 was particularly beautiful) and the subject of chronicly disruptive debate about a year ago. The elderly woman should stay regardless - how can she be non-descriptive? What culture has no elderly? Every culture should hope to have elderly. István 17:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The photographer gave me permission to use the photo in this article, but that was apparently not enough, as explained to me by a WP admin:

The image is a professional one that is copyrighted. You have the photographer's permission, but we're not allowed to use images with permission, because it restricts the use to our website. We must either claim fair use (which wouldn't be appropriate for an image like this), or ask the photographer to release the image so it can be used by anyone for any purpose. He would retain his copyright, and he can insist that he is credited whenever it is used, but anyone, commercial and non-commercial alike, would be able to use it, including derivative use i.e. they would be allowed to crop it, add it to a teashirt etc etc.

If you want to ask him to do that, he would have to e-mail you with these words: "I am the copyright holder of this image (link to image) and I hereby release it under a Creative Commons Attribution license." You would then forward that e-mail to permissions at wikimedia dot org. Then you could use the image in the article.

I felt that this was too much to ask of the photographer. Dinlo juk 12:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks DJ, could you post the photog's contact info? It's possible he wouldn't mind the notoriety - he could release the shot under CC while retaining the right to be mentioned - some young artists would accept that deal to get their name out... its worth a try. Im willing to write the letter but it will have to be next week. István 14:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I used the link in section 21 above. Dinlo juk 15:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Aint it obvious Istvan? They only want photos that portrays Romani people in a negative light here (Neo-nazis and some Eastern Europeans naturally) Old ugly grannies are so gone soon. Hmmmm interesting one of those 2 nasty vandals has white washed his neo nazi past. Yeah the photographer was here and said it was ok to use that hot romani girls picture. Look in list after photos/pictures. They better sharpen up soon here or there will be trouble - Bob Lee Swagger

sits on the highest mountain top in Finland. Look it up on youtube: shooter (2007) and Shooter clips, even Adolfs dog gets a full 180 here!! But i love how he whacked those two nazi cops!

Leave István alone, he never did anything to you. So basically what you're saying here is "old people are ugly and gross." (Tell that to my nagymama and let's see how well THAT goes over.) If you think that putting in a perfectly nice picture of an elderly lady is somehow "portraying the Romani people in a negative light", then you have some serious problems to deal with. Incidentally, if I remember correctly, the problem with re-uploading the Greek Roma girls pic was uncertainty about the proper license to use--maybe someone should try contacting the photographer again to clear it up? K. Lásztocska 22:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about here really? i merely pointed out how unfair and unbalanced the Romani page is (The Swedish WP version is however good). I think you are the one with some serious issues here, lets start with your eyes. Old ugly people is NOT fair and balanced! "Uncertainty"?? Brilliant! when the photographer was here and said it could be used as we wanted to! But no, hot pretty young Romani girls is so no no according to 2 vandals here. Shouting about some weird copyright law. What an a-hole, he is totally obsessed with genetics, blacks, jews and Romani that son of a bitch. - Bob Lee Swagger (I wish i could put the + on him)

THAT OLD LADY IS NOT UGLY. What do you think is so ugly about her? Seriously, why do you think she's so "ugly"? K. Lásztocska 14:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it about this picture Image:Romany_granny.jpg? Romany woman from the Czech Republic? Let me tell something: I did not shoot the photo because I thought she was ugly! I liked her! She is just an ordinary Romani woman. Her life was not always easy as you can see in her face, but still she can smile nicely. I know her, she lives near my place (Brno, Czech Rep.), she goes shopping every day to the local shop, talks to the neighbours ... just an ordinary old lady. How come somebody says she is ugly? How come? She has never harmed anybody!--Anglos 21:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Made some changes in the intro

Good God what is was full of weasel words. If there was something you have a problem with please talk to me because i can defend every change i made. -Bob Lee Swagger

Your edits are unwelcome and cannot be justified. Please stop deleting sections of text. This article will be protected from editing again if you continue this. Dinlo juk 00:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How in the sweet jesus fuck did he ("Bob Lee") get back editing here? I thought his ass was permanently banned. He certainly shouldn't be allowed within 500 feet of this article. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why you are still breathing is a bigger mystery. Eastern European much nazi boy?

He didn't. He just posted using his IP, then signed this post with the Wikipedia article (rather than a user page). --Kuaichik 03:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at that! One nasty anonymous vandal returns and its war immediatly, cant you ban him ? - Bob Lee Swagger Shooter 2007.

You're not fooling anyone, "Bob Lee." We know that you, MadeInFinland and the anonymous IP user are all one and the same person. K. Lásztocska 18:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he means ILike2BeAnonymous (by "nasty anonymous vandal"). MadeinFinland a.k.a. Bob Lee Swagger, you are not entitled to call other users who are still here "vandals"; none of them have vandalized the Romani people page (or this talk page), though perhaps some of us may not quite agree on some of the changes he has made. Also, he did not start any kind of war; rather, it is you who has begun a war for no purpose at all. You are the one whose IP should be banned. That is unless you immediately stop acting so proud of yourself, stop making personal attacks, and start learning and listening. --Kuaichik 03:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What country are you from K.Lastochka?? Bob Lee Swagger is from FINLAND and how do you drink your vodka commie? - Bob Lee Swagger

I was born in America but I am in heart and mind a Hungarian. I do not drink vodka--I'm a wine person when I ever drink (which is rarely.) K. Lásztocska 22:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you mentioned drink, I have 3 for you, as a good Magyar: 1) palinka; 2) tokaji, and 3) Unicum. Have had all 3 over there, and hope to again sometime. You? +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I drink rarely, and never (not yet?) the really strong stuff. ;-) I've seen some hilarious ads for Unicum though...K. Lásztocska 02:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Pussies! Finnish men drinks *Vodka straight up! Among other brilliant stuff i found on WP: Finland - one of the healthiest countries in the world?! Wow i didnt know that! African-Americans rioting in France last year?! Really?? I thought they were black French men but what do i know?! - Bob Lee Swagger AKA Bob the nailer

So here in Exhibit A, the sad effect of long-term heavy vodka consumption on the human brain. Remind me to avoid Finland on my wandering travels...K. Lásztocska 14:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

MadeinFinland, that is why I am telling you: stop attacking and start learning! --Kuaichik 02:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

desperate times...

