Talk:Romani people/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

since when it became "Romani" (it's not even Romany anymore)?

It's absurd to change the term "rom" into "romani" because of a single hungarian-roma scholar Ian Hancock.The adjective or rom is roma (ex roma language)

it's funny to observe the evolution of this term, from rom --> roma --> romany --> romani -- >romanies, romani language in just few years. Is the purpuse of this termn of becoming identical to romanian ??? Adrianzax (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The spelling "Romani" was first used by the Gypsy Lore Society, which adopted that spelling long before Prof. Hancock was even born. To address your other points:
1. The adjective is "Rromano" (masculine) or "Rromani" (feminine) in the Romani language. In English, the adjective is not "Roma" but "Romani" ("Roma" is the plural of "Rom"; it is often misused by non-Roma).
2. The change did not happen over "just few years" (sic). It happened over at least 200 years, with "Romany" being introduced in the 19th century by the British writer George Borrow.
3. No, there is no incentive to make the term "Romani" look any closer to "Romanian." Quite the contrary, in fact: there is an incentive (by those who prefer "Romani" to "gypsy," "tsigan," etc.) to emphasize that there is no relationship between the words "Romani" and "Romanian." --Kuaichik (talk) 07:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not mistaken, not at all.

I demand proof for what you're saying, if there were any proofs to testify this etnonim has connection with gypsies it was already written in etymology section, I demand proofs that the term rom designates gypsies for more then 30 years. Even so, the term "rom" has no connection to gypsy language, it was taken from prakrit into the gypsy language and then transformed into "rom" to justify the presence of the "rom" etnonim.

And don't quote me Ian Hancock the hungarian "roma" who tries to falsify history . How come those who try to impose this term have connection with Hungary?

How come they decided to impose this new etnonim at the First "Romani" World Congress in 1971 only when 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“

How come it began to be officialised after 1990 from Romania, and immediately after the fall of Ceausescu... why not earlier? where they afraid of something? . The program who aimed to change the official name for gypsies was sponsored by Soros fundation. George Soros is a wealthy multi-bilionare american-hungarian speculator being awarded by the Times Magazine in top 25 Most Influential Americans .


Isn't this too much of a coincidence?

if some of the gypsies designate themselves with this term it has no connection to gyspy langauge or gypsy roots. Proof to what i'm saying. : As a people (or, more accurately, a collection of disparate groups) originating in India’s Gujarat, gypsies were the camp followers of Mongol invaders of Eastern Europe in the 13th century. Once within the Byzantine Empire, they adapted the Byzantine self-defining term of Romaioi ("Romans" in Greek), given Byzantium’s claim to be the direct successor of the (Eastern) Roman Empire. Hence today’s historically absurd self-definition as "Roma".

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=69E9D3EF-6860-4CC5-9832-7725954173AE

Some say "rom" comes from "dom" ... Philologists suggest the gypsies originated in the Gangetic plains, from a low caste called Doms and are thus called Roma.

http://www.hindu.com/seta/2005/11/17/stories/2005111700041500.htm

Fact recognised by gypsy linguists from Romania. If this is true why aren't they called DOM/DOMA/DOMANI ??? Adrianzax (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Adrian, as a Hungarian, I assure you there is no Hungo-Gypsy conspiracy to destroy Romania. Your activities on this talk page and the content page are far from helpful and could easily be categorised as trolling, so I respectfully but firmly suggest you take your grievances elsewhere. K. Lásztocskatalk 19:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Lásztocska, I have nothing against hungarian people, I have hungarian friends, this is not about regular population of your country, The hungarians are wonderfull people but there are hidden games made by some of your politcal elite. I gave irrefutable facts and quotes with links that backup my statements. Please don't modify my contribution to this page if you haven't some strong arguments and links against me. "dooh" is not a strong enough reason for you to edit my contribution. Thank you in advance, I trust you will take consideration of my words. Regards from Romania Adrianzax (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I like "Romani" better than "Romany", "Romani" goes along good with the many other North Indian languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.217.193 (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's one reason why it's still used :) --Kuaichik (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The correct etnonim of gypsies is "dom" not "rom"

"rom" doesn't exist in gypsy language, the original term who designates man is "dom" and it's taken from prakrit language

Fact supported by Gypsy Linguist from Romania Delia Grigore, the article written by her in a romanian newspaper explains.

"The most well documented theory is that the term "rom" comes from prakrit "dom" which means man and was reffering to the indian immigrants coming from varius ethnic groups which mixed in Persia then aheading Europe. On the other hand is an indian subgroup from India even in present."

Connection between rom and dom is evident. "rom" doesn't exist in gypsy language, the real word who designates man is "dom".

WTF??? How can you say Rrom does not appear in the Romani language? I suppose the words Rromni, Rromano, Rromani, Rromanichal do not exist either? I wonder where the old English writer George Burrow got the word Rommany from? Your correct that Rrom does not mean man as it mean 'a respectable MARRIED gentleman within the Romani family / Bridegroom'. According to Mafri Frederick Wood an old English Romani word for married is "Ramado". The modern Anglo-Romani word is 'Rommered'. A lover, Sweatheart in the Romani language is "Piramni", Pi from Sanskrit love and Ramni like Romni. It is reasonable to say that Rom comes from Sansrit Raman hence Romano, Romani , Romni. Amongst the Romani church the mix blooded travellers of western Europe do not get accepted as being Romani unless they are brown skinned / black haired by the fuller blooded Eastern Europe Roms as they call them Gaje. The mix blooded travellers refer to the full blooded Roms as "Roms" which is how they refer to themselves in the English language.

Ram, Ramni, Ramano, Ramani would be more likely to be the original words. Chavo comes from Sanskrit 'Sava' meaning 'kinsman/ descendent / ones own', shifting the 's' and 'a' to 'ch' and 'o' via Rajputti / Rajasthani dialect (Rajasthani still use chav meaning 'like'). Chal as in Romanichal is masculine of chai meaning daughter which in many languages of Eastern Europe has replaced the feminine Chavi. Manush is also about lineage from the Hindu Manu who was the Sanskrit Noah of the Bible as all mankind comes from Manu. 'Even the word Kale which either means 'black' as in dark skin or it comes from Hindu goddess Kali or it comes from Sanskrit Kula meaning lineage'.'

For someone to make comments like this on the subject should not even be allowed to contribute as they are obviously have no real experienced with the Romani people globally'.'

change it to the correct and real etnonim. the lies will and should stop here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianzax (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Adrianzax, I've removed your edits again. They are still unsourced, and constitute severe POV and original research (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. What? Sources?). Moreover, I sincerely doubt that any readers will believe that the Romani are Romans, as you see the need to mention in the lede paragraph. Further down in the article, it specifically says that there is no relation to Romanians either. Please stop edit-warring, or you will be reported for violating the WP:3RR rule. Dchall1 (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
then I will just put source for every line and words I'm saying, no problem ...the lines to evoid confunsion with romanians from the bottom will be erased and written on the top so it can be seen better, it's no problem I can do that. Adrianzax (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
"rom" doesn't exist in gypsy language I have in my language such a word... RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Subjectivism

My cotributions to wikipedia are sistematicaly reverted. Wikipedia's main motto is to sustain a neutral policy, I posted 3 reliable sources from 3 very popular websites. Wikipedia isn't a personal toy that can be used only by 3 subjective persons. I demand imediate action.Adrianzax (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Edit-warring" over Adrianzax's persistent edits?

First all my sources are reliable... the sources I gave are the most popular websites of etymology and are displayed the fastest by search engines.

