Template talk:Roma in Europe

J-P. L. 's map contains many errors:

1) Liegeois speaks about maximum 500,000 Roms in European Turkey, while the creator of the map calculated this number as for entire Turkey - this is a very big mistake.

2) The map contains only the highest estimation, but Liegeois uses intervals for all the estimations (300,000 to 500,000 for European Turkey; 1,800,000 to 2,400,000 for Rumania; 450,000 to 600,000 for Russia etc).

3) Formal errors: the intervals must be equidistant and in this map they are not (0-0.5, 0.5-1, 1-10, 10-100). If the Roma population fluctuates between 0 and 12%, then their representation on the map should have eg. those intervals: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 or 0-2, 2-4, 4-6, 6-8, 8-10, 10-12 or 0-3, 3-6, 6-9, 9-12 or 0-4, 4-8, 8-12 or 0-6, 6-12.

4) Informal errors: e.g. in the case of France, where the French state estimates the Roma population at 500,000 and the European Roma Rights Ceter at 1,2 Million ([1]), J.P. Liegeois speaks only about 300,000. Isn't it dubious? --Olahus (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

---

choice of tiers is not an "error". Feel free to do better. It also isn't the map's fault that estimates vary wildly. This is ostensibly a representation of CoE high estimates. --dab (𒁳) 17:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What makes the highest estimation more reliable than the lowest? --Olahus (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

nothing. Your poing being? Drawing a map is unpaid work, ok? Please feel free to draw two more maps, with "middle" and "low" estimates. As long as we state up front that these are the high estimates, I don't see the problem. dab (𒁳) 18:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you would read all the things I pointed above, you won't answer this.- --Olahus (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I did answer. The map cite its source, the source is perfectly quotable, you have no case. You don't like the source? Present your own counter-source. --dab (𒁳) 08:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you didn't understand what I ment: I asked you about the points 1), 3) and 4). And now back to the point 2): why is Liegeois sourse more reliable than other sources. Why do you use Liegeois source for all the Romani people, since his book was called Roms en Europe (= Roma in Europe). The term "Roma people" may designate all the Roma, but also the biggest branch of the Romani people. Which one of those two did Liegeois ment?--Olahus (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Olahus, if you don't like the source used, propose an alternative map based on an alternative source. I don't insist on using Liegeois. I simply insist that Liegeois is perfectly admissible within WP:RS. If you can draw an alternative map based on a wider range of quotable sources, by all means be my guest. Until you get round to doing that, we should just stick with the best visualization we have, which is the map currently used in the template. It should be obvious form the map that "Roms" as used by Liegeois extends to all subgroups of the Romani people. If you want to be constructive, please present a table of percentages and populations you would like to see represented in the map, we can then talk about it, and I can then sit down and draw a better map. But I'm not going to spend hours drawing another map just so you'll then try and shoot it down yet again. --dab (𒁳) 10:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And since "Roms" as used by Liegeois refers to all subgroups of the Romani people, we should call this template "Romani people in Europe". AKoan (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, what do you find so "obvious from the map" that Liegeios extended to all the subgroupos of the Romani people? You suppose this, but you're nou sure about it. The Roma live in entire Europe at the latest since the second half of the 19th century when they spread over the entire world after their liberation from slavery.
Besides of all, you still didn't answer to the points 1), 3) and 4)
I rather believe that this map is by far more reliable and it matches with that what I already wrote elsewhere:

Let me tell you what I really believe abou all this mess about the number of Roma. In each democratic European country, people are free to declare their ethnicity. They are also free to refuse to answer the chapter concerning the ethnicity. Just as an example (it is valid for alle teh other countries), if on the last Bulgarian census 314,000 people have declared at the last census to belong to the Roma, then 314,000 persons in Bulgaria are Roma. We cannot evaluate the people on the basis of their aspect. The estimation that in Bulgaria do live 800,000 Roma just because 800,000 persons have a "Gipsy look" is just a racist argument. Even if they really are 800,000 Roma, but 500,000 of them refuse to declare it - it's teir own right to do it and it is their right to be regarded as that what they answer when they are asked. They are also free to refuse to declare anything about the ethnicity on the census, if they don't want to. And as long as we do not have a indubitable reason to believe that the census results are not frauded (as critics from the independent observers), we have to accept them as they are - whether we like it or not. The Roma, a wide-spreaded ethnic group, have been the victims of assimilations in the last centuries. The reconstitution of the Roma population on the basis of the appearance is a mess. On the same way we could pick out the Goths that "still live" in present-day Spain by counting the Spaniards with blond hair and blue eyes and saying that they are "undeclared Visigoths". Cheeres! --Olahus (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It is true that people have the right to declare themselves however they want, but its not alway that simple. Its another thing when admitting that you are "gypsy" will make everybody point their finger at you.