...call for desperate measures. Does anyone know if it's possible to semiprotect talk pages? Otherwise we'll be deleting and redeleting that Fox Noise/Nazi shooter nonsense until the (holy) cows come home. Thoughts? K. Lásztocska 02:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No further thoughts, just a complete endorsement of what you said. One would think this would be possible, by moving the appropriate Wiki-bits and bytes around. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree with this idea, too. But of course, I have no clue...sorry! Still, I'd love to see.

But I told you already, in Kerala (much less amongst the Romani people), those cows aren't holy! Sure, they were to the Romani people's ancestors, but...:) --Kuaichik 22:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, wouldn't it be easier to just have these MadeinFinland sockpuppets banned? (One sockpuppet being the IP address, the other being Bob Lee Swagger 2u). --Kuaichik 03:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Could try, but he seems to be something of a "shape shifter", able to morph into new IP addresses easily. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We need a section about Romani and Crime

I am not a racist or a Nazi. But I do believe that there needs to be a section talking about the Romani and their crime culture. It is completely relevant and is an intricle part of their culture. Somebody wishing to learn/gain information on the Romani People would be very interested to know (and it could save their life) that Romani people are mostly criminals and undesirable in the eyes of most other cultures and nations.

Also I have a question for people who defend romani people: Why? why is it so important for you to dress-up romani's like they are saints from heaven? They are not! You must stop living in denial and face facts, and publish a section (which will be negative unfortunately, but hey, THAT'S THEIR CULTURE!) about Romani culture aside from appraissals and pitys. You might consider my views racist and biased, but I assure they are not. And I must accuse all those who think Romani people as being clean, decent citizens as being hyper-anti-racist, to such a degree that you are blocking a valuable truth.

I have not added any writing to the article, but if there are people willing to cooperate and contribute to this discussion, we can make a compromise about writing an article dealing with the high-levels of crime in Romani culture. I think that's fair, but of course there will be some hyper-anti-racists who will rant on and on and on about how racist I am (even though I'm not, I just want the verifiable truth to be told). Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.100.39.45 (talk) 18:07, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Little question, IP-anon guy. Are you Romani? Because there are several actual, real live Romanies who contribute to the Wiki and post on this page, and I'm pretty sure they will have some things to say about your statements that "Romani people are mostly criminals and undesirable in the eyes of most other cultures and nations", and so forth. You say this nonsense is all so "verifiable"--well please then, provide us with reputable sources to back up your outrageous assertions!

As to why a non-Romani like myself will waste so much time replying to trolls on this page in order to defend the Romani people from slander? Simple--I believe in this little thing called human rights. And yes, for your information, claiming that all Romanies are "undesirable criminals" IS racism, and there's no other word for it (none that I can use in polite conversation, anyways.) K. Lásztocska 18:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for replying to my post. To answer your question -no I am not Romani, I am Irish (I do not represent Ireland on this matter, I assure you). And yes, I will research the matter further and seek out why Romani are seen as criminals and undesirable (also: all criminals are undesirable, no matter what culture they belong too) In the past 10 years Ireland has seen an influx of immigrants from all over the world. What I would like to know, is why Romani people (the majority, I'm sure there are a few exceptions) seem to be the only ethnic group who do not work, always seek government aid and generally steal from shops and beg people for their hard-earned money.

Just today two female Romani stole €100 worth of goods from the shop that I work at (hence why I wrote this discussion section, the matter angered and upset me a great deal) and I am the one held responsible for their actions. This happens on a regular basis. Surely this is not racism, but a mere observation of your people? And yes I do believe all humans deserve equal rights -that does not mean you can abuse your rights, which people all over the world do, but it seems to be concentrated in Romani culture (i.e. excusing your actions on the basis that you have rights). Believe me, I am not racist or bias, but whenever I encounter a Roma, something negative happens to me, and I feel myself gaining more and more hatred for the Romani people, sad but true. Signed, Milesius.

Also if you want proof I will download all the video-footage of the Romas (who have entered my shop and stolen goods) onto YouTube and add a link to this discussion. I will not put it into the main article. And yes Irish, Polish, Chinese etc do steal aswell, but not on any scale compared to Roma people. I want to understand the Romani people better, and frankly, this article does not help.

Well, this is going to be interesting. I was under the impression that the main reasons for such high unemployment among the Romani are firstly, simple discrimination (nobody wants to hire a "filthy theiving gypsy") and secondly, a lack of the level of education required to make something of oneself in the modern world. I certainly don't want to idealize the Romani here--they have their problems same as anyone else--but let's not make a habit of blaming the victim. K. Lásztocska 19:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To Irish guy: I wonder how many times I must refer to what has already been said. (At least in this case, the answer to your question is kind of hidden.) Read what has already been said here. I have noted in that discussion that I am writing a section on Roma and crime on my soapbox. It's far from done at this point, but you can find what has been done so far here. I am using We Are the Romani People as my source, since it is the most thorough analysis of the subject I have found by far. --Kuaichik 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And besides, how are you so sure they are Romanies? I doubt that they openly declared their ethnicity before leaving the store. My guess (which, I admit, may be grossly wrong) is that you believe they are Romanies because they were dressed like the stereotypical "gypsy." --Kuaichik 19:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Kuaichik. I am guessing they were Romani people, because the pictures supplied in this article indicated it to me. I am just wondering, could we write a piece on the causes of such high crime levels? (such as discrimination in employment and education, which oft lead to people turning to crime). Is it a matter that host countries do not supply education and employment to Romas on the basis of discrimination, or is it that Romani people do not like to educate their children in host countries for fear of losing their culture (i.e. assimilation) and also that they do not want to be employed for some reason or other. If so this needs to be in the article. I know in Ireland anyway that they are entitled to full education and employment (however with employment they need to be English literate and in some cases have recognised dgrees/skills). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.100.39.45 (talk) 19:49, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply to me, too! Let me suggest something: I'll finish that section when I can manage to do so (I'm kind of busy, as you might be able to see from my user page. So please, have some patience! :)). Then let's see whether that helps.