Second, Why are you keep reverting the top lines regarding Ancient Rome and Romania, meant to disspipate the confussion because the similarity of the terms, do you prefer to be written in the bottom of the page where no one can see them? Adrianzax (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Silence is sometimes the best answer. Adrianzax (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
First, your top lines are unnecessary. I and other users have pointed out that no one seriously thinks the Roma are related to the ancient Romans. Any confusion that they may be related to Romanians is settled in the Etymology paragraph.
Secondly, you have provided three dictionary references and a German article, which contradict the rest of the article. In order to make such great changes to the article, you must first get consensus on the talk page. If you continue to make these changes without obtaining consensus, you will be reported for tendentious editing. Thank you. Dchall1 (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The top lines are necessary like it is shown in another similar article Romani language.All 4 sources are stating the same thing, if you don't agree with something specisely , point it here.Don't generalise. Don't revert my cotribution to this page if you haven't arguments againsts me.Thank you for understanding. Adrianzax (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is anybody editing the page at all until a consensus is reached here? K. Lastochka, Adrianzax, Dchall1, Sceptre, Istvan and SupervladiTM have all helped perpetuate a sterile edit war, and only two have commented in this talk page section. The solution to a content dispute is not to revert, but to put down the edit buttons, leave the page in the wrong version, and build consensus on the talk page.

I request that all participants in this revert-party stop reverting and start discussing. This applies doubly to experienced Wikipedians, who should be setting a good example for any new editors.

Now, would someone please explain to me here why their version is better? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please DO provide any evidence you have of István ever "edit-warring" in any capacity whatsoever or contributing even slightly to a destructive situation anywhere on the Wikipedia before carelessly accusing him of wrongdoing? He is one of the finest, most trustworthy and most levelheaded Wikipedians any of us will have the good fortune to work with, and what's more he's barely been active on-wiki for the last few months, so to accuse him of being an offending party in this dispute is nonsensical at best. K. Lásztocskatalk 21:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about "offending parties", and you may drop the legalistic tone. I'm talking about a better way to carry out a content dispute than by reverting repeatedly. When you see a page going back and forth, the correct response is not to add another revert to the pile; it's to use the talk page to clearly and publicly establish which version is better and why. Then when you make the edit, it sticks. When I came by this page, I saw Adrianzax trying to get discussion going here, and I saw other editors reverting without discussing. How am I supposed to tell which version has consensus support, when the talk page lies inactive? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
"Legalistic"? Pretentiously formal perhaps, but God help me if I ever sound like a lawyer. ;-) I don't see much "discussion" on the part of Adrianzax, I see a lot of proclamations, pontification, conspiracy theories, and ranting. Moreover, the POV he is pushing is demonstrably bogus and his additions unencyclopedic. I'm sure there is consensus about that among people who are familiar with the topic at hand. K. Lásztocskatalk 23:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You're still talking about something other than why your version is better. To me, an outside observer, it's still indistinguishable from an edit war. What would it take to convince you to use this talk page to explain why your preferred version is better? Asserting that you're "sure there is consensus" is different from demonstrating that consensus. Let's see it. What's better about your version? If his version is "demonstrably bogus", then demonstrate. It should be easy, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't particularly like being labelled as an edit-warrior - that action is what I do with all articles I come across with an edit-war - revert to the pre-war version, so if an admin protects or blocks, there's less chance of protecting The Wrong Version. Will (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, Sceptre, that's a bad idea. If you deal with edit wars by reverting to a pre-war version, you're encouraging others to follow your example of adding another reversion onto the pile. It's indistinguishable from you simply jumping into the edit war, and perpetuating it. Our job as experienced editors is to show that the way to pursue a content dispute is to keep all hands off the edit buttons, protect the wrong version if necessary, and insist that no further editing happens until a clear talk page consensus is reached. Otherwise, you're sending the message that we should pursue content disputes by reverting without discussion. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I did label my only revert as a pre-edit war reversion, though. I've got no interest in edit-wars in this scope, they're messy and I don't like them. Will (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you labelled it, the effect is that you jumped in and took a side. If you've got no interest, don't jump in and take a side. Notice how your revert didn't end the edit war? Think about that. What ends edit wars is insisting that people discuss, and setting a good example by refusing to revert to any version until discussion has reached a consensus. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
An SPA, Adrianzax, with recent support from SupervladiTM, has been pushing a POV/conspiracy theory that there is a Hungarian plot to equate the Roma with Romanians. This can clearly be seen in his earliest edits to Dom people here, which I reverted and warned him about. His edits to this article, in addition to being poorly worded, are also frought with POV and OR. Statements like There is no legitimacy or justification in attaching a “Roma” label to them are entirely unsourced. He has based his assertions on three dictionary sites and what looks to be one German-language opinion article. The pre-edit war version that I and the rest of the editors you listed have reverted to is decidedly more neutral and better-sourced. I would have filed a 3RR report on him, but it appears that Sceptre has beaten me to it. If there's some other way we should be handling this, please inform. Dchall1 (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there's another way. Use this talk page. Rather than complaining that I'm unfairly accusing people of edit warring, use this page to explain in clear detail why one version is better than the other. Build a clear consensus, and then it will be clear to passers-by (such as myself) which version is supported by consensus and why. When I come across a page going back-and-forth, how am I supposed to know which version is the right one, and who is the SPA? I check the talk page, that's how. When I checked, I saw Adrianzax seemingly willing to discuss, and a dearth of responses from those reverting him. To your credit, Dchall1, yours is the only reply in the above section. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to this entire charge of "edit war": reverting blatant trolling is no "edit war" and certainly not a blockable offense. K. Lásztocskatalk 21:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To an outside observer, your reversions of what you consider "blatant trolling" are indistingushable from edit warring. If someone makes a bad edit, and you revert it, and they put it back, then you get to the talk page, build a case for your version, and once consensus is clear, make the edit. Undiscussed reverts lead to more undiscussed reverts - it's simple cause and effect. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
What she (K. Lastochka) said; all we're doing is undoing clearly disruptive, non-constructive, contentious and unencyclopedic edits. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Super. All you have to do is make it clear on this talk page why the edits you're undoing are "clearly disruptive, non-constructive, contentious and unencyclopedic", and then everything will be rosy. Until that explanation occurs, it's an edit war to any outside observer. Which is more productive, arguing over what constitutes an edit war, or explaining why the better verison is better? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy enough to apologize for accusing people of edit-warring if someone will take the time to explain, here in this talk page section, why their version is better. The topic is not who falsely accused whom of what, the topic is what the article should say. Can somebody explain just what is wrong with Adrianzax's edits? Explain that to me, and I'll revert him myself, once I've seen a demonstration of consensus. That demonstration is what is currently missing, or am I just looking in the wrong place? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. As you can see in earlier sections on this talk page, Adrianzax has, with the very flimsiest of evidence, proclaimed that the Gypsies do not actually call themselves Roma or Romani or any such word, has apparently even called into question the existence of a Romani language, has implied that the name "Romani" is part of a Hungarian-Gypsy conspiracy to discredit Romania, and has been persistently pushing his own personal theory that "Domani" and not "Romani" is the proper word to use. All of this is nonsense and we (your "edit warriors") have been treating it as such. Adrianzax is a single-purpose account (just look at his contribs list), a clear POV-pusher, and could even be easily (and accurately) called a troll, but of course I shan't call him that and risk you blocking me for personal attacks. K. Lásztocskatalk 23:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Lastochka, I'm not going to block you for personal attacks. I would suggest that they're unhelpful (see WP:NOSPADE), and additionally that saying "I could call him a troll but I won't" is a transparently disingenuous way to feign courtesy while going ahead and calling him a troll. You can't make a remark, disown it, and then pretend you never made it. If I say "I could accurately call you a XXXX, but I won't"... then you would rightly believe that I just called you a XXXX (where "XXXX" represents the pejorative of your choice). So, congratulations, you called a name, and you scored a point. Are you here to score points, or to work on articles?

As to your reasons, thank you very much for providing them. I don't know why it was like pulling teeth to get that out of you - it should be your first response to bad edits.

