Jump to content

Talk:Roma people/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

WP:OR

I disagree with this title being revived in the form proposed as it is in flagrant conflict with the policy outlined below.

  • Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
  • Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. RashersTierney (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
A scholarly source has been provided for the basic underlying premise of the article.—Zalktis (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, in a speech to the Council of Europe in 2006, the Deputy Secretary General of the CoE, Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, said the following

Just recently, the Council of Europe hosted the first plenary of a forum bringing together a wide representation of Roma, Sinti and Kalé, as well as those defining themselves as Travellers.[1]

If "Roma" and "Romani" were synonymous, then there would be no need to say "Roma, Sinti and Kalé", would there? —Zalktis (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The terms are not synonymous; no-one said they were. That in no way implies that they are deserving of entirely separate articles. RashersTierney (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Zalktis that ethnic Romani people and ethnic Roma people are deserving of entirely separate articles. Otherwise the ambiguous distinction between them persists to the detriment of clarity regarding the question "Who are the Romani people?" and the Romani people article will remain garbled and inchoate. The archives suggest that you acceded to the consensus to rename to Romani people because you acknowledged the strength of the ethnographic argument that Zalktis is making here, which he exemplified and documented. The same argument extended now seems to justify entirely separate articles. Steviemitlo (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The article is neither 'garbled nor inchoate'. Your representation of my reasons for supporting the title change are unrecognisable to me. My concerns and extensive arguments were not based on 'ethnography' but on contemporary English language usage. RashersTierney (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Are we talking about the same article? The Romani people article is garbled and inchoate owing mainly to previous failure by editors for whatever reason to discern between Romani people and Roma people. Now that the article is renamed Romani people, that distinction can be made and the article improved by eliminating prior ambiguity. Zalktis attempted to accomplish this by suggesting Roma people be a separate article. This seems to me a wonderful idea and especially from an ethnographic perspective. Why privilige an ethnographic perspective in discerning between Romani people and Roma people? Because of the ethnographic significance of the term "people". If the article were titled Romani or Roma then the editors would not have such clear guidelines to improve the article. But please tell me RT, since we have joined in the consensus in the past why "contemporary English language usage" does not support the merits of separate article for Romani people and Roma people? Authoritative sources I have already cited in Romani people discussions clearly tie "contemporary English language usage" to ethnographic and historic as well as geographic and even linguistic realities. These realities are that ethnic Romani people are not ethnic Roma people. Yes, there is a Roma activist movement that has thusfar unsuccessfully attempted to socially construct Roma nation of various and dispersed Romani people around the world, but this is not an ethnographic, historic, geographic or linguistic reality. The renown linguist Yaron Matras discusses this in his brilliant article "The Role of Language in Mystifying and Demystifying Gypsy Identity" (in N. Saul and S. Tebbutt [eds] The Role of the Romanies: Images and Couner-Images of 'Gypsies'/Romanies in European Cultures). If you have not read this article, I encourage you and other editors to do so. If you have read it, then I cannot understand why you are opposed to the suggestion by Zalktis to adddress Romani people and Roma people in separate Wiki articles. Steviemitlo (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of issues that I have with the resuscitation of the term 'Roma people'as an article title. The main on is the use of Roma as an adjective as expounded by me and others ad nauseam when attempting to re-establish the main article title as 'Romani people'. Secondly, reviving this title, which was previously treated as synonymous with the main article demonstrates obvious ambiguity. As a sceptic when it comes to Anthropology in general, I do not subscribe to the apparently obsessive drive to classify and categorise people as if pseudo-scientific pigeon holes were somehow natural and obvious, and not social constructions (imagined communities if you like). I don't presently have the time to engage in what to me is the emergence of another side-issue, but I hope at least you get some idea of my perspective. RashersTierney (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I have no aversion to discussing 1) the ethnic Romani people as an idealistic old social construction empowering a Gypsylorist tradition in constrast to 2) the ethnic Roma nation as an idealistic new social construction empowering political activists. This would I think entail creating a new Wiki:Roma national movement article and the documentation of the sudden rise and now the beginning of the decline of Roma nationalism. Thanks! You have inspired me here. Steviemitlo (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Stevi, don't be prematurely seduced by another 'end of history', and be particularly wary of writing it up!. RashersTierney (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You are having the wrong discussion here!