I wonder which pictures specifically made you think these were Romanies? There is a somewhat wide variety of pictures in this article (and hopefully, those pictures will be much more varied). --Kuaichik 19:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, before undertaking any sort of project to explain why there are such high crime levels among them, we need proof that the crime level among the Romanies IS actually significantly higher than other ethnic groups!! You might as well ask us to write a section explaining why Jews are such dishonest money-lenders. Show us that the phenomenon actually exists (hard evidence, not rumors and hearsay), THEN we'll worry about puzzling out the reasons why it is so. K. Lásztocska 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. Just have patience, both of you, while I do some actual work instead of just hanging around here. Then I'll write a section, and if you just think calmly and reasonably about what is written there, everything will be perfectly fine. --Kuaichik 21:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, Kuaichik, I wasn't addressing you. I apologize for not doing any "real work" btw--I'm pretty busy in real life and can only log on for a few minutes at a time, not long enough for any large-scale writing in any event. It'll be better later, once summer completes its transition into fall and my schedule has normalized. K. Lásztocska 22:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There! Now we have a section! See what wonders a little bit of patience can do? :) --Kuaichik 23:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Kuaichik, if you are of Roma origin then you have done your people a great favour. To close this discussion I would just like to say this: Firstly, yes there are a lot of problems with every culture, and for some reason problems in Romani culture are highlighted (beyond a doubt) but covering it up and hiding the truth is not an answer. Someday I hope I can meet with a Roma person and not feel any negative feelings towards them (such as I have done with people from all over the world living in Ireland -be they Chinese, Polish, Nigerian, etc). But in order for this to happen, one must accept current issues, address those issues and then change (perhaps?). I know the Romani diaspora is global and certain Roma cultures in one part of the world may be different to other Roma cultures in another part of the world, so branding them all as bad people is prejudice and unjustified (it is just unfortunate that this is the real situation in many countries in the world with Roma populations)

Secondly, I am Irish (and proud). It is estimated that there are 85 million people in the world with Irish blood running through their veins (an odd numnber when you consider there are only 4 million Irish people in Ireland itself). Irish people are no strangers to discrimination and prejudice, [see Anti-Irish Racism on Wikipedia] so you are not alone in this situation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.100.39.45 (talk)

Thanks, but no, I'm not Romani. See my user page; I am a second-generation Indian (Malayalee) from the US. You can find some more details about me on my user page.

I'll admit that Prof. Ian Hancock is the only Romani I have met in person. (I have met a few more Romanies here on the Wiki.) If you ever get the chance to meet him, go for it; he's very kind and really incredible. --Kuaichik 00:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, guys: it's perfectly OK to address me by my real name (Vijay). There's something slightly odd about always being called "one yuan" in Tibetan :-D --Kuaichik 02:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the user seriously advocating that there the Romani are by nature criminals? There appears to be one reference about crimes committed by Romani - maybe we can find some dirt on Americans and crime and introduce it into United States of America? It is completely prejudicial and POV to insinuate that the Romani have criminality so intertwined into their nature that the article requires a section on it. Sfacets 02:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No! Please! Calm down! First of all, by "the user," do you mean me?

No one in this particular discussion is advocating (not yet anyway, and I sure hope no one does) that the Romani people are criminals by nature. Did you even bother to read what that section says? It is saying that the Romani people are not criminals by nature. And did you bother to notice that the author is a Romani scholar?

This matter (i.e. the issue on whether this section should be included) has already been discussed. In fact, a Romani user agreed to let me insert it in the article. It is not like just finding "some dirt on Americans and crime"; this stereotype is not only extremely common but also taken for granted by most non-Romanies who have ever heard the word "gypsy." The perception that all Romanies commit crime is an important one, because for many people, it defines their very perception of what a Romani (or maybe "gypsy") is. If we are to counter that perception, we must explain why it is wrong. --Kuaichik 02:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Vijay :), I'm pretty sure he's talking about the same Irishman I was talking about...K. Lásztocska 02:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaack!!! Why do I keep getting so hopelessly confused about who is being addressed?!? :-D :-D

But in any case, I'm pretty sure I've sorted it all out with Milesius ("the...Irishman"). He seems to understand that the Romani people are not criminals by nature. So please, don't bite him! --Kuaichik 02:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Romani's are criminals by nature. I just wanted to know why so many non-Romani people percieve them as such, and why this stigma is attached to them. 193.120.219.202Milesius —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:49, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your understanding, once again. Now I just hope I've sorted it out with the other guy (Sfacets). --Kuaichik 15:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Milesius, I appreciate that although you consider the majority of the Rromanies criminals, you don't believe that they are natural born criminals. But still, there are two issues: to say that crime is part of the Rromani culture means that you don't know nothing about the Rromani culture, and to say that most of the Rromanies are criminals is.. irrational to say at least. There are over 15 million Rromanies outhere. What does it mean majority for you? Over 10 millions criminal Rromanies. Nobody that thinks about it for a couple of second can't really believe that. I live in Romania, and i definitely met much more Rromanies than you did, and i have to say that despite the general idea about them, most of are ok. But you know what it happens? People recognize Rroma from how they correspond to the stereotypes. A 'civilized' Rrom won't be considered Rrom anymore (and in most cases he will hide his ethnicity), while a 'bad Romanian' will be in many times called 'ţigan (gypsy)'. Even our president did that recently. In a study addressing Rromanies in Romania a sociolog found that the percent of criminality among Rroma in Romania was 1,2%. That was about 2,5 larger than the percent of criminality among Romanians, but definitely ain't a 'majority'. And the same study stressed that the percent of criminality among Rroma was equal to the percent of criminality among Romanians that shared the same social conditions of Rroma! I've searched for this book, but it's quite rare. If i'll find it i'll use it for citations on wikipedia. AKoan (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Hungary Disputed: 189,984 or 500,000"

The gypsy and the non-gypsy politicians says there are 900,000-1,000,000 gipsies in Hungary today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.118.1.174 (talk) 16:10, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh...okayyy...I don't think this is relevant to the article (considering that the article's claim is sourced and yours isn't), much less to this particular discussion. --Kuaichik 02:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow-wow! We need sections Italians and crime, Russians and crime, French and crime, Indian and crime. Why not? RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Generations of my family grew up in the Irish Diaspora of the US; many were police. They had to survive a strong notion of criminality amongst Irish that arose from the anomalously high percentage of Irish having low socioeconomics; sometimes literate in Irish but not English, though fluent in English; despite a perfectly normal percentage of criminality amongst those with low socioeconomics compared to the majority and other ethnic groups. This notion led to poor job and life opportunities as well as much physical, etc. abuse for those family members. As such, it would feel necessary to add an section/article on Irish and Crime if Romani and Crime arose, though I feel loathed to do so. In fact seeing the presence of Cornish, English, French, Hebrew, Irish, and Romani in Thieves' Cants, it seems a few more sections/articles that I'd dislike would follow. I'm not completely opposed to such sections/articles if they were evenly and maturely applied, but I just don't see that happening. Try not to be mad though. :)--Thecurran (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Romani Language: Calques, etc.

I have made one sentence in the subsection on the Romani language so it's a bit easier to read.