Finally getting to the meat of the matter, it appears that what's at stake are two edits. First, Adrianzax has been moving the comment about "Romani" being unrelated to "Rome" or "Romania" up to the top of the page. Second, the same editor has been replacing the first paragraph under "Etymology" with a different version, including a few citations [1], [2], [3] and [4].

Regarding the first edit, lacking evidence that there is a common misconception regarding "Romani" versus "Roman" or "Romanian", I agree that moving that bit to the lead (and bolding it) gives that particular issue undue weight. As to the second edit, I'm curious what's wrong with his sources, and whether a source is available for the other version, in particular the claim that "Most Roma refer to themselves as rom or rrom, depending on the dialect"? This is what seems to be at stake. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You may drop the lecturing--I'm quite well aware of my rudeness in some of my above comments, thank you very much, and having been a productive Wikipedia contributor in good standing for about a year and a half, I know how to behave myself around here. My current bad mood is an aberration, I assure you.
Regarding his sources for the "Domani" thing: one of them was an opinion piece, hardly an encyclopedic source by its very nature, the other three were dictionary sites--and when I looked at the actual entries he was citing, it became clear that he was misinterpreting the information presented there in the first place. Also, unreferenced assertions like "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" or "There is no legitimacy or justification in attaching a “Roma” label to them" are unacceptable by Wikipedia policy. K. Lásztocskatalk 00:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Lastochka, I don't question your good standing, and any "bad mood" is entirely understandable, as we're all human. I sincerely thank you for the explanation - that's what it takes to make your edit stick. Now, anybody wishing to revert you must answer to the reasoning you just provided. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
GTBacchus, let me try to elaborate on what K. Lásztocska says above. You ask for a source about whether "(m)ost Roma refer to themselves as rom or rrom, depending on the dialect." There are plenty of sources to show that r(r)om is indeed one of several closely related endonyms for the Romani people. One is the book We Are the Romani People by Prof. Ian Hancock, who Adrianzax obviously hates simply because the professor is a "Hungarian" Rrom, although in reality, only one of his great-grandfathers (Benczi Imre) is from Hungary while the others are Romnichal (English Romani). (From the foreword of We Are the Romani People by Ken Lee: "One of Benczi Imre's two daughters, Maria, married into the British West Country showman family of Hancock, and had three children, among them Marko who married Gertrude, a daughter of the Romanichal King family. One of their children was Reginald ('Redjo' [in Romani]), Ian Hancock's father, who married Kitty, a daughter of...a Romanichal scrap merchant and locally-reputed boxer...").
Prof. Hancock is the UN Representative for the Romani people, a prominent expert on Romani Studies, and the owner of the Romani Archives, the world's largest collection of Romani-related materials in existence. What logical reason does Adrianzax have to dismiss such a scholar on the grounds that he is a "Hungarian" Rrom?
Although "r" and "rr" are contrastive sounds in Romani, apparently there are some dialects of Romani in which the two sounds are not distinguished. I'll admit that I can't think of a source for this right now, but please allow me to point out that phonologically speaking, "rr" (possibly a uvular trill, i.e. pronounced somewhat like the German/Provencal "r") is a rarer sound than "r" (an alveolar tap, pronounced like the Spanish "r" in "libro," the (American?) English "dd" in "muddle," the Japanese "r," etc.).
As for Adrianzax's claims on "Domani": first of all, the correct word is "Domari," not "Domani." Second, the Dom people are genetically so different from the Romani people that a greater relationship has been found numerous times between e.g. the Romanies and Punjabis than between the Romanies and Dom people. Third, there is no such language as "Sanskrit/Prakrit"; to say that there is would be like saying that there is a language called "Latin/Romanian" or "Slavic/Russian." Fourth, the claim concerning "dom/domba/domni" is mixing up the idea of a sound change from "d" to "rr" with an entirely different proposed etymology of Rrom and Rromni (the latter etymology is proposed by - surprise, surprise! - Prof. Ian Hancock! It suggests that Rrom may have come from an "Old Indo-Aryan" word raama meaning something like "husband"). Fifth, what evidence is there that "dom," "domba," "domni," and "rom" are actual words in either Sanskrit or Prakrit? Is there a single dictionary of either language that includes even one of these words?
I will conclude by pointing out two things. One, Adrianzax has support from no one except one Romanian user, and that too one of the many users from whom Adrianzax solicited contact information because "I have something to talk about with you." Two, those of us editors of the Romani people article who are currently active have tried to reason with him, but when we do, he only dismisses whatever we say, saying it is insufficient evidence. --Kuaichik (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I thank you for providing a detailed explanation here, rather than editing without comment. That's helpful. I trust that editors will continue to be so responsive in the future when dealing with questionable edits. It's far more effective than tag-team reverting, conducted with the assumption that any passer-by will obviously be familiar with the issues at hand. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Rom or Dom?

I would invite all editors who are constantly removing sources without any reasons, to explain their actions. Anyway, i'm not going to continue the edit-warring, and I will report this soon to the administrators noticeboard. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Without any reasons"?! Did you even bother to read the reasons already explained above? The last statement under the "Etymology" section already says: "There is no etymological connection between the name Roma (ethnicity) and the city of Rome, ancient Rome, Romania, the Romanian people or the Romanian language." No point in repeating the same thing! --Kuaichik (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Before further comment, I would invite editors to look at the actual Etymology section of the alternate (Dom) version (not just via the diffs). There are several problems, in addition to the ones Kuaichik details above. Firstly it is not encyclopaedic. It starts with an antithesis-without-thesis "There are no historical proofs to clarify the etymology of these words." Secondly, the refs (stuck in the body), legitimate as they may be, simply do *not* support the point, which seems to go beyond the understandable desire to distinguish between Rom and Romanian, to the unsupported notion that "Rom" should really be "Dom" instead (thus removing the whole "No, we are Romanian, not Roma" thing; leaving only the "No, its Bucharest, not Budapest" thing). Doing so, or indicating so, leaves to a whole new world of disambiguation, just think - "Domani People" (people of tommorrow?) - "Kölner Dom" would have to be disambiguated as well. But above all, Rom is correct and Dom is not. The etymology sources mentioning "Dom" as a possible origin does not detract from the veracity of "Rom" as it is widely used today. Other groups which may use Dom and not Rom are likely not Roma. István (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Istvan, the confusions between the terms "Romani" and "Romanians" is real. Otherwise, between the term "Dom" and "Domani", those confusions are not known. That makes the difference between the confusion Romani-Romanians that really happens, and the confuion Dom-Domani that is supposed only by you to happen. See some sources [5], [6], [7]. I can bring you thousands of another sources. --Olahus (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for illustrating the point - that "Rom" is correct and "Dom" is not. The reasons, as you write, 1. "confusions between the terms "Romani" and "Romanians" is real" and 2. "the confuion Dom-Domani that is supposed (sic) only by you to happen"; follow that "Rom" is the correct reference and "Dom" is not. István (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Istvan, I brought sources that proved that confusions between the terms "Romani pepople (or "Roma" , "Romani" etc) may occur. Do you have any sources for a confusion between the terms "Dom" and "Domani" ? --Olahus (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe a careful reading of the referenced passage could clear it up for you - My thesis is that "Rom" is the correct etymology for the subject population and "Dom" is not. No such confusion (Dom/Domani) is asserted, in fact it is argued that the lack of such confusion argues against "Dom". Such a confusion (Dom/Domani) is explicitly stated as a hypothetical - (note the verb tense "would have to be disambiguated" and not "must be disambiguated") in other words - "Dom" is incorrect useage as illustrated by Dom/Domani NOT being an issue (vs "Roma/Romanian" which is).István (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was Domari and not Domani? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsigano (talk • contribs) 17:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Single use template

Can someone please explain why the article on Romani people needs a separate template (Template:RomaniInfobox) - when this data could quite easily be placed in the article like almost every other similar article? Green Giant (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Porajmos and anne frank

I keep thinking about Anne Frank and the Romani. There's a story out there that Anne Frank and some unidentified Romani girls were within sight distance of one another at Auschwitz. [8] reports that a Holocaust survivor who first met Anne Frank at Westerbork said she saw her looking at a bunch of "gypsy girls" and crying as they were hustled off to be gassed. (Apparently, said survivor remembered this because she had cried whereas most of the other prisoners had long ago been indifferent to their surroundings.) (She also said, "Look, look, their eyes", but that referred to "Hungarian children that had been waiting all day in the rain", according to the neighbor.) 204.52.215.107 (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC) The source I linked to calls the neighbor Mrs. de Wiek. Her real name apparently was Rootje de Winter. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

References for a "Gypsies and criminality" section

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazarin07 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed grammar fixes.