The problem here is not "Roma people" vs "Romani people", but "Roma" vs "Romani people". "Roma people" is just a grammatically incorrect version of "Romani people", and so this article should be just a redirect to "Romani people". What we should do is to restart the Roma (Romani subgroup) article, that was deleted, although everybody involved in Romani issues knows that "Roma" is a Romani subgroup. But attention: is "Roma", not "Roma people" (just as there isn't no "Sinti people", "Kalo people", etc)! AKoan (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That would address one important element of the divergent POVs. RashersTierney (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
AK claims here, and RT apparently agrees, that "'Roma people' is just a grammatically incorrect version of 'Romani people'." I maintain that this toothless hound of an argument (nourished on the scrap of a technicality) will not hunt -- and for good reason. Primarily, the argument denies (and disrespects by doing so) the the integrity of the ethnos of Roma as a "people" with flesh and blood members who share a ethnographic, historical, geographic and linguistic reality distinct from Romnichels, Sinte, Kale and other discernible ethnic subcategories of the Romani people category. In support of my own POV I recommend that Wikipedia editors and readers familiarize themselves with 1) F.H. Groome's "Introduction" in his Gypsy Folk Tales (1899) for a detailed knowledge-based and referenced summary of Romani people up to that date, and 2) D. Mayall's Gypsy Identities 1500-2000 (2004) for a knowledge-based and referenced update of Groome, and 3) Y. Matras' article "The Role of Language in Mystifying and Demystifying Gypsy Identity" in The Role of the Romanies (2004) for insight into why "Roma" today are both a distinctive people -- and an ill-conceived and unfinished assimilationist political project. Steviemitlo (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Steviemitlo, I think that you are new here, and you don't know what happened before. I am one of the persons who fight most for the recognition of the Roma as a distinct Romani group. See the AfD for "Roma (Romani subgroup)". But to attach "people" to Roma just makes no sense. As I've said earlier the Sinti and the Kalo are no less real people than the Roma, but we don't need to attach a "people" to them just to make this more obvious. AKoan (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:::: Hi AK. I really do respect and appreciate the battles you have waged for the recognition of the Roma as a subgroup of Romani people. I have read up on those battles in the archives. It seems that as new editors enter, the same battles are engaged over and over again. The argument we share actually privileges ethnographic approaches and many editors would criticize it as "Gypsylorist." However, if the Gypsylorist POV towards Romani people is an ideological perspective, I would argue that it is scholarly and relevant (and venerable instead of archaic), and it would be impossible to cite authority and validity in Wiki:Romani people without mentioning Fraser, Matras and other serious scholars who are and were members of the Gypsy Lore Society and have published or continue to publish in its journal Romani studies. Alternative ideologies that weigh in on Romani people are in the main assimilationist and tend to trash ethnographic approaches to Romani people, a POV that recognizes, respects and celebrates the ethnic diversity among Romani people. It is not original research to mention here that the two major assimilationist ideologies opposed to the Gypsylorist tradition are both "political" and thus not value-neutral in their academic publications (which are too often cited as scholarly and value-neutral, when they are in fact polemical). One of these ideologies is "revisionist historicism" (often referred to as the "Dutch School" of thought in Romani studies) and deliberately misrepresents ethnic Romanies as "Travellers" (read J-P Liegeois, J. Okely, N. Gheorge, W. Williams, L. Lucassen, B. Belton as notable exemplars). This ideology is assimilationist because it has inspired mainly European governments to obfuscate differences between ethnic Romanies and Travellers and non-ethnic travellers in order to police and control their behaviors and life-styles. The other assimilationist ideology in Romani studies is the "Roma (inter)nationalist" school of thought and activist movement that deliberately misrepresents Romani people as Roma (read J. Kochanowski, W.R. Rishi, G. Puxon, I. Hancock, R. Lee, K. Lee as notable exemplars) in order to advance an assimilationist political agenda. The history and nature of this political agenda is adressed in an article by Y. Matras (in Saul and Tebbutt, 2004), and also on pp.206-7, and elsewhere, in D. Mayall, 2004).Steviemitlo (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Stevi, please don't take this other than in the spirit of collaboration, but your contributions are generally quite lengthy while citing many interesting authorities. Could you possibly keep it a bit shorter and provide hot-links to your referenced sources? RashersTierney (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Not only that they are lengthy (while interesting), but at least in this case I think that they are irrelevant. As it is clear from my previous contributions, I do sustain the idea that "Roma" is just a group of the "Romani people", and we should use the term only in this way, in respect for the other groups and to avoid confusions, and I, also, do sustain the idea of separating the "Romani people" from other "Travellers" (including those of Indian origin). But I don't think that attaching a "people" to the "Roma" helps in any way here! The proposal made by Zalktis, "Roma (people)", seams the best way to come to a common point. AKoan (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Good advice! I will keep my posts brief, and make use of hot links -- and hope my contributions remain interesting and informative. I endorse the proposal to use "Roma (people)" meaning the ethnic subgroup of Romani people, and as the name for this article. Since I am a newbie to the Wikipedia, I wonder why my Google search at present for Romanies takes me directly to Wike:Roma people rather than to Wike:Romani people? Steviemitlo (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Google sends to "Roma people" probably because the rename to "Romani people" was recently made. In time "Romani people" will come out on Google. AKoan (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Old request

Please indicate your preference here and confine discussion on the current proposed move to this space.

Propose move to Roma (people): Follows WP conventions for naming, in that it distingushes from other similarly named articles, e.g. Roma (city). Clear as to what article is about, yet avoids the grammatical pitfalls of the current title. Also, more likely to be found by non-speiclaists than the more precise Roma (Romani subgroup). —Zalktis (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Please see revised proposal below. Zalktis (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Great! I think that this is something that we'll all embrace. And the disambiguation page Roma will also include "Roma (people)", as this page will become a regular page. AKoan (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ditto! I embrace and caress the proposed move to "Roma (people)". Can't wait to see what the next editor will do. Steviemitlo (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. OpposeSupport Some technical issues to be resolved so that old article history is purged from this article title. The question of whether this article remains a Dab or becomes a full article in itself has not yet been addressed. RashersTierney (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


Withdrawing support until question of Dab or Article is addressed and consensus arrived at. The nature of the page is fundamentally changing as this discussion takes place. RashersTierney (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC) The title Roma people is just too odious and must go. We still need to decide what the content of this page should be. RashersTierney (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yap, its a different matter, but I think that the dab "Roma" is enough. Roma (people), as a Romani subgroup should become an important article since this is the largest Romani branch. Unfortunately I don't think that I will have much time to work on it:( AKoan (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment As the nominator of this RM, I'll try to clarify. The previous RM to 'X people' followed a reasonably well established convention. That does not apply in this case (X (people)) but is not without precedence. A current RM is discussing the move of the ethnic group Twa to Twa (people). Our particular difficulty with Roma 'bracketed or unbracketed' people is quite different to the previous RM, so the proposal is not based on precedence but on trying to resolve the unique difficulty of 'Roma' as a noun or adjective while trying to avoid ambiguity (Roma (city)) and the other various uses. Hope that helps. RashersTierney (talk) 13:56, 10 January
Comment The idea was to add "(people)" mostly to distinguish it from other articles with this name, Roma. AKoan (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC).
I overwhelmingly endorse the proposed move to Roma (people). The attractive map by AK nicely represents the ethno-geographical justification for the move. Without the parens the reality that ethnic Roma people is a subcategory of ethnic Romani people is rendered ambiguous. I urge RT, PBS and CL to reconsider the ethnnographic reality so we can get about to improving Romani people as well as Roma (people) Wikipedia articles. If the ethnographic/historic/geographic/linguistic reality of Roma (people) today is not significant, please say so and elaborate with citation. Steviemitlo (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