In doing so, I have also noted that Romani often uses calques. One example of a calque in Vlax Romani (spoken originally and primarily in Romania) is the expression So maj keres? which is a literal translation of Romanian Ce mai faceṭi? Both mean "How are you?" but literally mean "What more are you doing?" (The Latin equivalent Quid agis? has a similar literal meaning.)

That section could use some expansion...I think. Maybe the article Romani language needs to be expanded first? --Kuaichik 02:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Time to ban "Bob Lee Swagger"

... and all of his various permutations, disguises, etc. (There ought to be a permanent ban on creating any user in the form "Bob Lee Swaggerxxx".) Anyone know how to go about getting this done? +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I heartily agree, even though he'll just come back as an IP. The way to deal with that would be semi-protection, but it's practically impossible to get a talk page semiprotected. For all I know we'll be putting up with this nonsense until the end of time. K. Lásztocska 23:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I have already sort of suggested this idea :-P --Kuaichik 23:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, look at this :) K. Lásztocska 02:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's good news. Now that certain unproductive editors are (temporarily?) gone, I wish certain other editors were still around... --Kuaichik 03:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I know the feeling. Long story, don't get me started. K. Lásztocska 03:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Made-Up" Exonyms

Peyre has added a sentence in the introduction of this article which reads as follows:

"(Not knowing where the Romany were from, Europeans made up origins for them; while the English assumed they were Egyptian, the French, for instance, called them Bohemians.)"

I appreciate his contributions. However, I find this to be lacking in insight (no offense intended) and slightly misleading. In fact, I find it partly false.

True, the Europeans did often have very strange ideas about who the Romanies were (some even believed that they were from the Moon!). However, there was some truth behind both names "Egyptian" and "Bohemians," and neither name was limited to any one country by any means. ("Bohemian" used to be a synonym for "gypsy" in English. Also, gitan (meaning "gypsy" in the literal sense, i.e. "Egyptian") is still a very common name for the Romanies in French, as is gitano in Spanish.)

Many Romanies did, in fact, migrate to other countries from Bohemia: hence the name. There were several reasons why the Romanies were called "Egyptians" (or "gypsies," "gitans," etc.). For example, at the time that the Romanies entered Western Europe, many nomadic groups (including the Roma) tried to gain entry by claiming that they were the Israelites left behind in Egypt by Moses. Also, many Romanies migrated into Western Europe from the Balkans, which were also known as "Little Egypt." So when others asked them where they were from, they sometimes replied with the phrase "Little Egypt." (Whether any Romanies actually did migrate from Egypt seems to be a matter of dispute. I know for sure that Prof. Ian Hancock does not think they did.) --Kuaichik 14:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait just a minute: you're saying that most Roma emigrated from what is now the Czech Republic (formerly Bohemia)? I don't think that's correct at all. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood what I said. I said many Roma emigrated from Bohemia, the same way that many Roma also emigrated from Romania or Greece or the Czech Republic or France(!) or any of several other countries. No offense intended, just wanted to clarify what I meant. --Kuaichik (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"Gypsie" is pejorative?

In the United States, the term "Gypsie" is not pejorative, and "Roma" and "Romani" are virtually unheard of. — Quin 08:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, "Gypsie" is misspelled. It's Gypsy (plural Gypsys or Gypsies). And yes, it is considered pejorative, even though many, or perhaps even most who might use the term don't intend it that way. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be pointed out that although the word "Gypsy" may be pejorative to the small % of Roma who actually speak the English language, this is not necessarily true of equivalent words (gitano, tsigani etc) in other languages.--Guzman ramirez 08:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily true, yes, but not necessarily false either. There's a range of opinion on this. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

May I vote to accept the word French as pejorative? Their own name is Francais, not French. Frnch is fellatio, so why do you use that word? RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? No, "French" is perfectly acceptable in English; we (English-speakers) don't use Français, or Deutsch for German, or any other number of names from other languages for those languages. The French, in turn, don't use "English". So what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

YES. And Gypsy is just an English word for Romano/ Rom/ Romni. It's as pejorative as French. Equally. RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If no one minds me butting in for just a moment (and then I'll be away from Wikipedia as usual), I feel that a bit of explanation is needed. For confused non-Romani users: RomanyChaj is a Russian Romani who generally supports the use of the word "Gypsy" as an equivalent of "Romani."

However, there are many Romanies who do find the word "Gypsy" to be offensive. Part of the reason has to do with its equivalents in other languages. According to RomanyChaj, the Russian equivalent цыган is not offensive. But the Romanian equivalent, ţigan, specifically refers to the term used for "(gypsy) slave" before the abolition of slavery in Romania. Partly for this reason, many English-speaking Romanian Romanies (among other Romanies) take offense at the word "Gypsy."

There are some Romanies who are fine with the word "Gypsy" or even reclaim it, and there are some who see it as an embodiment of the "gypsy image," i.e. all the stereotypes, myths, etc. propagated about "gypsies" in Europe to this day. So the word "Gypsy" is a little risky to use, and "Romani" is a far safer alternative.

In the case of e.g. the French, the word "French" was never used in English to be almost synonymous with words like "thief," "wanderer," "beggar," "no-good tramp." The word "Gypsy" was, though, and even now there are some related words with clearly pejorative meanings (e.g. "to gyp" = to cheat or rob; "gypo" = racial slur). --Kuaichik (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And I wonder where got your info. The term ţigan in Romanian is not an ethnic slur. The political correct band would have it that way, but fact is ţigan was the only name for Roma until some money-hungry NGOs imported "Roma/Romani" from Western publications and promoted the new name rabidly to justify their "fight for minority rights" (and the money they got from Western sources). I would not be surprised if the first mention of Roma/Romani in Romanian language (e.g. in official documents) came after 1989.

As an ethnonym, ţigan not only applies to the positive aspects of the ethnic group, such as:

"lautari tigani": gypsy music players, famous all over the world. Would you really have "Roma kings" instead of the "Gypsy kings"? We wouldn't, in Romania. So we still call them "tigani".
"nunta tiganeasca": gypsy marriage, very complex, very impressive.

but also to negative aspects, mainly poverty (and criminality which tends to be higher due to the poverty levels).