{{editprotected}} These are off the top of my head and I am not an expert. Perhaps you'll agree.

Section 1: Romani people#Population

Paragraph 8: Some groups...

Sentence 3: Some of these...

Word 7-20: Machvaya (Machwaya), Lovari, Churari, Rudari, Boyash, Ludar, Luri, Xoraxai, Ungaritza, Bashaldé, Ursari and Romungro.

Proposed  : Machvaya (aka Machwaya or Macwaia), Lovari (aka Lovara), Churari, Boyash (aka Rudari, Ludar, or Ludari), Luri, Xoraxai (aka Horahane), Ungaritza, Bashaldé, Ursari and Romungro.

Reasoning  : Some of these same groups are referenced below with those different spellings (e.g., Romani people#Latin America).

Section 4.2: Romani people#Music

Paragraph 4: The Roma...

Sentence 4: A number...

Word 2-4: number nation wide

Proposed  : number of nationwide

Reasoning  : It fixes the grammar.

Section 6: Romani people#Etymology

Paragraph 3: The English...

Sentence 3: As described...

Word 17-18: the Rom

Proposed  : the Roma

Reasoning  : It makes the grammatical numbers agree.

Section 6: Romani people#Etymology

Paragraph 4: In most...

Sentence 3: In modern...

Word 7-9: term Rom (Ρομ)

Proposed  : singular term Rom (Ρομ)

Reasoning  : It preserves the italicization and keeps the reader from getting confused by the mixture of plural and singular forms.

Section 6: Romani people#Etymology

Paragraph 4: In most...

Sentence 3: In modern...

Word 16: tsigganoi

Proposed  : tsinganoi

Reasoning  : The Greek digraph, "γγ", should be transcribed as, "ng", not "gg".

Section 7.3: Romani people#Contemporary issues

Paragraph 7: Roma...

Sentence 2: This is an...

Word 13-16: use to preced the

Proposed  : used preceding

Reasoning  : It fixes the spelling and grammar.

Section 8.2: Romani people#Turkey

Paragraph 1: Roma...

Sentence 4: Blacksmithing...

Word 4-5: handscrafting is

Proposed  : handicrafts are

Reasoning  : It fixes the spelling and grammar.

Section 8.4: Romani people#France

Paragraph 1: Roma...

Sentence 1: Roma...

Word 14: Gens

Proposed  : or Gens

Reasoning  : It fixes the grammar.

Section 8.7: Romani people#Latin America

Paragraph 2: Initially...

Sentence 3: Most...

Word 5: Kladerash

Proposed  : Kalderash

Reasoning  : It fixes the spelling.

)--Thecurran (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to unprotect the page; it's been protected three weeks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Five main groups???

O_o Why they look so strange and why five? As far as I know Kalderash are just part of Roma Gypsies, like Romnichals, Ruska Roma, Polska Roma, Servitko Roma, Kyrymitka Roma etc. And where are Mugat and Domari? RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Am I the only real ethnic Gypsy here?! Ahoo, Romale! RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks like you might be. I don't know of any Roma in my background, but I don't know my background terribly well. I have a few good Romani friends though. :)--Thecurran (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I looked up Mugat and added them as well as a note at the end of Section 1 about the Domari. I made sure Gaelic- (Irish), Germanic- (German), Hellenic- (Greek), Romance- (Spanish), Slavic- (Ukranian), Turkic- (Tajik), and Ugric- (Hungarian) influenced Roma were all included. I think it's exhaustive enough without adding Ruska from Russia, Polska from Poland, Servitko from Serbia, Krimitka from Crimea (Ukraine), Lotva from Lithuania, etc., who are all Slavic-influenced anyway. I think that many of these are covered by other groups listed, that their names aren't too special to Romani because they are derived from place names, and that if the list got any bigger it would belong on a page of its own. I hope you see my points here, even if you don't agree. :)--Thecurran (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

not rated?

Hiya,

You don't have any rating for this article. Is that deliberate? Ling.Nut (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So how would you rate it? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

PC crap

However, the practice of placing Roma students in segregated schools or classes remains widespread in countries across Central and Eastern Europe. In Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, many Roma children have been channeled into all-Roma schools that offer inferior quality education and are sometimes in poor physical condition, or into segregated all-Roma or predominantly Roma classes within mixed schools.[73] In Hungary and Bulgaria, many Roma children are sent to classes for pupils with learning disabilities, regardless of whether such classes are appropriate for the children in question or not. In Bulgaria, they are also sent to so-called "delinquent schools", where a variety of human rights abuses take place.[73]

What is such a politically correct crap doing on Wikipedia? I think that all people coming from former Eastern Europe should join in a protest against such a malicious propaganda. It is not the first time that I read this type of political lies in the internet and if we don't stand against it, it will soon be taken as an undisputable truth by the brainwashed simpletons west of our borders. 01:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Centrum99 (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And if this sort of propaganda is allowed on an internet encyclopedia, it should be appropriate to list facts that explain all the "mysterious" channeling of little Gypsies into special schools:

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2007%20Intell%20(Roma).pdf

Although previous studies of Roma IQ have been conducted — all on children, mostly on small samples of unknown representativeness — they do consistently show an IQ range of from 70 to 83 (Bakalar, 2004; Raven, Court, & Raven, 1995; Save the Children, 2001). For example, Bakalar (2004) reviewed 10 studies in the Czech Republic and Slovakia with sample sizes that ranged from 33 to 178, with ages from 3- to 18- years, on both verbal and non-verbal tests, and with an IQ range of from 71 to 82 (median=75; mean=76). The most comprehensive of these used the Czech version of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III (WISCIII) on a representative sample of 6- to 17-year-olds in the Czech Republic. The 89 Roma children averaged an IQ of 80 (Verbal IQ=82; Performance IQ=80) and the 1357 non-Roma children, an IQ of 101 (Verbal IQ=101, Performance IQ=101). Bakalar also found that Gypsy educational achievement was commensurate, with 62%of Roma children attending special education schools in comparison to 4% of the general population. However, Bakalar missed the largest study of Roma in Slovakia (N=728), which was reported in the Raven's Manual for the Colored Progressive Matrices. It showed an IQ equivalent for 5- to 8-year-olds of 83 (Raven et al., 1995).