New request

(Proposal rescinded as "POV-pushing" —Zalktis (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)) Revised proposal: 1. To rename Roma in Central and Eastern Europe to Roma (people). 2. To make the present article a redirect to Roma (people) 3. To add a hatnote to Roma (people) explaining the disambiguation that "Roma" can also refer to the Romani people as a whole. 4. Expand Roma (people) to include information about the Roma diaspora outside SE Europe. It's complicated, but I'm sure it will satisfy most of the people most of the time. It also seems to be the consensus that is crystallising in all the multifarious discussion threads ongoing in parallel here. —Zalktis (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think its a good proposal, and don't find it complicated at all:) AKoan (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This is exactly why Roma is a dab-page. And why the form "Roma (x)" is a good way to distinguish between different, otherwise homographically-named articles. —Zalktis (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Zalktis' proposal is very comprehensive and seems to address many of the reservations that arose during the course of this RM. It quickly became apparent that several issues would need to be revisited, and I see no great need to wait too long before tackling them. It might be good to wait for some more feedback before proceeding. We want this to stick, but in principle I will support Zalktis' formula (or similar that develops from its discussion). Since the hatnote will effectively replace this Dab, I think we should agree its wording in advance. RashersTierney (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
A properly worded hatnote will adequately resolve any question of ambiguity and will allow for the name 'Roma (people)' to be freed up for the proposed article on 'the Roma', a strong desire of the editors who have expressed their views on the matter. RashersTierney (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
A hatnote disambiguation note referencing a secondary usage of a given name is appropriate on an article about a topic that clearly has primary usage for the name in question. I see no evidence, nor even the claim, that the Romani subgroup is the primary usage of the term "Roma" when used to refer to a group of people. Do you have any objection to Roma (Romani subgroup)? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The distinction between the terms is not ambiguous to anyone familiar with the 'correct' terminology. Undeniably, some people do not understand the difference, and may be entirely unfamiliar with the name 'Romani people'. The primary group referred to by 'Roma (people)' is unquestionably 'the Roma' and only erroneously 'Romani people', and as not everyone will be aware of that fact we provide an explanatory hatnote. RashersTierney (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's the first claim I've seen that 'Roma (people)' is an erroneous reference to the Romani people. That's a good start, but we should have more than an editor's assertion. Currently, the dab page implies the term is used equally to refer to both, and the article about the Romanis states that Roma is used to refer to them. If the subgroup is really the primary use of the name, then not only should the article about the subgroup (currently Roma in Central and Eastern Europe) be at Roma (people), but Roma people should not be a dab page, but a redirect to that article too. Anyway, also this hinges on the actual usage of the term Roma. Do you have any citations that substantiate your claim? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
In fact, just below this comment in the next section is a reference to an encyclopedia apparently using "Roma" to refer to the "Romani", and AKoan's explanation that the term is ambiguous, referring to both the group and the subgroup. Who ever wants to claim primary usage of the term Roma (people) for a given topic, the onus is on you to provide basis for why. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
B2c, in response to your statement "Well, that's the first claim I've seen that 'Roma (people)' is an erroneous reference to the Romani people."[1][2] While other editors may have read these materials, cited many times before, perhaps B2c has not. Steviemitlo (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Stevie, thank you. However, citing the names of three books without identifying exactly what is said in them that supports your claim is not enough. I am open to changing my mind on this issue, but I shouldn't have to go to the library and do my own research. Also, you must understand that Wikipedia names often reflect actual usage, rather than some expert's notion of what is "correct" usage. See WP:COMMONNAME. With the Britannica quote below, you have a large burden to overcome to show that the subgroup of the Romani is the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE of the term "Roma" when it comes to referring groups of people, and that referring to the entire Romani group as "Roma" is not common usage. If you can't meet that burden, then I strongly urge you to consider my compromise suggestion to make the following proposal at Roma in Central and Eastern Europe:
This is the 3rd time I've made this suggestion, and no one is explaining whether they object to it and if so, why. Will you? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you read the archives on Romani people and why it was moved from Roma people to Romani people? The whole discussion here seems to be a follow through from that move. I follow your argument for the Roma (Romani subgroup) name, but I do not understand why you think this page ought to be moved from Roma people to Roma (people) because "name people" is the usual format and suggesting a redirect just opens up the possibility for someone (obviously in good faith :-) ) to recreate an article in place of the redirect. --PBS (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter to me whether the dab is at Roma people and Roma (people) redirects to it, or vice versa. I just think both titles are ambiguous (with respect to which people usage of Roma they mean) and, so, neither should be the title of an article (unless someone shows that in terms of referring to people, the clear primary use is for the subgroup, in which case Roma (people) should be the title of that article, but no one has shown that to be the case). Here I suggested the latter because several people have argued that "Roma people" has grammatical problems. I don't really follow that, I'm just trying to find some agreement. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Please leave the Britannica quote out of your argumentation; it is inherently flawed in terms of its factual content. For example, it makes out all SE European Romanies as being Kalderasha, which is only one of several groups of Vlax Roma, which are only one of several Roma groups in SE Europe. I've tried several times to provide examples of usage of "Roma" as referring to a major branch of the Romani people, but proponents of robust reverts have time and again engaged in removal of properly sourced (RS) statements, which I had thought was a no-no in Wikipedia. Anyhow, aside from my citation of the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe (see first section above), here are two scholarly sources showing the Roma as a major branch of the Romani people
- Liégeois, Jean-Pierre (1975). "Naissance du pouvoir tsigane". Revue française de sociologie (in French). 16 (3): 296. ISSN 0035-2969. OCLC 1639264. Retrieved 29 December 2008.
- Бессонов, Николай (2000). "Этнические группы цыган". История цыган: Новый взгляд (in Russian). Институт этнологии и антропологии им. Н.Н.Миклухо-Маклая Российской Академии наук. Воронеж: ИПФ "Воронеж". ISBN 5899811803. OCLC 47048383. Retrieved 30 December 2008. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
And here's one offered by AKoan:
- Rothéa, Xavier. "Les Roms, une nation sans territoire?" (in French). Retrieved 2008-07-31.
more can be found as well, but it takes more time, especially if you demand hotlinks. See also, for example, this book, pp.xiv–xv (the note on the usage of the term "Roma" as a universal term). —Zalktis (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