So, yeah, "tigani" is OK when it's positive, and not OK when it's about crime and poverty, in which case it becomes Roma. Dpotop (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a cousin in Romania. He said once that the word tigane is pejorative when it's used by someone who hates us and is good when it's used by someone who loves us. :) I guess that's fair for all languages. RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk)

I think the use in English is hard to make clear-cut and that the highest concentration of Roma in the Anglosphere is in the UK. I haven't heard anyone from outside the UK use the mainly offensive term Gypo. In the US, I've seen many people write jip or gip for gyp and I don't think it's clear to them that it's probably derived an ethnic slur. There, Gypsy seems to be used only as an ethnonym, unlike it the UK where it is used in a derogatory sense against even people who belong to different ethnic groups. Please, somebody do a Google book search to find out when Romani started being used in English. I'm not sure how to do so but Wiktionarians do it all the time.

Considering the other Romani ethnonyms out there, Romari or Rromari seems to make more sense, but noone I've seen uses those. My Romanichal friends call themselves Romani/y Gypsies in AU and are proud of their heritage.

Besides the arguments that Gypsy is an exonym and sometimes a racial slur, is the one that it's origin means Egyptian, and in places with low Romani concentrations, like the US and AU, the belief that Roma have Egyptian, not Indian, origins is widespread. It even persists in the UK to a lesser extent. I feel this is the worst problem with continuing use of the word.

On User:RomanyChaj's note, French has the same root as Franćais, wich means Frankish and terms based on it are generally not negative, so it seems perfectly reasonable. Dutch comes from an Archaic term, Dutch, for Goths, Netherlanders, and Germans. Its Proto-Germanic root means (a) people. Terms based on it are generally not negative. The related Plattdüütsch is still used as an endonym for many NE Netherlanders, so Dutch seems somewhat reasonable. German comes from the Latin exonym, Germania, for a land of Celts, Goths, and Slavs, which was roughly modern Germany. Considering that Germany was part of the Holy Roman Empire for most of the last two millenia, it's understandable that the Latin-derived term survives in English. Its root seems to be the Celtic origin of Old Irish's garim "to shout" or gair "neighbor". The latter seems to share the same Proto-Indo-European root as germane, so it seems barely reasonable. The French word for German, Allemand(e), comes via Latin from the Proto-Germanic *Alamanniz, meaning All-man or foreign man. The use of Alemannisch as an endonym in S. Germany, though means its also barely reasonable.

Around when PC started, the term, Native American was used to displace the confusing erroneous Indian. Many of my Iroquois and Algonquin relatives, however, grew up with the term Indian, and Native American itself has drawbacks. The term (American) Aborigine or First Nations people also evolved and are still used in CA. Nowadays, the best term, Amerindian is commonly used by Anthropologists worldwide to refer to the pre-Columbian peoples of the Americas, and readily understandable. Red Indian is disparaged. These changes in terminology involved input from Amerindians, and so it seems reasonable. Similarly, I espouse the term Romany Gypsy for laypeople, but Romani seems better for academic discussions. What do you think?

BTW, I haven't seen the Romani Wikipedia, http://rmy.wikipedia.org/ , admin User:Desiphral, for a bit , which is a shame because that's who I refer User:RomanyChaj to on finding other Roma. )--Thecurran (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Roma and Crime

I also would like to point out that the section on Roma and Crime is not vey professional. Its just a paragraph on the opinions of Ian Hancock. I'm sure there are many sources documenting, explaining and commenting the phenomenon of criminality among Roma populations. --Guzman ramirez 08:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I know gypsies and they are nothing but lazy criminals, they stink and don't bathe. If you ever find yourself in a gypsy part of town, get out before it is too late. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.62.117 (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, find them and put them in. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to NPOVize this section but my edit was reverted. Claims such as Romanies do form a significant portion of those imprisoned, but this is mainly due to racial profiling; many prisoners have been arrested simply for being Romani are opinions, not fact, and it cannot be stated in this manner. Edrigu 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

They may be opinions, and they may well be fact as well: references make all the difference here. If it's just you or me saying it then yes, that's just opinion. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's decide how to word that paragraph in an NPOV manner. It definitely can't stay as it is now. Edrigu 01:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it can't stay as it is. Let's use common sense here... African Americans form a significant portion of the prisoner population in the US, should we put a section about "Blacks and Crime" in the African American article? I propose the "Roma and Crime" section is deleted completely. Dinlo juk 17:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have improved this section somewhat by removing the unsourced 2nd paragraph. It still needs work, but at least now it's limited to more or less referenced statements by Prof. Hancock. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's still completely out of place. Polish it all you like, it'll still be a turd. Dinlo juk 20:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Points for the vivid and apt metaphor. But seriously, before just nuking this entire section, how about addressing the issues it raises? Seems to me there are some legitimate things to be said on this subject (Roma & crime), even though it's difficult to say how they should be said. Let me throw some things out here:

There is a perception (true or not) that a disproportionate amount of crime, or particular types of crimes, can be blamed on the Roma. Agree?
A certain amount of persecution of Roma people may be attributable to this belief, mistaken or not.
Because of these misperceptions, it is difficult to say with certainty whether the first supposition is true; whatever statistics there are in this area are also subject to manipulation and misuse.

Seems to me these are legitimate topics that might be addressed by such a section. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, a more appropriate course of action would be to include discussion of this under "persecution". It could include a brief discussion of the socio-economics of crime and how it relates to the Roma. Nature/nurture and all that.Dinlo juk 11:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that there is an enormous ammount of crime and antisocial behaviour among Roma and that this is, at least partially, due to their culture. Anyone who knows them and has lived with them as neighbours and/or friends (I have) will tell you this. But Dinlo juk has a point, it is an ugly thing to write and perhaps unneccesary in an encyclopedia, particularly because it may reinforce stereotypes and xenophobia.

Perhaps it is better to delete the whole section than to create a politically correct decaffeinated one. --Guzman ramirez 19:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the remainder as it was unencyclopedic and didn't really say anything. There is no equivalent section in any other race's article. Any further mention of perceptions of crime belong in the persecution section. Dinlo juk 10:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I put it back in. I think outright removal is a cowardly response to what appear to be legitimate issues raised here. Just because this is a difficult area, rife with possible stereotypes and discrimination, doesn't mean that we shouldn't make an effort to come to grips with it. The perceptions of Roma crime, true or not, are not going to go away just because people refuse to discuss them (or perhaps because people refuse to discuss them). +ILike2BeAnonymous 16:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The section merely repeats material that is already within the article. There is scope to create a subheading under "Persecutions", but at present you are giving this prejudice greater weighting within the article than that given to the Holocaust. Do you really consider that acceptable? There is already discussion of the association of Roma with crime in the article (albeit badly written) without this section. I am going to delete it again, I trust you will not reinstate it without further discussion. Dinlo juk 00:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A long, long time ago I added a "Roma and Crime" section that, IMO, was pretty well-researched and NPOV, but its now buried under so many edits that I gave up trying to find it. Much of the material was drawn from this United Nations development fund report. It gives stats demonstrating that, at least in Bulgaria, the Rom account for a disproportionately large percentage of those arrested for robbery and other serious crimes, but also mentions that this may be due in large part to police discrimination against the Roma. To those "advocates" of the Roma who keep deleting material on the Roma and crime, I urge you to consider supporting a well-sourced, neutral section which discusses this issue. Otherwise new editors will be perpetually tempted to add inflammatory, poorly sourced material, as we have seen repeatedly. Another option would to add material to the admittedly troubled Race and crime article and link to it from here. Wachholder 18:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Roma Population in US

I'm just curious about the population of Roma in the US. The article says "Presently there are about one million Roma in the USA," but there is no mention of this number in the "Regions with significant populations" chart. Can anybody account for this?