Čvorović (2004) found similar results in the former Yugoslavia, where illiteracy among Roma is a major problem. According to the 1981 census, the number of Roma without elementary school education was 80%; only 4% finished high school, and 0.2% college or university. According to Save the Children (2001), the situation had not changed much in the interim: 62% of Roma had not completed primary education. It reported that school psychologists who administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R) found that Roma children averaged an IQ of about 70, which placed many in the retarded category (p. 164). Since they were not able to handle the curriculum, they were sent to special schools. Serbian psychologists consider the Roma population to have a high percentage of “pseudo-retarded children” — children who score below the normal range on IQ tests but who are functionally normal in other ways. There are no overall data on the percentage of Roma attending schools for children with mental disabilities, although the data show that 70 to 80% of the children attending such schools are Roma (Save the Children, 2001)... Roma parents are often pleased to accept the evaluation of their child as mentally disabled because it allows them to access various benefits such as free meals, medical care, and other humanitarian aid (Save the Children, 2001). It should be noted that in Eastern Europe education is free from preschool through to university. However, even for those children who speak Serbian as a mother tongue, the situation is similar, with most children falling rapidly behind in school. A neuropsychiatrist working with Roma children on a daily basis in the Mental Health Institute of the Novi Beograd Medical Centre in Belgrade concluded that in general, Roma children, “don't know the language, and score poorly on tests. These children not only don't know Serbian, they don't know their own language either. Their parents are usually illiterate and have absolutely no appreciation of education” (Save the Children, 2001, p. 164). Centrum99 (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you're saying that the Roma have a problem with education. Am I right? --Gutza T T+ 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
A quick scan through his edit logs will give you a very good idea of what he is trying to say (and a fair idea of why). Suffice to say, I think it is best not to feed trolls and radical POV-pushers, and this topic should be left at that. The Myotis (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Myotis, you should know that every Wikipedia article should keep a neutral point of view. This article is a joke at this moment. The information is carefully selected, all inconvenient facts are omitted (especially the long criminal history of Gypsies in Europe that was the CAUSE of their "discrimination") and not too surprisingly, the majority population in European countries is blamed for Gypsies' own faults (which is the top of impudence). (What about posting some photos of the "monuments" of Gypsy culture like e.g. the settlements in Chanov or Lunik IX, instead of nice smiling people?) Since Wikipedia prefers verifability, not truth, you have a right to quote your doubtful sources (both EU bureoacrats and the crackpots from Amnesty International) and if you find a trustworthy source claiming that Gypsies are oppressed by extra-terrestials and can't go to school, because they have no legs, I won't protest against it. However, I also have a right to quote my own trustworthy sources (official national statistics, a credible scientific journal) that moreover have one big advantage over yours, because they are based on truth and enlighten the situation of Gypsies in former Communist states to the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centrum99 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, but who is radical here? If I am to deduce from this article, Wikipedia prefers liars and PC agitators, who fling dirt on foreign countries on the basis of their sick fabrications completely separated from the reality? Have you some factual arguments agains mine, by the way? Centrum99 (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ask a random man from Czech republic, Slovakia, or any other European country pleased by the Gypsy presence, and he will tell you much more useful info than all the ludicrous "studies" made by various NGO organizations. The truth is that Gypsies don't care about education at all and avoid school at any cost. Some local mayors in Czech republic or Slovakia were even forced to threaten them with prison, otherwise Gypsies wouldn't bother to send their kids to school. In fact, some Gypsy families in South Moravia were already taken to the court for it and as far as I know, one couple was already sentenced to prison (but I don't doubt that foreign NGO-s will use it as another example of omnipresent oppression.). Recently, some "activists" found out a new genial solution: They will pay Gypsy parents for sending their kids to school! But this won't be accepted by the general population so easily. You know, why should Gypsies get money for sending their kids to school and others unprivileged shouldn't? And as for "segregated schools", I think you can get some idea about their evolution from the example of some other countries with underdeveloping and criminal minorities. The reason is very simple: Who of responsible parents would let their children attend a school full of wild little Gypsies? Even teachers in such schools are on the brink of mental collapse. Centrum99 (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
In other words, Gypsies are too stupid to graduate in the European educational system. They are basically an Indian lumpenproletariat stemming from the lowest classes of the society and their educational failure thus isn't surprising. It is not politically correct to say it so, but irrespectively of what you will do to cover the truth, it will emerge soon or later publicly anyway. But some people still can't understand the futility of their aggressive censorship and don't remember the case of Giordano Bruno. The acceptance of the Gypsy incapability to live in the European society shows the difference between a stand of a mature man and the stand of little children foolishly pursuing silly egalitarian fantasies, because of which we will uselessly waste billions of Euro in the next years - with zero practical results, which I can reliably foretell without having capabilities of a fortune-teller. Centrum99 (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
No objections? O.K. I am glad that we came to an agreement so easily. Centrum99 (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me explain some of the specifics of NPOV policy. First of, NPOV does not mean if you can find sources, you can put it up, it means displaying information that does not originate with a certain faction of opinion, but rather reflects the general beliefs of those who study the topic at hand academically (e.g. Majority POV). Even holocaust deniers and revisionist historians can cite sources, the question being if these are accepted sources that do not contradict the more prevalent opinions on the subject. Another policy worth pointing out is OR (original research). In your own case, you use a selected quotes and Roma-related test scores to conclude that the Rom are a genetically retarded and criminal ethnic group. Tell me, do you believe most, or any, Roma-specialized anthropologists would agree with your conclusions?
The general belief of psychologists in Eastern Europe is that Gypsies avoid school education and don't care about the future of their children. They are placed into special schools on the basis of pre-school psychologic tests showing that they can't attend "normal schools". Since when is Amnesty International a credible source representing a general belief? It is you, who deliberately selects data fabricated by these crackpots and presents them as official opinion. The official criminal stats also show that they disproportionately commit crime. What a Wikipedia policy would you pick in this case? That official national stats only represent a view of Czechoslovak policemen and judges? As for the test scores, contact your court "Roma-specialized anthropologists" and ask them for some "non-biased" scores showing that Gypsies score on the level of the European population. I am afraid that they won't send you any. The tests done in Czech republic, Slovakia and Serbia were made by different authors and all show very similar results. Do you know, what "original research" actually means?
When I called you to discuss the data here on a discussion page, you ignored me as a troll. And it is clear to me that you are not interested in discussing any data of this sort. You want this page as it is, i.e. a slimy pamphlet omitting all negative facts concerning Gypsies and blaming the majority population for their own faults. Your favourite sources are EU bureaucrats, and NGO+Roma organizations - really the best sources from the first hand! This is a blatant violation of the Wikipedia "Neutral Point of View" policy. If you can impudently quote sources blaming European people for the high crime rate of the Gypsies, then I certainly have a right to cite police stats to the contrary. And if you don't like them, then delete all the tendentious rubbish to make the article balanced. Centrum99 (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have forgotten, Centrum, that this is an article on an ethnic group, and as far as I know, no ethnic-group article makes statements that claim the intelligence of a certain group is typically of a certain level. There is no precedent for it, and there never will be. The same can be said for Physiologists - as far as I know, no other ethnic article descends to the level of making psychoanalytical claims about the group of study. If I am wrong and you can find such articles, please reference them for us. As yes, when a person comes onto a talk page and claims that their least-favorite people are genetically retards, then it is usually safe to assume trolling at work. Also, you seem to a little fuzzy on the wikipedia policies regarding vandalism. Vandalism is not, as you uninformedly claimed, the pushing of a POV or bias, but instead putting random nonsense and deleting information without reason. Also, may I point out that when an editor goes on a talkpage and makes claims that their least-favorite people are inherent retards, they generally mark themselves as trolls. Other ways to identify trolls include long-winded and emotionally rants on the talk page, starting edit-wars, making edits without consensus, and general abuse of wikipedia policy (e. g. pushing a POV while claiming NPOV). But I must make one final point, you do not under any circumstance put obviously controversial information on a talk page without establishing consensus first. Consensus usually means A. you are using sources that are considered accurate B. The wording is not intended to support a specific POV and C. MiPOV and MaPOV are represented in rough proportion to the prevalence of belief. If you produce a few paragraphs to those standards, we would be happy to have it in our article. The Myotis (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It is certainly true that Roma have a great deal of trouble with schooling, and that they are often subjugated to ghettos, and (possibly as a result) have high crime rates. Still, don't believe for a second that you can just say "they're all scum" and get away with putting it in a wikipedia article. Give us some credit. The Myotis (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
If you deal with a problem of placing Gypsy children into special schools, you should at first know the reason of such a placing. If the reason lies in their poor performance in IQ tests, then such an information is appropriate in this context. Instead, you create an impression that they are "channeled" there by the state - like if it was some oppressive institution that prevents them from higher education. This is a popular manipulation used by NGOs and then eagerly accepted by EU comisasaires. Notice that I didn't list any exact data from these tests. Further, Gypsies are not "channeled" into segregated schools. Again, this is a favourite mystification turning the reality by 180 degrees. If Wikipedia uses sources like this, then it is a joke. Hardly any responsible parents would send their kids into classes with little Gypsies - and that's why such a "segregated" schools and classes came into being. Gypsies are actually not placed anywhere - they visit the school nearest to their place of residence.
Further:
A - Can you list any "inaccurate source" that I presented here? Official national statistics of crime, official national evidence of people, a scientific journal with a top editorial board. I see that you didn't bother to read the Rushton's study, because it is also a review of all IQ studies done in Gypsies - with very similar results between 70-83 points.
B - "The wording is not intended to support a specific POV" - but it still supports a one-sided view, which is obvious from your passionate effort to delete the stats of Gypsy crime. If you want, I can support you with excerpts from medieval chronicles that sufficiently explain, why the mysterious change of view of Gypsies "from curiosity to hostility and xenophobia" occured. You also favor entirely fabricated information from highly biased foreign sources - instead of concentrating on the sources from the countries, where Gypsies live (language problems?).
C - Can you find a quote of some psychologist, who holds the belief that Gypsies score in IQ tests on the same level like Europeans?
Centrum99 (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the whole "Roma and school" problem is a "hen and egg" problem (which was first, i.e. how to draw causality lines). Racists say that Gypsies are too stupid to get normal schooling, a.s.o. Roma rights say that Roma raised in normal conditions are, well, normal (i.e. in the averages of the majority population). Of course, none of the approaches is constructive. The racists basically dream of an eradication/deportation of Roma, while Roma rights guys ask for a continuous flow of hard money "to improve the conditions" of Roma, but we all know that the result of such a money influx is even more corruption and only small improvements. And understanding this is no rocket science: we talk of raising the education levels of whole communities, not just the pupils. Moreover, these communities are quite conservative and closed, and you also have "defenders of the Roma identity" which will protest any modernization of Roma society.