We can't simply ignore the Brittanica reference. Whether it is correct or not, it does reflect actual usage of the name "Roma" as referring to the Romani. Wikipedia names are supposed to reflect actual usage, not determine what the correct usage should be. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. The only part that needs admin help is moving Roma in Central and Eastern Europe to Roma (people), and I support that. I am persuaded that the people known traditionally as Roma are a subset of the people known now as Romani (did I say that right?), and looking at the edit history of Roma (people) I see a history of confusion about this. I support points 3 and 4 as well. I am on the fence re 2, changing Roma people from a disambiguation page to a redirect. It might be better to leave Roma people as a disambiguation page, or make it a redirect to Roma, the larger disambiguation page. Roma people has over 700 incoming mainspace links, and looking at a handful I see that disambiguation will be needed and probably will have to be done by people who are very familiar with the articles. What fraction of the incoming links do you estimate should link to Romani people instead of Roma (people)? If you leave Roma people as a disambiguation page, it will be far easier to catch and fix future links to it. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. --Una Smith (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Una, thanks for raising some important questions. For me, the term 'Roma people' perpetuates a grammatical error. I know that for the purpose of Wikipedia article names, that may not be of critical importance, but that is all the more reason for it not to be allowed to become a familiar, though 'incorrect' construction. Finding sources to clearly distinguish between the group 'Romani people' and Roma (people) I will leave for editors most convinced of this distinction. I don't understand why editors who were most vociferous to have a new article are now so quiet. If you really believe in this project, you should argue its merits. Only please, please, do not settle on 'Roma people' as a compromise page-name just for the sake of convenience.RashersTierney (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
RT has asked me previously to provide hot links to the scholarly sources I cite in support of a Roma (people) article, as if they were accessible online. Most are not. However, any credible editor arguing the significant distinctions between Romani people, Roma (people), Roma people and the ambiguous uses of Roma using scholarly citation will most likely have a comprehensive Romani studies collection of authoritative English-language books and articles right at hand. If not, they will probably have the good sense to stand back from a discussion they are not prepared to engage in. RT states "I don't understand why editors who were most vociferous to have a new article are now so quiet. If you really believe in this project, you should argue its merits." The distinctions are significant but esoteric. Those who are confident enough in their knowledge of the Romani studies scholarly literature in English should engage vociferously in this discussion and cite as I have done (at excessive length, as RT has noted above). The onus is really upon the editors to address the citations, and if they do not have the books cited in hand, or are reluctant to go to the trouble of reading them, they really should not be weighing in on this discussion. Zealous uninformed editors can form a consensus, but this does not necessarily lead to a progressive improvement to the existing English-language Wikipedia:Romani people or the proposed Wikipedia:Roma (people). Steviemitlo (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Una Smith, correcting the articles that use "Roma" or "Roma people" in an inaccurate way, is one of my priorities, AFTER, we will decide how we'll create the article "Roma (people)". A manual of style for Romani issues was also proposed, and the discussion were going in the same direction, but they kinda halted. I guess will have to have that manual finished once an for all! AKoan (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is after you disambiguate the incoming links, what happens a year from now? Will there be another 100+ new links to Roma people that need to be distributed between Roma (people) and Romani people? If so, it is sensible for Roma people to be a dab page or redirect to a dab page. --Una Smith (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is what will happen a year from now if we rename to Roma (people). Doing so will allow us to return to quickly improving Romani people and simultaneously improving Roma (people) according to a clearer working definition by consensus that Romani people is the ethnic category and Roma (people) the subcategory. A year from now, owing to the prominence of Wikipedia as a learning tool, the world will be adopting our consensus as most truthful about Romani people, and we will have contributed to the advance of knowledge. Meanwhile Roma and Roma people will remain ambiguous as they should be since they hopelessly mix ethnic taxonomies with ethnic politics. Since D2b has asked, and Una may not have run across these in the archives, I provide here again the three substantive English-language passages from the citations I have previoiusly provided in support of the proposal: 1) "'Roma' is a political term used as an umbrella name for all members of the Romani ethnic community ... [F]rom an ethnographic point of view, the Romani community is extremely diverse and all Romani groups, subgroups and metagroups have their own ethnic and cultural features .. so far, the homogeneous Romani identity is a political project rather than a reality." (p. 13 in Illona Klimova-Alexander's The Romani Voice in World Politics: The United Nations and Non-State Actors (2005, Burlington, VT.: Ashgate); 2) "Before the changes in 1989-90, the name 'Roma' was used most commonly as an endonyme (an internal community self-appellation) in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (except for former Yugoslavia) when the Gypsies spoke Romanes (the Gypsy language). This name was not widely popular and did not have an official status. In order to be faithful to the historical principle we use the word Roma only for the period after 1989. In all other instances we use the term 'Gypsies'. We think that 'Gypsies' is wider in scope than 'Roma' and we also use it to include the Gypsy communities who are not Roma or who are considered to be 'Gypsies' by the surrounding population but do not wish to be considered as such." (p. 52 in Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov's "Historical and ethnographic background; Gypsies, Roma, Sinti" in Will Guy [ed.] Between Past and Future: The Roma of Central and Eastern Europe [with a Foreword by Dr. Ian Hancock], 2001, UK: University of Hertfordshire Press); 3) Dr. Ian Hancock who believes the Romani people "did not form an ethnic identity until the stay in Anatolia," cited here[3], and numerous other places. Taken together, they argue the reality of Romani people as the category, and Roma (people) as the subcategory. They also demonstrate that Roma and Roma people mix ethnic (+ historic, geograpphic and linguistic realities) with ethnic politics that are not POV neutral and in fact deliberated constructed to "revise" history. Influential Roma national activist Ronald Lee is quoted in Matras (2004, p. 75) "'people like Ian [Hancock] and I and others are trying to create Romani history'." I am happy, as always, to further elaborate on the relevance and significance of these citations to the proposal to rename to Roma (people) as an article. Steviemitlo (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Stevie, please respond to this argument: Naming any article Roma (people) is inappropriate since even if the only "correct" usage of Roma (in the context of people references) is to refer to the Romani (as Brittanica does), or to refer to the subgroup (as several editors here claim is the case), it's quite apparent that both usages are in common use. Therefore Roma (people) is inherently ambiguous and needs to be the title of a dab page, or a redirect to one. It must not be the title of any article in Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Stevie, also, some of your commentary seems to be blatantly in violation of Wikipedia policy. Consider these words from WP:NOR: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." You seem to want to advance a position - the position that "Roma" should not be used to refer to all Romani, but only those in the subgroup. If that's what you're trying to do, that's a violation of WP:NOR. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Again with the WP:OR! Have you even looked at any of the sources offered in defence of the position being argued? Instead you just say "Britannica!", as if that's the last word. We all want Wikipedia to better than Britannica, don't we? Here's a quote from a recent, scholarly book (not an outdated, flawed print encyclopaedia):