Instead, a much simpler situation is in the case of the Moldovans who really have the right to declare themselves however they feel. But if you will ask Olahus and other Romanian nationalists, he will tell you that they are "Romanians" not "Moldovans". AKoan (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus that the there are a lot of Roms that officially don't even exist. AKoan (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

AKoan, see Wikipedia:NPA and stop calling me a "Romanian nationalist". I didn't call you a "Roma activist", though I could have rasons to do it. Concerning the Moldovans, there are some obvious differences: the term is not designating a different ethnic group, but it is an alternative demonination for the term "Romanian" and the self-designation of Moldovans is "moldovean" (you know that, right?). According to BBC, European observers that monitored the 2004 Moldovan census contested the data about the spoken language and the ethnic affiliation in reference to Moldovan-Romanian debate, noting that these data can not be considered as expressing the truth.BBC, 29 Nov. 2007 (Aceste date au fost contestate de către observatorii europeni care au monitorizat recensământul. Aceştia au declarat că în ceea ce priveşte capitolele despre limba vorbită şi apartenenţa etnică, acestea nu pot fi considerate veridice). See also this. The census from Moldova is considered to be frauded. If you believe, AKoan, that the census result from Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria etc. have feen frauded too, please show a source. Otherwise, your statement is worthless. --Olahus (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Olahus, if you would call me a "Romani activist", I wouldn't consider it personal attack (although I am not).

There ain't no prove for a fraud in the Moldovan census, it's just an accusation at this point. But lets suppose that the accusations prove to be true, and the things are like in those article. Than you will admit that in Moldova are 34% ethnic Romanians, and 30% percent ethnic Moldovans (moldoveni)? AKoan (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends what the meaning if the term "moldoveni" is. If those 30% would declare themselves "Russians" they should be regarded as Russians because the term "Russians" designates an ethnic group. But, as long as a person declares "moldovean" it is as if he would declare "oltean", "ardelean", "muntean", "vlah", "rumân" or "român". The Roma are free to declare what they want and if they would declare "rom", "rrom" or "ţigan" (or at least "rudar", "căldărar", "ursar", "băieş" etc) then it would be someting different. It is similar with "ungur-maghiar" or "german-neamţ" or "ucrainean-rutean-hahol" or "rus-lipovean" etc. It is possible that for example in Romania some (or many?) orthodox Roma declare "Romanians", some (or many?) catholic and calvinist Roma from Transylvania declare "Hungarians" and some (or many?) muslim Roma from Dobruja declare "Turks". But as long as the terms "Romanians", "Hungarians" and "Turks" are not sinonyms of the term "Romani people" (an issue that knows every Roma), we must accept that those persons are in a certain degree of ethnic assimilation (nothing unsual for an ethnic group that lives geographically spreaded as a minority in almost every settlement instead of compact areas, such as the Hungarians) and the lost of national conscience is an important step in the process of assimilation, as well as the losing of the national tongue (in this case the Romani language). --Olahus (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it is exactly the same thing. There are people in Moldavia (and not few) who consider themselves ethnic Moldavians, not ethnic Romanians. AKoan (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from (Olahus), but for the purposes of Wikipedia, if you can present a quotable source estimating the number of "undeclared Visigoths", we will cover the undeclared Visigoths. Chances are that you cannot, and hence we won't, but the point is that if you could, we would, under WP:RS. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think you know everything, than you cold tell me how those "estimations" have been "calculated". --Olahus (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How are the "estimations" of Romanians outside Romania being calculated? AKoan (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Romanians of which country, for example? --Olahus (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the estimations made by "Comitetul National Roman al Consiliului Mondial al Energiei" and "U.S. Agency for International Development", which are used as sources in the Romanians article. Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean this and this? --Olahus (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean this and this, both of which appear to be dead now. Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

the map you link to is absolutely worthless. Your arguments on racism etc. are irrelevant, since we are merely quoting estimates, we do not endorse or second-guess them. However, I have drawn a new map now, based on the CoE "average estimate", at File:Romani population average estimate.png. I hope this concludes this particular discussion. --dab (𒁳) 14:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Worthless? Ha! Ha! Ha! The map I linked is the only one that respects the priciples of Wikipedia. The page from the COE is a collection of informations, while the official data is an information. The page from COE is a terciary source, while official datas are primar sources. (see here). Besides, Wikipedia uses preferencially official datas, while unofficial estimations are preffered only where the official are missing (believe me or not: in the case of every ethnic group, they are also unofficial estimations available and they are always higher than the official data). You can see it in every single article about ethnic groups. So, I tell you now that I am not going to accept an exception in the case of this article because I don't have any reasons to do it. --Olahus (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
PS: I'm still waiting for an answer here. --Olahus (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

um, I don't think you have any case. Our sources inform us that the Romani population in Europe is estimated anywhere between 4 and 14 million. That's a large margin of error, and, as you yourself point out, largely due to the lack of any clear definition who should be counted as Romani. I don't have any opinion where the "real" value lies, I frankly don't know if it is closer to 4 or to 14 million. Luckily, this is irrelevant, since we will just slavishly report "4 to 14 million" per WP:NPOV. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 18:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The estimations are varying. You don't have to add the number of Roma from entire Europe, because the estimations do use invervals. In few words: in some counties, the "real" number of Roma might be located at the lowest estimation, while in other countries at the highest one. If you start to summate the highest estimates numbers, than you make an original reaserch. --Olahus (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So "the estimations are varying"? I wouldn't have though that, seeing our present error margin of 4-14 million. As long as we don't have any decent evidence as to which estimates are more reliable than others, the only npov approach is to report the full margin of error. --dab (𒁳) 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand what I mean: some sources counts more Roma for some countries but fewer for other countries. We canot establish the reliability of a source in dependence on the information of another source as long as the degree of reliability of both sources is equal. See again this. I say again what I already wrote above: if you start to summate the highest estimates numbers, than you make an original reasearch. --Olahus (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)