In my oppinion, "raising the level of Roma" is a very long process. Trying to throw money at it won't work, because you basically can't pay people to be someone else. They have to integrate it slowly. And the process will end with Roma no longer being Roma, but "Europeans", just like all French, Germans, Romanians, etc. (small regional differences subsist, but very diluted). And it's also important to understand that the reason behind many of today's Roma activists is money (I still have to see some Romanian Mother Theresa, and not just Roma rights articles). Dpotop (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You frame the issue well, I can only disagree with your assertion that there aren't Roma assimilating - in fact the same broad trends pulling children all over the globe out of their traditional cultures and into this Globo-Western-Mass McCulture has not passed by the Roma either, as most European Roma live in the former socialist countries, this trend began in earnest in 1989, but was already having an effect perhaps a decade before that. It is spot-on right that flooding the Roma with an ocean of Euro will not speed up that process one bit (and would likely cause all sorts of problems); that process is already underway and is driven by things OTHER than official policies. There are plenty of (prob majority of young) Roma who have assimilated completely; my gutsy assertion is that those Roma just might not get noticed as much. István (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that Roma aren't integrating. On the contrary, I'd say that a large majority of Romanian Roma have already chosen integration. The problem everybody is focusing on is the very visible and quite compact minority of Roma that cling to some traditional practices such as nomadism or semi-nomadism (and picking stuff on the road), child marriages, etc which are incompatible with a modern European society. These guys are the ones that will integrate very slowly, over at least 2-3 generations. The same as for the urbanization of the majority populations. In Romania, many of today's city dwellers still have strong connections to the villages their parents came from, and I presume some sociological/psychological study would reveal very interesting differences between these new city dwellers and the "traditional" ones. For instance, I expect that the populist, paternalist, and authoritarian political message is far better received by these new city dwellers than the old ones (because it reminds the patriarchal setting of the traditional village). My point here is that even for the majority population the integration is an ongoing process (not yet finished). Dpotop (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, please note that the g-factor was measured in the IQ tests that were mentioned above. Please, read about g-factors and try to understand that limitations on a parent's g-factor derived IQ impose limits on the child's g-factor derived IQ not through genetics but early childhood development. A good book on the subject would be the Pulitzer Prize winning "Guns, Germs, and Steel".
You do yourself and your argument a great disservice by saying things like "No responsible parent would send their children to school with little Gypsies.". By allowing the term "Gypsies" to remain unqualified, you imply that "Europeans should not send their children to school with Gypsies even if the Gypsies had the same IQs or higher IQs.". This lends credence to the possibility you might be a troll; which I don't think you want to be. Generalizing that all Romani children are "wild, little Gypsies" further compounds that possibility, so you might want to change your word choice to avoid seeming so emotionally charged.
I have read reports from the last two centuries that ethnic Eastern and Southern Europeans, amongst other groups, generally had lower g-derived IQs than ethnic Northwestern Europeans; both in Europe and amongst populations with majority Ethnic Northwestern European people. Similar reports have borne out that those minority ethnic S/E European populations had higher petty crime rates. The biggest flaw in accepting that those conclusions were generally true would be that control groups of ethnic NW Europeans with the same g-derived IQ level and literacy level parents were not contrasted against the ethnic S/E Europeans with parents of similar educational backgrounds. These were done in situations where ethnic NW Europeans with High g-derived IQ and literacy parents, as well as a stable upbringings were compared with with ethnic S/E Europeans that generally had unstable childhoods, fathers that did not have full 12-year educations, and mothers with low literacy-levels. By the way, widespread poorer financial backgrounds similarly raise petty crime rates.
Those reports were measuring apples against oranges. More recent reports bear out that ethnic S/E European people with stable childhoods and literate, well-educated high g-factor/IQ parents do every bit as well as ethnic NW Europeans with the same background. This makes sense; I mean think of Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Da Vinci, Marco Polo, and Fermi, who except for the last lived at times when S/E Europe had much higher levels of literacy and stability than their NW European neighbours. Da Vinci was even raised by a single mother but grew up in phenomenal place and a phenomenal time and I'm sure his mother exposed him to the best of it. Either way, the IQ reports on the Romani above note clearly in the beginning that the children varied very little from their parents, which just re-inforces my point that despite these being more modern reports, those Romani children did not have the same chances as the majority population, so using these results to conclude Romani are inherently less intelligent is also unreasonable.
Now, of course any population has outliers and an approximation of the bell curve in such a statistic, but that effect is not strong enough to destroy my argument that at those times NE Europeans would most likely have had generally lower g-factor influenced IQs because per capita comparisons still show that S/E Europeans of those times left more marks of g-factor style genius.
Some of the biggest hurdles to raising Romani academic standards are still that:
  • schools currently can't cater well for nomadic groups
  • very few schools teach in Romani languages
(disadvantaging Romani in comparison to people with the majority mother tongue)
  • schools also can't cater well for students that are parents.
  • the financial hardships of parents generally have a negative impact on children's studies
  • experiencing discrimination generally has a negative impact on children's studies
(this flows from majority->minority and minority->majority)
  • experiencing discrimination from the majority makes it harder to cope in majority schools
The generally E European countries where much of the world's Romani population lives has made very significant progress even in the last few decades lowering the discrimination problems. There are still remnants of discrimination though, as there are in any country. There are still significant gaps in standards of living between the Romani and the majority, encompassing education (e.g., poor literacy and high school retention), health (e.g., low life expectancies and high infant mortalities), and economics (e.g., overcrowding and low income). Decreasing these gaps means that Romani would be able to send more tax to the government over their lifetimes and benefit the entire country as well as lowering the premia the majority pay on social security, health care, welfare, pensions, insurance, and the like. It would also lower the petty crime rate but implementation is not quick and easy.
Sending otherwise functional children to disabled schools lowers their expectations and degrades them. It would be wonderful if the incentives for Romani students who seem capable and willing to go in to the teaching, policing, medical, or social leadership professions became stronger and more readily available. Another helpful thing would be ensuring all students consistently met their nutritional, hygiene, and mental health requirements. Also standardizing the public curriculum and schedule, and streamlining the transfer of files between schools to minimize the effect moving has on students would help. Tough standards against bullying would also help. This might seem a bit socialist. I apologize if that offends you.
All of those changes would be great and if these were perfectly implemented tomorrow more children getting happiness and health from school would enjoy attending and that would help them push parents to send them to school. Of course, that can't happen perfectly and immediately and even if it did, many parents would stil be reluctant. That's where PR comes in, which is propagandist but in a positive way. There needs to be more pushes from within the Romani community to send children to school. PR featuring Romani people and Romani language would be a big plus and it can help stir an internal push to schooling. Similarly, family and population information pushed widely in Romani language would lower rates of teenage pregnancy.
Teaching more Romani language in school would help waylay genocidal fears of children losing their culture. As a stop-gap measure, the carrot and stick method helps prod parents of children at risk to send their children to school in the short term. This does not have to be monetary. Jailing parents for long periods because of not sending their kids to school deprives the children of their parents and fining them too much puts undue hardship on the family. Gifting them too much money for sending their children to school creates a reliant culture of dependence. The balance is not easy.
On the other hand, compensating parents who work hard to give their child higher levels of school attendance, homework completion, nutrition, and hygiene with non-monetary things like better access to utilities, the Internet, books, educational software, hardware, the news, clothing, shelter, transport, or counselling could be a good way to go. Any child born in a country should have the same opportunities as anyone else born there. If they are not hindered by gross physical or mental defects at birth, then they should be able to to achieve the same standard of living as the general populace. Special help to Romani only incurs anger from the rest of the population, so maybe a different qualification should be used.
If both people in a couple raising a child A born in Country C benefitted from a full course of education in Country C, and are functionally literate in its language, Country C has given much to those parents, and their children reap the benefits. If a child B born in Country C does not have such a couple raising it, those parental figure(s) do not owe as much to Country C and neither is the child reaping such benefits, so child A and its parental figures have received much more than child B from Country C. Therefore, Country C needs to do more for child B. The less child B has in parental figure(s) by number or education, the more Country C should do for it, especially if those figure(s) were also born in country C.
Already, most European children and spouses get certain benefits from their country if their parent(s) died fighting for their country. This makes sense and follows directly from what I just said. It would also follow that some, but not all, Romani households should receive such benefits, as should some of the majority population. Now, unless you believe widow(er)s and orphans of war veterans deserve no benefits from the country those vets served, it seems logical for you to agree with me. Your ideal system of weighting government benefits and penalties for school-age households however may differ greatly from mine as far as how much should be given to what percentage of which population, because of how much living parents may have chosen not to participate in school. Please, do remember though that babies aren't capable of deciding which household they are raised in, so they shouldn't have substantially less opportunity just because of being raised in a different family. Anyhow, I'll hop off the soapbox now. I wish you all the best. :)--Thecurran (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but who are you replying to? Given the indenting, it would seem to be me. However, the beginning of your text (too long to read it) seems to be on a different subject. So, given that you are polemic, please indent your replies correctly. Thanks. Dpotop (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm mostly replying to User:Centrum99 who started the project with no indents, which I indented one more than but still less than your last one with two indents. Please, explain what you mean on my talkpage, or leave a link here to an instructional page that shows me where I went wrong, because I just don't understand right now. I = |\|008. :)--Thecurran (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