Following current usage, this collection has mostly adopted the umbrella name 'Roma' to try to encompass this diversity but, as used nowadays, this term carries the implication of a policial project. By no means would all those written about accept this name and likewise some contributors adopt other formulations. With hindsight 'Romani people' (or peoples) would perhaps have been preferable. (Will Guy, ed., Between Past and Future: The Roma of Central and Eastern Europe (Univ of Herts Press, 2001; ISBN 1902806077), pp. xiv–xv.

This shows that there for some time now (at least since 2001) there has been a schoalrly discussion about the appropriateness of using the term "Roma" as a universal term for all Romanis (note that the book has a clear focus on C and E Europe, where the Roma tend to live, p. 33, fn. 3). It is therefore simply wrong to insist that the proposed position is to be dismissed as "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas". The cited book also shows how "East European" activist structures (such as the Czech Roma-dominated International Romani Union) have historically caused friction with other "West European" Romani activist groups, who refuse to have their identity subsumed under the Roma (e.g. position of the German Sinti vis-à-vis the IRU, p. 161). Note that this book uses the term "Roma", and not "Roma people".
As for Olahus's quote from the Britannica article "Rom" (NB! not "Roma" or "Roma people"!), let's look at it again:

The Roma recognize divisions among themselves with some sense of territoriality emphasized by certain cultural and dialectal differences. Some authorities [emphasis mine] delineate three main confederations:...[2]

Two things are clear here: as stated, only some authorities (it is not clear who) are cited. Secondly, the tripartite division offered by Britannica is substantially the same as the one offered in the references I've given above, but instead of the more usual terminolgy Roma/Kale/Sinti, the Britannica article chooses different nomenclature: Kalderash [i.e. one of the significant groups of the Balkan Vlax Roma]/Gitanos [i.e. the largest of the Kale groups]/Manush [i.e. one of the groups in the Sinti-Manush family]. The reason for this is presumably that Britannia has to get around the fact that they are trying to apply the term "Roma" to all Romanis, so they therefore have to choose other names for the different Romani branches than the ones more often encountered in the specialist literature since the 1960s and '70s (cf. the works of sociologist Jean-Pierre Liégeois). "Common usage" is like national history: it all depends on what you take as your starting point, for example whether you argue that Kosovo has "always" been Serb, or "always" been Albanian, or Illyrian &c. &c... —Zalktis (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Zalktis, this is one the longest, but also, one of the best posts around. AKoan (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I stand by my several cited authorities and their informed POVs to argue in support of proposal to rename article as Roma (people). AK's map reinforces the clarity of the argument in support of the proposal. Please now implement the concensus proposal (support: Zalktis, AK, Una, CordlessLarry, Stevie). Oppose = 1. Steviemitlo (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Stevie, I have seen no citations that support the argument that the subgroup of the Romani is the primary usage of "Roma" in the context of people per the criteria set out on that page: "much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings)". To the contrary, the argument could be made that most people typing in Roma, Roma people or Roma (people) would be looking and expecting to find Romani, not the subgroup. I mean, until recently even Wikipedia used Roma (in the people context) as a synonym for Romani - now all of a sudden some other topic has primary usage of that term? That makes no sense. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Zalktis, you apparently missed my points. I did not say you were violating NOR because you have no citations (I recognize the citations) you have, I said you're violating NOR because you're pushing a particular POV. This is the key part: "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." (my emphasis). The position you're seeking to advance is that "Roma" should not be used to refer to the Romani, but only to the subgroup. That fact that there are scholars who agree with you does not override the fact that "Roma" is commonly used to refer to the Romani.
More importantly, you're still ignoring my main point. The Brittanica quote you keep urging everyone to ignore is merely one example of the term Roma being used to refer to all of the Romani people. I mean, just google for "Roma" people and you will find myriads of other current examples. That's not to say that using Roma to refer to the Romani is proper or correct (I have no position on that point - and it's irrelevant here anyway), it's just to point out that that is how the term IS commonly used, whether you like it or not, whether it is "correct" or not. Therefore, the term "Roma", even confined to the particular context of referring to people IS ambiguous in terms of common usage, and, so, Roma (people) should not be used for the title of any article in Wikipedia. There is no basis to claim that the subgroup topic is the primary usage of Roma in that context (see my previous post in reply to Stevie), which is what would be required to name that article Roma (people). That is the point I want you to stop ignoring, and address. Please? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If I understand you, you object to my POV (shared by many Romani studies scholars), that "Roma (people)" as an article name should be primarily assosicated with the Romani people as a whole—if it should be used at all. What I claim should be the subject of any potential article entitled "Roma (people)", if we allow one to be created, is, in the minds of the vast majority of English speakers, a secondary meaning. Therefore a hatnote disambiugation is inadequate, and a disambiguation page is preferable. I must heartily disagree. The main problem with the average lay persosn's understanding of the romani people is based on the fact that there is so much contradictory, imprecise, or otherwise poorly presented information out there. Journalists these days, in my personal experience, have little time or interest in precision. Thus, in the case of the Romanis, in the interest to get stories filed ASAP, they don't inform themselves about the various nuances of different Romani groups—they can't say "Gypsy" any more, so they use the one term they've heard is politically correct, i.e. "Roma", regardless of whether they are referring to Vlax Roma from Romania who've recently moved to Italy, or Romnichal who've been in Britain for centuries. The majority of Romani studies scholars do not call all romani groups "Roma", and it is the works of these specialists that those who will actually build up the article will use as WP:RS. Call me an elitist and an intellectual snob, if you will (and you have not, I know), but within the context of Romani studies, the primary usage of "Roma" is not as a synonym for the Romani people as a whole. Therefore, my POV is that Roma (Romani subgroup) is overdoing it. But, of course, I'm only one person, and I'm probably wrong. From your talk page I can see that you are a tireless fighter for adherence to naming conventions. (Maybe this article could be a case for WP:IGNORE? No?) To stop my pointless POV-pushing, I withdraw my proposal. Do what thou wilt, B2C. You win. —Zalktis (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thus doth Bureaucratism vanquish Intellectualism, and Truth give way to Power. Wikipedia is the big loser here. Owner -- and donors -- take note. Steviemitlo (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This article looks like a veritable original research

Encyclopædia Britannica, one of the most respected encyclopedias in the world and certainly very relevant, says:

The Roma recognize divisions among themselves with some sense of territoriality emphasized by certain cultural and dialectal differences. Some authorities delineate three main confederations: (1) the Kalderash (smiths who came from the Balkans and then from central Europe and are the most numerous), (2) the Gitanos (French Gitans, mostly in the Iberian Peninsula, North Africa, and southern France, strong in the arts of entertainment), and (3) the Manush (French Manouches, also known as Sinti, mostly in Alsace and other regions of France and Germany, often traveling showmen and circus people). Each of these main divisions was further divided into two or more subgroups distinguished by occupational specialization or territorial origin or both. See the source.

