Talk:Gypsy

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 16 October 2024. The result of the discussion was keep most.

Overview needed

Am I hopelessly simplistic or racist or shouldnt there be a general overview page on "gipsy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.25.248 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 23 January 2011

There is one. It's where it should be, here; see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. RashersTierney (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely right, of course, but, as you can see, there is a loosely defined group of itinerant editors from a far off land who will delete it. The idea that there isn't a gypsy article is unfortunate. What we have instead is a disambiguation page. However, the long list of items on the page and, while the connection between them is significant, there is no article pull them together and relate them. There is also an effort underway to suppress the term gypsy. Some people think of "gypsy" as a derogatory term because of the lackluster reputation of some of the people it is used to describe. Hiding these people under a different name, however, will not change who they really are nor will it change their reputation. Perhaps in thirty years "Romani" will be a derogatory term and we'll have to change the article again--the poor word scapegoated, having done nothing wrong itself.

There are many terms out of the correspond. I suggest someone to correct it.--94.69.224.46 (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the one link that was unlikely to ever have an article, but the rest seem appropriate as they are all ethnic groups or subgroups that have been called "Gypsy". Roma (Romani subgroup), for example, is one of the primary Gypsy ethnic groups and the Banjara are called the "Gypsies of India", so both seem to belong here. Doc Tropics 20:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups

I removed Domba, because the linked article did not mention the term "Gypsy" or establish that this group is referred to as "Gypsies." I also removed the two subgroups of Romani, Roma (Romani subgroup) and Sinti, because as far as I could tell, these two groups are called "Gypsy" because they are part of the Romani group, and not because there is any special association between the term and these two particular subgroups. (On the other hand, the Lyuli article indicated to me that the Lyuli subgroup, out of all the Dom subgroups, is particularly associated with the term "Gypsy".)

For all of the other groups listed, the linked article indicated to me that the group was at least sometimes referred to as "gypsies" and so should be listed here. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! For the most part I agree with all of your removals; your research and reasoning seem entirely valid. The one item I might question would be Roma (Romani subgroup). The linked article says it is often synonymous with "Romani", and hence "Gypsy", and this article also says specifically that they are considered Gypsy, but the "Roma in Hungary" claim isn't referenced so may not carry much weight. Either way I'm happy that this list got more serious and critical attention; thanks again, Doc Tropics 18:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved. RashersTierney (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews analysis

Based on pageviews this is the most common variant; in the event this redirect ever became an article, the others should probably be retargeted here, but I haven't taken the time to mark them as "avoided double redirects". wbm1058 (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive slur?

FYI to editors who want to educate readers on why this word is a slur I grew up listening to this song, which makes it a word of affection, not a slur. wbm1058 (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]