more on pronunciation

I haven't found how to pronounce "Romani" on Wikipedia. I think it is with accent on the first syllable, which has a short O sound, rhyming approximately with "domini". Reading the above discussion it's clear that the first letter should be pronounced with a Germanic or French R. Is that correct? Others pronounce it with a long O sound in the first syllable, and accent on the second syllable, though. Who is correct? Boris B (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In English, the first letter is just a regular English-language "r" (in Romani it would, indeed, be pronounced with a Germanic/French R), and "Romani" is pronounced to rhyme with "hominy" (and I guess also with most English-speakers' pronounciation of "(anno) domini"). So basically, you're right. --Kuaichik (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Roma people vs. Romani people

"Roma people" is more common than "Romani people" and according to Wikipedia policy, the title should be the most common version.

bogdan (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Devanagari

Is there any reason to included devanagari alphabet? it's not used anywhere. In all places where the language is used in education, Latin alphabet is used. bogdan (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Romania - different - Roma or Rroma or Gypsies

There's great injustice for The Romanian Nation to use the name Roma for Gypsies. It's a big confusion. The strangers can say that Romania is the land of the Gypsies. See Romani for Gypsies. This is an aberation. Or Roma. What's that? That's sh...t. Nobody asked Romanians if they agree with that and that's a shame to hide the Gypsies behind the Romanians. Romanian - different - Gypsy or Roma. Unless use the term Rroma for no confusion. Romania is the land of Romanian Nation. The minority of Gypsy Etnie should not use the name of country. How about Francs for Gypsy from France instead French people? Nice isn't that? Or Brits instead British people? Corect? Or Hongory insteand Hungarians? True? Should I continue? Ok. Germa for Germans, Itals for Italians, Spans for Spanish, etc. So Ady from Japan , Tara unde poate iti vei lumina mintea, you in quality of Romanian not as Gypsy or "Rroma" and not Roma, you must watch for interest of your country. It's about identity of Romanians (Rumanians) Nation and not about discrimination. It's about the right to exist with the name in respect. The Gypsy can build their respect with an solid education and decently instead steeling Romanians identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomád Terv (talk • contribs) 21:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's neither the Romanians' nor the Roma's fault that their names happen to sound so similar. It's not the fault of the English language either. For whatever reasons, English has ended up calling them like this, so that's what we have to stick with. Whether you find that unjust or not is immaterial. WP:USEENGLISH is the only relevant policy. Wikipedia calls things whatever the English language calls them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Wich are the reasons that english ended to call them like that? You dont know in present day what is they're name. Roma, Rroma, Romani, Romanes. This is not clear. What's that? Please tell me the reasons. I presume that you're an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomád Terv (talk • contribs) 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Roma_people#Etymology - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read that. Ok, in English: english shomaker, english man so Rroma shoemaker, Rroma man. You can not decline an adverb from other language in in the original form in English if you want to be conseqvent. For what Romani people? Corect is Rroma people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomád Terv (talk • contribs) 21:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