It's a fairly usual procedure on Wikipedia to take Britannica into account. There are literally thousands of articles on Wikipedia that explicitly use Britannica as a source, it is probably the most common source in all of Wikipedia. Here is a list to the articles sourcing them here [3]. I am going to reestablish the redirection to the article Romani people. --Olahus (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So far this page is just a Dab. By insisting on references you are contributing to it being considered and contributed to as an article in its own right. RashersTierney (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Olahus, with the same old story, that Roma does not exist as a Romani group, but only as a name for all the Romani branches taken together. There are sources much better than Encyclopedia Britannica on Romani issues (sources completely dedicated to the Romanies), and the double usage of the term "Roma" is acknowledged by all the editors involved in Romani matters; do you really think that you can convince anybody with this tentatives? AKoan (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I have read this five times and I can't understand it. I can't even distinguish your opinion from your take on Olahus' opinion. Sorry. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Olahus saids that Roma (people) is only another way to say "Romani people". I say that: 1. Roma is a subset of the Romani people; 2. The word Roma is also used as an equivalent for the "Romani people". There is a double usage of the word "Roma". More clear now? AKoan (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. So, the term Roma has multiple uses, and two of those uses are to refer to two groups of people, one a subset of the other. Since the name Roma (people) does not distinguish between the two uses, it's not a good choice for a title, but should be a dab page, or redirect to one (the latter is what it currently does, which is good). Up above, in my Oppose comment to the revised proposal, I suggest Roma in Central and Eastern Europe → Roma (Romani subgroup). But that proposal and discussion should be held at Talk:Roma in Central and Eastern Europe, not here. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, "Roma people" can refer to "Romani people" or to "Roma" (meaning the people). But "Roma" is very ambiguous, hence the parenthetical disambiguation construct "Roma (people)". --Una Smith (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Una, surely you recognize that adding some arbitrary word in parenthesis does not mean the given name is disambiguated; the word must disambiguate from other uses of that name. If there is an actor, a TV show and two singers named John Doe we don't disambiguate either one of the singers as "John Doe (singer)" because that disambiguates him from the other (non-singer) uses of that name - we must also disambiguate between the two singers. The information in the parenthesis should disambiguate the name in question from the other uses of that name. Since "Roma" can refer to the Romani people or the subgroup of people, "people" does not disambiguate between those two uses of the name, just as "singer" does not disambiguate between the two uses of the name John Doe for two different singers. "Romani subgroup" does disambiguate the subgroup from the larger group. That's why I think Roma (people) is not an appropriate totle for any article (and should be dab page, or a redirect to one), and why Roma (Romani subgroup) is probably an appropriate title for an article about the subgroup of the Romani that is commonly referred to as "Roma". Does that make sense? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe Zalkits or someone else did mention [Roma (Romani subgroup)]] as the most accurate, if a bit dry, alternative as part of an overall sollution. Do you have any feedback on his revised proposal on the page here? I believe Zalktis is on a bit of a hiatus, at least where the topic here is concerned, as it's been going in circles for a while, apparently. PetersV       TALK 19:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, being "most accurate" is a good thing, I don't think "dry" matters much. By having "Romani subgroup" in parenthesis, we're clearly showing that the most common name used to refer to the topic is "Roma" (it's just that it needs to be disambiguated). Anyway, I think the discussion on this dab page really needs to be closed with "no consensus", and a new one started at the page that really needs to be moved. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this page intended as a Dab or a full article?

This page was reactivated as a Dab. It is now apparently being developed as an Article on a subset of Romani people. We need some agreement on this if the RM above is to continue its course. Little point in agreeing a name if there is not agreement on what we are naming. RashersTierney (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course this page is intended as a full article. How would you like it if your proud ethnic identity was reduced or demoted to a footnote -- or misidentified to mean the entire taxonomy of Romani people? The Roma (people) are an ethnic subcategory of Romani people, as stated and cited. Please implement the proposed name change so editors can progress to improving this page on Roma (people). If you feel there is an unmet need for a new article on the Roma (national movement), then set it up. I would be happy to contribute what I know about it, to identify its pantheon of heroes and and to cite my sources. Also, the "citation" in French is not useful to an English-language Wikepedia article and the source. It does not make a hypothetical statement of fact that can be validated or refuted. It merely raises a question in a popular news medium, and not in an academic forum where it can be contested by scholarly authorities familiar with the issue and its implications. Steviemitlo (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
If it was intended that this page be an Article then that should have been made clear at the beginning. This has nothing to do with 'ethnic heritage'. At the moment this page is a dog's dinner. It has retained the history of the former article which has messed up searching. A fresh article titled Roma (people) should have been the starting point if an article was intended. I should have gone with my gut instinct and maintained opposition to the reintroduction of this old title. I could live with an article called Roma (people) about the Romani people subset, but its initiation could have been done better. As things stand, I see considerable difficulties with the RM passing and accept my share of the blame for this unpleasant situation. Currently its both a dab AND an article.RashersTierney (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by, "[This page] has retained the history of the former article which has messed up searching."? From looking at the history of this article, it looks like it was freshly started a little over a month ago. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Google (and presumably other search engines) appears to have some 'memory' of this title and is directing to this new page rather than the more substantial Romani people page which replaced it. Maybe this is just a short term glitch that will 'heal itself', but thats what I mean. RashersTierney (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Rashers, I think that Google remembers "Roma people", from the time that the large "Romani people" article had this name. I think it will be cleared out in time. AKoan (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how if searchers continue to be directed here. RashersTierney (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You are right, I didn't noticed. But i think that Google will catch up with us after we'll have the names established for good. AKoan (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal re. Dab AND Article