Also, I checked the citation for this: [59], "Gypsies" in the United States. Migrations in History. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved on August 26, 2007. I couldn't find anywhere on this site that mentions the population standing at near one million.

Can anybody shed some light on this subject?

Perhaps if we could get some numbers from the Census Bureau, we could have a much better picture. Mvblair 16:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This CDC article from 1983 quotes a source as saying there are only 500,000 "gypsies" in the US. According to this site at the University of Toledo, there can't be more than 100,000. So which is correct? What standards did the people who wrote this article use? Mvblair 15:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Anybody? Mvblair 18:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Prof Hancock gives the figure of over one million here: http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2003/romani.html .If they were 500,000 in '83 i don't see why they couldn't be over 1 mil today, especially with the large migrations after the fall of the soviet block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKoan (talk • contribs) 11:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Illiteracy?

Hey there. Skimming through the article, I noticed this under the heading of "Romani people and crime":

"Professor Ian Hancock notes that Romanies are usually arrested for relatively petty crimes, e.g., pickpocketing and trespassing. Trespassing has been a common offense among Romanies, partly because most Romanies are illiterate[.]"

This is an incredibly sweeping statement. Hancock is an American, and maybe this is is true in America, but right now it implies that most of the Roma all over the world can't read, which is most certainly isn't true -- the idea that they are a group of persistent illiterates regardless of the country they are citizens of is kinda silly at best. For example, in, uh, my native Finland -- honestly, I kinda hesitate to bring this up after the mess the other guy made earlier, but I can only assure you I don't roll like that -- the Roma go to school just like everyone else, as required by law. There are effectively no illiterate people in Finland, and I would imagine that the same goes for many, many other countries. I see that this bit has been tagged for a missing citation, but really, that's not quite good enough, particularly considering what is being said. I'm not familiar with Hancock's work at all, but from what I gather, he's an authority on the subject, and I'm quite willing to believe that he's be correct here -- I just doubt that he was talking on a global scale when he made such a statement. If, y'know, he made it. Could someone familiar with the guy's work maybe take a look at that? -- Captain Disdain 08:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's nonsense. The section shouldn't have been there in the first place. Dinlo juk 10:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. I know this is a late comment, and I hope it isn't too annoying, but may I just point out that I actually had express approval from a very active Wikipedian who is actually a Romanian Romani to post this "nonsense" (as you call it) here? Anyway, it seems that much of the information is now included somewhere in the article, so I will not (at this point, at least) bother to put it back up. --Kuaichik (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this statement was already removed. It is true that many people stereotype Roma people as being petty criminals. The Antiziganism also deals with it a little. Perhaps there could be a section devoted to Romani stereotypes in history and modernity. The "Contemporary issues" section deals with it a little. I don't think there is a precedent for such a section, but I would welcome it to dispell some stereotypes.

A section on criminal activities, such as the one on the Irish Travellers page is just plain absurd. It should be removed on that page as well. Mvblair 15:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had helped to deal with that problematic statement of Prof. Hancock's by adding a {{fact}} tag after the illiteracy part. Apart from that, the statement seems valid. (I do think the illiteracy claim is surprisingly wild and ought to be challenged.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a good thing in itself, but really, it's a little like adding {{fact}} after a "people can fly if they flap their arms really hard" statement -- I mean, the claim is simply so dubious as to be entirely unbelievable. -- Captain Disdain 22:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you got that right; perhaps I should have used one of the "disputed" tags instead. Or better yet, the entire section should be rewritten without that troublesome quote (or at least minus the part about illiteracy). +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I restored this section, which was removed by 88.195.14.243 as a part of his campaign for, uh, whatever the hell he was trying to do when he constantly removed parts of this talk page. (Not that the discussion is still ongoing, but blanking talk pages is a kind of a no-no.) -- Captain Disdain 09:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cant we make a split?

Like with African-Americans] and Niggers they have both separted articles. I think Gypsy and Romani should be separted aswell because gypsy is a very offensive word nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: this comment appears to have been made by a notorious "troll" here; please give it the respect it deserves. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

More vandalism

This has been very interesting, as I simply came to read this article, and found this as the first line of the article: "Sean Brindley is a gypo, also known as rom, he lives in a caravan and has cap hair." Which led me to sign up to an account and try to contribute to this page in order to have that part deleted.

Page editors/administrators: Please delete that line!

Thanks so much and I look forward to reading the rest of the page... Ishwarke 11:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How old is this term "romani, rom, rrom" ?

How old is this term "romani, rom, rrom" ? the whole wide world known them as "zingari, tsigans, zingeneurs, gypsies etc" why did they invented this name ? and should they be allowed to use this term since they can be confussed with romanians witch has no relation in etnicity or name history with them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianzax (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The terms "Romani, Rom, Rrom, Roma" and variants thereof have been around for as long as the Romani themselves have been. The other names (Tzigane, gitano, zingari etc.) are variants of "cigány" which is the Hungarian word for a Romani (possibly derived from "szegény", meaning "poor.") "Gypsy" was invented on account of a mistaken belief in Egyptian origin of the Romani.