After reading the previous thread, I wanted to reply to Nomád Terv by quoting the dictionary. However, the dictionary I checked (Merriam-Webster = www.m-w.com) mentions nothing about "Gypsy" being pejorative. Moreover, the definition of "Roma" is "Gypsy". So, the dictionary I use does not support the lead of the article which states that "Gypsy" is pejorative. Now, I know most people here take this for granted (that "Gypsy" is pejorative), but could someone find a better source for this than a web journal? Given that dictionaries don't support the view, such statements do need better sourcing. This way, we would avoid "racism" discussions and come back to reliable sources. Dpotop (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you consider [the encyclopedia Britannica as reliable? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Gypsy comes from Egyptian, it doesn't mean Stupid, idiot or anything peiorative. What's so peiorative about gypsy???? Are also zigeneur, zingari, zincali, cigany peiorative ???? Gypsy is the english term for Rroma people, Roma or Rroma is the term in their language. I don't see why in English language we have to use the name from their language...are we using "deutsche" for germans or "shqiptarë" for albanians, etc.. in english Wikipedia???? Rezistenta (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Germans haven't been a perscuted ethnic minority for centuries, so your comparison is pretty weak. I would suggest that most common racial slurs are derived from things that aren't in any way pejorative, so origin is pretty irrelevant too. You don't have to use the word Roma, you can use whatever term you like, but if you want people to know what you're talking about, and not be offended, use Roma. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this a sciencific encyclopedia or a campaing website against the persecution of gypsies? In contrary, if you want people to know what you're talking about use the term which was used in the whole history untill the late 90 when the "rom" began to be used at the requirments of some dubious organisations sponsored by a wealthy multi-bilionare speculator man, called George Soros .If gypsy is peiorative why didn't they took the word "Dom/Domba" which according to all etymological dictionaries including Mirriam-Webster is the word from which Rom is derived Here ?? Please clarify me ! What are the proofs which points Rom is the correct name for gypsies ????? Rezistenta (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, haven't we been through this whole spiel already? Adrianzax, or Rezistenta or whatever you want to be called now, you still aren't even presenting a coherent argument. We've already been over the Dom/Domani thing, and your conspiracy theories about some sort of George Soros-Roma-Hungarian conspiracy to undermine Romanian identity still don't merit any serious attention. K. Lásztocskatalk 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Who are you ? don't bash my arguments just because you can't give a clear answer, they're not conspiracy theories, it's the reality, or do you doubt that gypsy was used by the whole world untill the late 90 ? And I just replied to other user which opened this discussion, I didn't opened this subject. I'm waiting clear specific answer to my questions ...
Funny how all the users which are in the favor of Rom name for gypsies are Hungarians, : Istvan, TheMightyQuillK. Lásztocska . Conspiracies ....yeah right.. Rezistenta (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Isn't Mighty Quill Canadian? I'm Hungarian-American, Istvan also lives somewhere outside of Hungary...we're not exactly at the beck and call of some sinister Hungarista conspiracy. You might as well point out how funny it is that all the users opposing the name Roma are Romanians. Ethnicity/nationality really isn't a factor here. K. Lásztocskatalk 22:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't asked where do you live, do I ?Yes you are all hungarians ;) . What's with that "I support Szekely Fold banner in your profile, are encouraging maghiar sepparatism within the borders of Romania, aren't you a little biased to be discussing about this topic together with your fellow hungarians ? Ethnicity is not a factor but when all the editors have the same ethnicity and stressing the same point it's a very good indicator of the "intentions" of respective people Rezistenta (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Szekely autonomy has nothing to do with the Roma! K. Lásztocskatalk 22:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
But it has to do with Romania and Romanians isn't it ? Rezistenta (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Obviously. What are you implying, that I'm some sort of rabid anti-Romanian fanatic? K. Lásztocskatalk 22:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not implying anything, but I look forward you to prove me the contrary, coz I can surely proove you i'm not anti-hungarian, and by this I mean I can make pro hungarian edits without feeling bad :) Rezistenta (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'm as close to an ethnic Hungarian as Prince Charles after a pint of Guinness. Not that ethnic background determines your views. For instance, I know a number of Romanians (from Cluj, no less, so there goes your Transylvania connection) who don't have the same negative feelings about Roma as you seem to... I even know Romanians that use the word Roma. (gasp!) And in any effect, it wouldn't matter if George Soros was responsible for the term Roma. Even if the term originated from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the CIA, or from an L. Ron Hubbard novel... you freely admit that it's now commonly used. That's what matters. When speaking about the specific ethnic group of living people, the term Roma is almost always preferred today. Whether in academic sources or common news media, that's what people use now. Sorry, but you're not going to win this one. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You know romanians from Transilvania, you know hungarian language, you edit hungarian articles most of the time but you're not hungarian and you haven't any connection with Hungary... Allow me to lough..... What negative feelings towards Roma ? how did you reached this conclusion ? the discussion is about a name which is artificially created and which cannot be in any way justified as being the correct and most spreaded term for their ethnicity. And it surely matters if this term is a creeation of a single person and has no historical links with the possesors of the name. Make yourself courage, couse you're going to need it Rezistenta (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you really still implying that I'm ethnic Hungarian? Yes I sometimes make edits related to Hungary (as well as the Czech Republic, the Soviet Union, Georgia, and the Indigenous peoples of the Americas). Have you now decided I am biased because I edit articles on subjects I know something about? Perhaps, to maintain NPOV, we should all only edit articles we know nothing about?

Please, the vague threats are really not necessary are they? I'm pretty sure that's included in Wikipedia:No personal attacks, along with "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."

On a side note... Only the incredibly difficulty of the Hungarian language could explain how my knowledge of 100 words could be evidence that I "know Hungarian language," but I guess I should thank you for the compliment: Mult'umesc foarte mult! - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to imagine "vague threats" isn't it? Someone's affiliations are very conclusive to find out why all the people with the respective affiliations stress the same point over and over again altought their affiliation is not directly regarded by the subject of this debate, if this was an unique case no one would say anything about your affiliations but this is already too much.
Also I'm sure dispite the incredible difficulty of the hungarian language you speak it just like a hungarian, and I compliment you one more time for this. And you already told me you have romanian friends in Transilvania, I guess you have also hungarian friends over there, no? Did they teached you romanian?... hungarians ussually know romanian language, or at least few words in romanian...this is why I asked you... Cu placere :) Rezistenta (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Rezistenta, Please explain your statement: "Make yourself courage, couse you're going to need it" István (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice to see that my reliable sources request had the outcome I expected. :) And since you asked, TheMightyQuill, I think the Britannica article sums the information pretty well. My impression is that: In English "Roma" and "Gypsy" are equivalent, with the former gaining ground on the latter. Also, Gypsy is seen by Roma and Roma rights organizations as pejorative, in some contexts (e.g. outside entertainment, where it's actually very positive). And, of course, "Gypsy" is used with a pejorative meaning by racists/xenophobes/tsiganophobes. BTW, I don't know if the word "tsiganophobia" exists in English. It is, however, used in Romanian (as tiganofob), which is my language (and I believe, given the use in press, for instance, that in Romanian "tigan" is still the main word, with "roma" being restricted to some politically correct circles). Dpotop (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, but please read Britanica carefully; note that it makes judicious use of, and deliberate distinction between, the words "most" and "many". If one reads 1) "Most Roma refer to themselves by one generic name, Rom" and then 2) "Many Roma consider the name Gypsy to be pejorative", then one can safely infer that 1) refers to a majority and 2) to a minority (but notable nonetheless). Although Wiki cannot enforce an iron-clad editorial style, the Britannica can and does. ; As for "Dom", that's just crackpot. István (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. Do you refer to the fact that Roma referring to themselves as "Roma" and thinking "Gypsy" is pejorative is irrelevant, because it's the general English usage that prevails? And that Britannica is making this difference? Dpotop (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Point(s): 1. "Rom/Roma" is the most used autonym (as per reliable source), 2. "Gypsies" is considered by a minority of Roma to be perjorative (by inferrence that a majority of Roma do not consider it offensive - ibid.) Also, Dpotop, it was addressed not to you specifically but rather to all in the discussion - sorry if it made that impression (appearing where it did) István (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

More realistically, I think it means they actually researched how many people call themselves Roma, but didn't research exactly how many find the term gypsy offensive. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Are Roma an ethnic group, or several ethnic groups?

It's not clear from the current lead section. Dpotop (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's debatable, of course. Anthropology is not a natural science. For example, some people consider sinti a sub-group of roma, others consider them a totally separate group. This is the other reason for using the word Roma, rather than "gypsy," because in English (though maybe not in other languages) can refer to anyone lives a nomadic life. By using Roma, you're restricting the topic to the ethnic group(s). - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand this. My point is that the intro has to be rephrased. Dpotop (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Population estimates shoudl be NPOV-ed

I feel that the current wording saying that estimates give at "least 15 million" are not NPOV. First of all the 15 million seem to be the summation of the largest estimates available. So, it's "at most". Also, who gives these estimates? You can't provide this as single piece of info and claim it's NPOV. Not while ignoring utterly the censuses. Dpotop (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Historic heartland?

Why is Central and Eastern Europe the "historic heartland" of Roma? (second paragraph of the lead section). Dpotop (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romani_people/Archive_6&oldid=1142776453"