The content is currently both a Dab and an Article which is untenable. Could I suggest that we revert to a Dab at least until the RM is completed. At that stage the issue can be revisited. RashersTierney (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe your point is that currently anyone googling for "Roma" will see "Roma people" in the results, and clicking on it will take them here, even though the topic of this article is not the primary usage of the term "Roma people". However, if this were a dab page, at least they would have the option to select between Romani people and ..., well, there's the problem, isn't it? There is also the Roma in Central and Eastern Europe. This is all very confusing. So are there three topics that need to be disambiguated at Roma people?
Pardon my ignorance, but how are the two subgroups distingished? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
My primary concern is to have the page currently named 'Roma people' retitled 'Roma (people)', and the former construction buried in concrete. Sorry if thats a bit glib, but I'm too tired to stay engaged. I appreciate your involvement and will try to be more constructive tomorrow. RashersTierney (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Understood, but I can't be of any help until I understand the distinction (if any) between the two subgroups listed above. If the topic that this article (currently at Roma people) is evolving into is the same as the topic covered at Roma in Central and Eastern Europe then we have a duplication problem, and this page should clearly be just a dab. If they are different, then that needs to be clarified. The other thing is that there should be citations substantiating this different uses of these similar terms. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that Roma have emigrated from the Balkans and now can be found in other parts of the world, often alongside other Romani groups. For example, Sweden has had a Kalderash Roma community for a little over 100 years, in addition to a long-standing Tavringer Romani populatltion. In more recent years Roma have arrived in the UK from Balkan Europe, where they complement the pre-existing Romnichals. Roma and and other Romani groups have emigrated to the Americas as well. So, to reduce the entire question of the Roma to an artice on Roma in Central and Eastern Europe seems wrong, and continues the confusion that "Roma" is simply a possibly synonym for "Romani people", as the current DAB suggests. —Zalktis (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You say that "the problem is that Roma have emigrated from the Balkans and now can be found in other parts of the world, often alongside other Romani groups". I take it that here you are referring to Roma the subgroup, not to all of the Romani, and the problem is the title of the article, Roma in Central and Eastern Europe, that limits the topic to parts of Europe. So, we change that title. Then what are we doing here? Or, are you saying that there is yet another topic that is about the subgroup but includes those who have left Europe that should have its own article? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle, the problem is a little complicated, but not THAT complicated. You should read a little bit the archives if you wanna see all the ramifications. "Roma (people)" is a subgroup of "Romani people" found in Central and Eastern Europe. There are other Romani groups, such as Sinti or Kale. The article "Roma people in Central and Eastern Europe" deals more or less with this subgroup. My initial idea was to move "Roma people" to "Roma (people)", and then to merge into this new article, but we can simply move "Roma people in Central and Eastern Europe" to "Roma (people)", and then add the information that some migrated in other parts of the world. AKoan (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks AKoan, I do like the latter option. RashersTierney (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that I'll sustain the second solution myself. AKoan (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, AKoan, that explains things. Thank you. So what this article (that I reverted back to a dab page) was being evolved into was essentially the same topic already covered in Roma people in Central and Eastern Europe. Well, then, if the Romani in general are commonly referred to as "Roma", then Roma (people) is probably not a good article title choice (violates WP:PRECISION). In fact Roma (people) should probably redirect to Roma people. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly! "Roma (people)" as a Romani group is something a little more complete than "Roma in Eastern...". Even if the Roma have their "homeland" in Eastern Europe, more recently (an currently) they have migrated in other parts of the world, too. On the other hand the title "Roma in eastern..." is quite awkward in itself, because its something like "the Americans in America". AKoan (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I get it. Thanks. Well, "Roma in people in Central and Eastern Europe" is also undesirable as a title because it's not really a name. Anyway, it's moot now since I've renamed that article to Roma (Romani subgroup) (accurately reflecting the name of the topic, "Roma", while disambiguating from other uses of the term, including the use of "Roma" to refer to all Romani), implicitly expanding the scope to include Roma outside of Europe. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bold restoration of dab page

I reverted this article to the last version where it was a dab page.

If there needs to be an article about the Roma (people), perhaps at Roma (people), then we need to resolve how that topic (a subgroup of the Romani?) differs from the subgroup covered at Roma in Central and Eastern Europe. In any case, there should be a dab page, not an article, here at Roma people. I think we have consensus on that point, and that's why I reverted as I did. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that others too are confused by what is exactly meant by 'Roma'. For some it seems to be the Romani migration from Central/Southern/Eastern Europe since the fall of the Wall in 1989, and of course the long-established communities from which they came and did not migrate. The post-1989 migration seems to be some kind of particular identifier, at least in the consciousness of 'Westerners'. For others, it seems to be Romani groups from this general geographical area but would encompass other 19th and 20th century migrations. For some it will be particular subsets in this area but not others and self identitification among members of the various groups may not be consistent. So there are divergent views from a Taxonomy perspective. However, a very long debate took place recently during a previous RM about the appropriateness of the phrase 'Roma people' as an article title. Some of the arguments were based on taxonomy and some on contemporary English. Both groups did not necessarily agree with the views of the other side in all respects, but agreed on the inappropriateness of the title 'Roma people'; thus the very recently introduced 'Roma (people)' which is a compromise of sorts to bridge these perspectives of 'language' and 'classification'. I hope thats considered a fair if blunt synopsis. RashersTierney (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Born2cycle, we don't have a consensus weather this should be a dub, we only have a consensus that an article "Roma (people)" should exist. About the dub, I think the Roma dub could cover it very well. Strictly speaking the word "Roma" denominates the Romani people that originated in eastern Europe, and an article exclusively about them is what we are trying to do.
RashersTierney, the denominations that the various castes of Roma use among themselves (kalderash, ursari, gabori, etc) are "internal" and don't matter for this discussion. AKoan (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What article do we move?

I think that now, we can put the problem in another way. There are 2 possible moves:

1. we move this article to "Roma (people)" and then merge "Roma in Central and Eastern Europe" into the new created article.