And frankly, as long as Slovakia and Slovenia can keep their easily-mixed-up names, the Romani and români can call themselves whatever they like. (So can Austrians and Australians.) K. Lásztocska 21:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be wrong, the term "rom, rrom" it isn't used by gypsies when they are reffering to themselves . They are reffering as "tsigans" to themselves and since there are not proofs to testify for how long this term is used by them we can't be so sure about the truth. The fact that the whole world are knowing them under other names leads also to my conclusion Adrianzax 22:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Rom, Rrom" etc. are the terms in the Romani language. If the Romanies you know are speaking Hungarian, Romanian, French, Spanish, whatever, they might well refer to themselves using the names for their people in that language. However, the "whole world knowing them by other names" doesn't lead to much--my people are known to almost everybody as the Hungarians, Hongroises, Ungarischer...but we call ourselves magyarok. Language is a strange thing, really... —Preceding unsigned comment added by K. Lastochka (talk • contribs) 22:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

my theory is availabe also for their "romani language" . Since there is no proof of their ethnicity name, or language name, we can't be sure about the truth.Adrianzax 23:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the current theory is that "rom" (meaning "man") was used as self-identification by the roma, whereas "tsigan", "gypsy", "bohemian" are exonyms. For my part, I have never understood why we other (Romanians, British, French, etc.) should cease to use long-established exonymes. The current POV of the "politically correct" bunch is that "tsigan" has negative connotations. But the problem here is not to get rid of the name, but of the fame. Before long, "rom" will be as bad as "tsigan", and then what? For my part, I admire what they did in Western Europe with the word "Jew/Juif", which ceased to be an insult and became extremely positive. In Romania, we again preferred changing the traditional "Jidan" with "Evreu" (cognate with Hebrew). So today, we have two words, one of which is a flag for antisemites, perpetuating all the prejudice. Dpotop 23:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"rom" means "man" in ancient egyptian language not in gypsy language ! I can't see the conection between this 2...can you please clear this up for me? And the linvgists say that gypsy used "dom" when they were referring to them wich is with D not with R !!! Adrianzax 21:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Adrianzax, first of all every ethnic group has the right to its own self identification and you cannot impose them what name to use for themself. You are probably Romanian (just like me). As i've said in other places, we should be the last nation to ask the change of the Romani term with some exonym, since we were known for most of our history as vlahs (valahs) that was an exonym and a derogatory term.

Dpotop: Jew, Juif, Jidan and Evreu are ALL cognates with Yehuda which is the term for Jew in Hebrew. So even if some of them got negative connotations they were not exonyms. Romani is the most correct term for the Romanies and its not just a way of avoiding the pejorative meaning.--AKoan (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Akoan if only you would know what I know, you would have not the same opinion...but I won't bother to explain the situation here because no one will listen to me Adrianzax (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

the "new name" of rrom is actually new. they were, and are known to be gypsies. but the EU and the UN decided they're some "endangered species" and must be preserved under a serious name. so they named them like stupids: rroms / romas, while the "Romanies" add is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian28ti (talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The Romani people always called themselves "Rroma," "Rromane džene," etc. when speaking their own language. --Kuaichik (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. We can go like this as long as you want, but you are still citing Wikipedia and poor documented western researchers as the source. If you wish to keep citing Wikipedia, you should also add "not to be confused with "Romanians"" to avoid confusion and misinterpretation.Iulian28ti (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So you want other sources? Fine. One is Prof. Ian Hancock's Handbook of Vlax Romani. Another is The Dialect of the Gypsies of Wales by John Sampson. In other words, basically any source that talks about the name that the Romanies call(ed) themselves in Romani says that they called themselves some variation of the word Rrom.

Having said that, it is true that these words are new to languages other than Romani. But for that matter, you could probably argue that the word "Afro-American" is relatively new in English (as opposed to other exonyms for Afro-Americans) or that the Chinese-based word Tionghua (cf. Mandarin Zhong1hua2, as opposed to Cina) is relatively new in Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia). --Kuaichik (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Some strange English

Some of the English in the Origins paragraph reads like the work of a non-native speaker. I've tidied as much of it up as I can, but am looking for some clarification on the hyphenated terms in the following sentences: 'Gold-silver–diamonds & pearls donated by rich Hindu kings-merchants to the temple made it the richest temple of that period. The temple had to be protected by a large mercenary force of Jatt-Rajputs-Khatris.' What is meant by gold-silver–diamonds, kings-merchants, and Jatt-Rajputs-Khatris?--Sdoerr 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Roma in America

I cannot find any reliable numbers to support the estimate of "1 million" American Roma. The sources cited do not say this and I cannot find any source anywhere on the internet that supports such a conclusion.

Clearly, the actual number of people of Roma descent in the US will be a lingering mystery because of foggy familial histories, but there is no, I REPEAT, no evidence to support this claim, not even, it appears, from formal pan-Romani organizations.

The wikipedia page on US Demographics does not list the romani as a significant population group in the US and with a number of 1 million, or .3% of the US population, that that might be a notable fact.

I think someone with a signon or mod powers flag this and start a special discussion section just for these disputed wide estimates.

jacobpe@eden.rutgers.edu

Hi! I added a better source, giving 1 million as estimated by SKOKRA (The Council of the Kumpanias and Organizations of the Americas), as the most important Romani organization from Americas (in fact a confederation of organizations) and Romani Union (the Romani organization from Spain). Regarding the fact that the US demographics article does not say anything about Roma in USA, the Romani immigration in Americas had the characteristics of hiding the real ethnicity, habit preserved until nowadays, I added a source about this at the section North America. And when I'll have available time I'll work also at the US demographics article (if someone else does not jump on this in the meantime). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I browsed about and found the wikipediapage on Romanian-Americans it lists 1.5 million as the magic number according to a Romanian-American group. US Census says that there are roughly 365,000 million Romanians in the US. [15] Sounds accurate and reliable. But again, nothing on Roma. I realize the scarcity of "accurate" statistics on this type of matter in relation to demographics given the history of whitewashing familial ethnic histories, but can you seriosly put up any number like this outside of the official US census numbers. The whole reason I questioned this all in the first place was because the only sources citing this are non-governmental and unscrutinized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.65 (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

First you said you would be pleased with what you name "formal pan-Romani organizations", now you don't like it. And the idea of "whitewashing familial ethnic histories" is your personal perception, the Romani people and the Romanipen are well alive in USA. The fact that there is no Romani position in the US censuses and that there is a racist attitude in the local society that keeps the Roma better staying quiet about their ethnic identity, this is the problem of the US establishment, not of the Roma. The Romani side did its job regarding the stating of the Romani presence in USA. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I added at the template the description Romani organizations' estimations. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Change the name to gypsies

Paper delivered at the “1. International Roman Symposium” Trakya Üniversitesi, Edirne (Turkey), May 7-8, 2005 Gypsies (Tsiganes, Zigeuner, Çingeneler …) or “Roma” (“Sinti & Roma”) Some Reflections about “Political Correctness” with special reference to Germany

If I remember correctly, the name of this symposium initially had “Gypsies” in its title; later on this was changed to “Roman”. This “development” is actually the subject of my contribution today. In many countries, especially western ones – and for the last few years in Turkey, too – efforts have been made over the past three decades to assert and push through a new “political correctness” by renaming “Gypsies”, “Tsiganes”, “Cigani”, “Zigeuner”, “Çingeneler” and so forth as “Roma” (“Romanies). I want to discuss here the reasons for this “language reform”and its implications.

