Talk:Ian Hancock

Clinton is part Romani, according to Prof. Hancock at least

In Chapter Thirteen of We Are the Romani People, Prof. Hancock includes a list of several notable persons of Romani origin, along with a description. One part of the list reads as follows:

"William Clinton, president of the United States between 1993-2001, was formerly named William Blythe. He is descended from the brother of the Romani leader Charles Blythe, who was crowned 'King of the Scottish Gypsies' at Kirk Yetholm in 1847, and whose brother Andrew emigrated to America. Andrew's son, Andrew Jefferson Blythe, died in 1860 and was President Clinton's great-great-great grandfather." --Kuaichik 01:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

From where should Hanckock know this??. He pretends alot of things! Can he name the source of this information? As a scientist he should name the information source, anyway! Can he also tell in which language the word "vlax" exists or it was created by himself? If not he can provide also the scientifical source for this too.--Monterex (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Vlachs is an exonym used in this context because the Vlax Romani dialect has borrowed a lot of its athematic vocabulary from the Romanian language. It's spelt 'Vlax' in this instance because it uses Eastern European Romani orthography (X replacing Ch).

I believe Dr. Hancock did a genealogical study on Bill Clinton, but the relevant section in We Are the Romani People includes only a short paragraph for each personality to dispel the misconception that there are no famous Romanies or celebrities of Romani descent. He also includes a number of ethnic Roms, and a handful of others of only partial Romani heritage. I'm sure if you emailed him he'd be delighted to present you with his findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.236.210 (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I can agree. I've written him in the past and he's extremely generous in responding. Editor8778 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant quote directly copied from second source replaces valid information?!

Adrianzax insists on including a direct quote from the second source. In fact, he is misinterpreting what that source is saying, and that information is already included in the article.

He also does not understand what I mean when I say "relevant," since he confuses this word with "reliable (sources)." I maintain that the information he has included is irrelevant because it is already said in the article that Prof. Hancock has some Hungarian Romani ancestry.

Yet Adrianzax seems to be adamant on including a direct quote, when there is really no reason to do so, because he thinks that the fact that Prof. Hancock has some Hungarian Romani ancestry is very important and demonstrates that he is part of some conspiracy (completely imagined by Adrianzax) whereby the Hungarian and Romani minorities take over Romania. He ignores the fact that Prof. Hancock only has one great-grandfather who happened to come from Hungary.

Finally, I ask: How can anybody criticize another fellow human being, based purely on the latter's ethnicity, and not be considered racist? --Kuaichik (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

excuse me noble fellow, but I only added : Ian Hancock was born in Britain of both British Romani and Hungarian Romani descent and was raised according to Romani traditions and mores" and which is completely true. It sounds to you like i'm criticizing him? Adrianzax (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's true but redundant. His ancestry is already mentioned in this article, so there is no need for a direct quote. You did not criticize him here, but you did here. --Kuaichik (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So let's call him hungaro hungarian. It's more corect and Hungary the country of all of them. That's for all racists. It's very nice the association "Hungarian Romani". For the gypsies from Romania how it's says : Romani Romanian. Very nice mr. H...Cock. Very powerfull dispora. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomád Terv (talk • contribs) 20:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No. He is not Hungarian. Húngaro is not an English word. Not all Romanies come from Hungary. --Kuaichik (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What about "Romani Romanian"? The population of Romania are Romanians, which are European population and not the so called "Romani" which are a minority coming from India and Pakistan. The "Romani", how you use to call them here, or "Sinti and Roma", how they are called in Germany, or "Rrom", how they are called in Romania are a small minority in Romania, making only 2% of the total amount of population. The Romanians are about 90% of the population, Hungarians 6%, Germans 1%. Hence "Romani Romanian" designates a person of a minority existing everywhere in Europe, not only in Romania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monterex (talk • contribs) 21:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Romanes Wikipedia

Hello. Today I discovered http://rmy.wikipedia.org and I asked my father (professor Hancock) about it. Here's what he had to say (edited from e-mail conversation):

At 12:38 PM 4/13/2010, you wrote:
http://rmy.wikipedia.org
And how come I was never aware of a written (non-Romanized) form of the
language?! What character set is that in? It looks like Tamil.
--A

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 13:05, Xulaj <xulaj@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
That's a creation of a nutty guy in India-- don't take it seriously

At 14:35 PM 4/13/2010, you wrote:
Well, if it lacks credibility, then the Wikimedia Foundation needs to know,
because it would be silly for them to include such things in their repertoire.
I bet if you did communicate with them you'd have some serious clout, being
who you are.
--A

Should this section be under review by WM, if it is indeed not to be taken seriously? Weasel5i2 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's been 15 years and it's still up?

Editor8778 (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Editor8778 (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ian Hancock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050205135317/http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2003/romani.html to http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2003/romani.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)