Tsigane (Cigani, Zigeuner, Ciganos etc etc) is much different to 'Gypsy'. Tsigane is related to Atsinganoi which may be an old Greek reference to Hindu people from India as it means 'those that do not want to be touched'. In the ancient world the word 'Indian' did not exist but the word which India derives from did. People from India of Hindu belief (the word Hindu also derives from the word) were called 'Sindhi'. Sindhi comes from the root sin meaning 'water', due to people of early Hindu beliefs purifying themselves in the river. Amongst Roms there are early Hindu beliefs of cleanliness etc.

The word Gypsy means 'Egyptian' so why would Roms call themselves Egyptian? Some may have used the term years ago to get by in a racist society as Europeans recognised Egypt from the Bible. But in todays time it is very insultive to the majority as it also recalls of the years of racial persecutions and Europeans calling us Egyptians.

To make it clear at the very beginning: I belong to those, who think it more appropriate to keep the specific (outsider) terms of the majority populations for Gypsies, as they have been used for centuries.

The main points put forward when asking outsiders to use the designation “Roma” can be summarized as follows:

1. Reference is generally made to the First Romani World Congress in London in 1971 and its decision that from then on all the Gypsies of the world should be called “Roma”.

2. It is obviously perceived as a kind of “natural right”, that the specific term used by the group itself is postulated to be the only valid one.

3. Nearly all the foreign names for Gypsies are said to be pejorative, discriminating and tainted with prejudice.

4. Sometimes it is argued that the term “Roma” has already become so colloquial, that persons who do not behave according to what is thought to be politically correct, are labelled at least as backward, if not as racist (or in Germany as Nazi).

5. When confronted with the fact that many Gypsies themselves use the terms attached to them by their neighbours, it is put forward that it would be different when Gypsies themselves use these, from when outsiders do so.

Let’s now discuss these arguments one by one.

1. At the First Romani World Congress in 1971 only about two dozen “delegates”, apart from a few observers, are said to have taken the far-reaching decision for several millions of Gypsies worldwide, that they should thenceforth present themselves as “Roma”. Even when we take later Romani World Congresses with more participants into consideration, the legitimacy for such far-reaching decisions is rather weak. Nearly all Gypsy groups, to my knowledge, lack a sense of larger trans-tribal units experienced in common, and solidarity beyond clans, tribes, local or regional units is largely absent. Although several organizations for Gypsies in different countries – which, by the way, often incorporate foreign terms in their names – have been founded during recent decades, they are not deeply rooted in the communities concerned. Trans-national or even world organizations enjoy even less support from local and regional groups. Rivalry between different persons or groups is still widespread.

2. There are many Gypsy groups (especially Oriental ones) who have never heard of the term “Roma” and many more who have their own different designations (like Lom or Dom in Turkey). There is no legitimacy or justification in attaching a “Roma” label to them. Besides, this would contradict attaching the recognition of insider names that is supposedly aimed at.

3.The “original” term for Gypsies seems to be “Dom”, rather than “Rom”.

Of course, a problem arises when one really speaks about Roma “proper” and not about Gypsies in general. Therefore one would always have to explain whether one is using the term “Roma” in a broader or narrower sense. We are in need for a term covering all different Gypsy groups. And we have such terms in the specific languages. If it were demanded, that henceforward only insider terms should be used worldwide, one can imagine what kind of confusion and uncertainty would arise. Such a procedure is certainly not in the interest of many ethnic groups and nations. For example: Germans are called Germans although they call themselves “Deutsche” and although they are not the only Germanic people. Although the Alemannen form just a small part (or tribe, if you like) of Germans, all Germans are called “Allemands/ Almanlar” by, for instance, French or Turks. Even “worse”, Germans are called “dumb” (Njemac, Nemci and so forth) in Slavonic languages. Despite all these strange foreign designations for Germans, I have not heard about any protest against them.

It is much more “natural” that ethnic groups or nations bear names different from those given to them by their neighbours. Insider terms are often almost unknown to neighbouring groups, and quite often the designations given by foreigners have some negative or at least incorrect aspects. In this way we come to the next argument.

4. Gypsies have had a negative image for centuries, regardless what they were called. Combatting discrimination cannot be done by just attaching a different label. Prejudices are then very likely to be transfered to the new name. Alongside with negative associations when thinking about Gypsies, there were also positive, often romantic, associations connected with them. “Gypsy music” is generally highly esteemed and newspapers, which otherwise use the “political correct” term for Gypsies, still write about “Gypsy music” (Zigeunermusik), since it has already become a well-recognised label. In Germany several societies (generally connected with the carnival) have named themselves “Zigeuner”; they would certainly not have done so if the term had only a negative connotation.

Not only is nothing (positive) gained by renaming, but the moral pressure connected with this provides yet a further reason for rejecting Gypsies. The establishment of taboos often provokes counter- reactions.

The arguments discussed above were those generally brought forward in connection with the subject. But there are certainly other reasons which are not uttered openly. Perhaps the fighters for “political correctness”, both among Gypsies and Gadje are not even fully aware of them.

One of the reasons seems to be to gain or exercise power. An ethnic minority (Gypsies) and a political minority (persons with an anti-authoritarian ideology and a strong rejection of the “establishment”) try to apply moral pressure in a field, where a “victory” seems easily to be achieved. Besides the social-psychological explanations for such behaviour, a victory, in the case of Gypsy organizations, is thought to be a means of gathering more followers. A strengthened organization has a better chance, for example, to obtain financial resources.

I would like to finish my contribution with a quotation from a collection of essays by the German-Romanian writer Herta Müller („Der Staub ist blind – die Sonne ein Krüppel. Zur Situation der Zigeuner in Rumänien“, in: „Hunger und Seide“ (Reinbek bei Hamburg 1997, p.153, my own translation): „I went to Romania with the word „Roma“, used it at the beginning during conversations and encountered a lack of understanding everywhere. ‘The word is hypocritical’, I was told, ‘we are Gypsies, and the word is good, as far as we are treated well.’” Adrianzax (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)