2. we move "Roma in Central and Eastern Europe" to "Roma (people)" and add that some Roma also migrated in other parts of the world. AKoan (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the proposal that Roma (people) be a named article. I support AK's suggestion above. Now, would somebody please have the cajones to help me discuss in relation to Roma (people) how the Roma (national movement) has muddied the waters of ethnic taxonomy where Romani people is concerned? I propose a Wikepedia: Roma (national movement) to do just that. Here we have B2c reverting pages without knowing the answers to the questions he asks regarding ethnic taxonmies and social constructions of Roma. The answer to B2c's questions are available by consulting the scholarly literature of Romani studies (and not the dictionaries, encyclopedias and newspapers). Romani people compared and contrasted with Roma (people) and deliberately manipulated during the past few decades by Roma (national movement) is a complex story involving social constructions of reality over hundreds of years in the making -- but can be pieced together, retold concisely, and documented with authority[4] Steviemitlo (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
B2c came in at my request as an uninvolved editor to provide an outside perspective and to help with the technicalities of the move. I don't think he should be criticised for not being as intimately aware of of all the old debates as some of us and as an 'outsider' his questions have focussed my attention on the essentials. RashersTierney (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I assume B2c is a value-neutral administrator. This is what B2c said before his revert: "Pardon my ignorance, but how are the two subgroups distingished?" Our job as editors is to answer his question based on our progressive deliberations reaching an informed consensus. When a Wiki administrator -- a bureaucrat essentially -- with special powers and responsibilities, acts to revert without knowing why, thereby erasing a prior advance in knowledge production intended for public dissemination, I begin to question the wisdom of the entire Wiki alternative process toward achieving value-neutral grass-roots knowledge production and dissemination. Steviemitlo (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
B2c is not an admin.[4] This user has about 6000 edits.[5] --Una Smith (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think our first job is to 1) decide if we progress with the current RM and later decide whether it should be a Dab or an article, or do we 2) decide from the beginning which of those pages should have the title 'Roma (people)' and find an alternative name for the other, or do we 3) eliminate this dab. We already have a dab 'Roma' , but Google directs a search term 'Roma' to this page (Roma people) rather than to there or to the more encompassing article 'Romani people'. (btw Dogpile directs to the 'Roma' Dab). Do we want a Google search of Roma to land first on the 'Roma' dab, 'Roma (people)' or 'Romani people'.RashersTierney (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, RT, for clarifying the options for Roma people with regard to how major search engines operate. I would like to see a Google search of "Roma" land first on "Roma (people)". The virtue of having a "Roma (people)" article appear when searchers click "Roma" is that it recognizes and respects Roma (people) as the largest ethnic subgroup of Romani people, meanwhile directing searchers to Wiki:Romani (people) article. Steviemitlo (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't think that is very important if Google sends first to Roma or to Roma (people), but i think that is premature to talk about a "Roma (national movement)" article. More over, anyone has some preference for one of the solution that I've proposed in regards with the renaming? AKoan (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If the RM goes ahead as proposed this Dab page will become Roma (people). If there is to be an article on 'the Roma', it will need a name. There is support for that article having the name Roma (people). What else might it be called? There is a strong possibility that this RM will not be accepted due to poor participation, which means that this Dab (which attracts the greatest no. of Google interest) remains at Roma people, a construction which most editors oppose for various reasons. We are where we are, but where next? Could we try to concentrate on the RM for the moment? RashersTierney (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It has been suggested to me that the new article on 'the Roma' be developed at Roma (ethnonym) and the RM goes ahead as proposed. What do people think? RashersTierney (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, about the RM was my question, too! What page exactly shall we rename, "Roma people", or "Roma in Eastern and.."?
I don't think that "Roma (ethnonym)" is a good idea. I think that an article that deals exclusively with "The Roma" as a Romani branch is very important to have, especially since this is the largest branch. AKoan (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
To me, this is something I initially felt could be dealt with as a section within 'Romani people'. Others disagreed, and I'm prepared to go with that apparent consensus. But that article will need a name. Roma people (soon to be Roma (people) hopefully) is at this Dab, which I think is important because of the ambiguity between 'the Roma' and 'Romani people'. Another editor suggested the Roma (ethnonym) as a possibility , and as a title it seems an excellent choice. Considering that I was not in favour of reviving the present title 'Roma people', anticipating many of the difficulties that it gave rise to previously, I really would appreciate more feedback from editors interested in having an article on 'the Roma', and deciding a name for it. RashersTierney (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You have lost track of the proposal. Here it is, as justified, by Zalktis:::

Propose move to Roma (people): Follows WP conventions for naming, in that it distingushes from other similarly named articles, e.g. Roma (city). Clear as to what article is about, yet avoids the grammatical pitfalls of the current title. Also, more likely to be found by non-speiclaists than the more precise Roma (Romani subgroup) —Zalktis (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This proposal clearly is rename article to "Roma (people)". I support the proposal, as others (above) have supported it. The proposal has achieved consensus. Please implement the consensus without further obfuscation. Then see what happens and discuss that. Steviemitlo (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It will be for the implementing admin. to decide if consensus has been achieved. That will be much easier if editors clearly express that wish here Talk:Roma people #Requested move .So far I'm the only editor that has clearly expressed support for the move. RashersTierney (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I seams that we all agree that an article "Roma (people)" should exist, but we don't know what is the best way to do that. I tend to believe that renaming "Roma in central and.." is a better solution, but I'm quite ok with renaming "Roma people", too. About the disambiguation, I personally favor a single dab on "Roma", but at this moment I think that the move is the first thing that we should do. AKoan (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly my interest in Roma was first piqued by the desire by some to note on the Romanians page that for Roma, one needed to look elsewhere. That said, čigāni have always figured in Baltic and Eastern European folklore, so I'm perhaps more aware than the average person. I've read through the above and Zalktis' revised proposal, and that appears to satisfy all the current naming issues. Also, I do have to agree that as good as the Encyclopedia Britannica is, it is still an anglo-centric view of the world. With Eastern Europe still emerging after half a century of Soviet domination (out of said anglo-centric sight and mind) it's going to be at least another generation or two before mainstream scholarship and encyclopedias (as in EB) catch up. PetersV       TALK 19:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Distribution of the Romani groups across Europe

This is a map that I wanted to create a long time ago for the "Population and subgroups" section, but I created now and I'll post it first here for new-comers to get more familiar with the various Romani groups. It presents the historical distribution of the Romani groups across Europe. I say historical because in more recent years some also migrated in other parts (mostly the Roma). AKoan (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The 3 Kale groups are "Finish Kale", "Welsh Kale" and "Iberian Kale". AKoan (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful map! The title is misleading, however. "Distribution of the Romani groups across Europe" implies Romani people are immobilized as portrayed. This is of course not the case. How about "Suggested European Homelands of Romani People". This makes sense especially if we can agree to the working hypothesis that Romani people "did not form an ethnic identity until the stay in Anatolia"[5] which is endorsed( all or in part) by Romani studies authorities as diverse as A. Fraser and I. Hancock. If we can agree on this, then we can more easily improve Wiki:Romani people by strict focus on the historic record of Romani people migrations and concentrations during and post their stay in Anatolia). This means that Dom (people), Desi (people) and so on would deserve separate entries and articles in Wikipedia, as proto-Romanies and/or non-Romanies with historic "homelands" elsewhere. And, Roma (people) would deserve their own page as a prominent subcategory of Romani people with their historic European homeland is Europe, as you have suggested it geographically in your attractive map. Steviemitlo (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The word 'Homeland' to me is immediately reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa and the title "Suggested European Homelands of Romani People", some sort of European neo-Pale of Settlement. RashersTierney (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you brought this up RT. Correct me if I am wrong, but you (and perhaps PBS and CL) cling to the outsider patronizing and protective view that Romanies are best identified by their helplessness and victimization for 1000 years. That would explain your knee-jerk reaction to my use naive of "homeland". My POV is that Romani people are successful survivors whose economic strategies and stratagems for 1000 years are remarkable and worthy of praise. If so, we might then as Wiki editors choose to celebrate rather than ignore their tremendous achievment as the interim masters of imperfect markets, which has thusfar helped them (much more than a Soros Foundation) to accomplish their collective destiny as Romani people (in spite of their persecutions). Many Romani people are involved in informal and underground economic activities. Many of them belong to Roma (people) families led by kings and their "lieutenants" who build fantastic mansions, villas and boroque castles in Moldova, Romania and Ukraine. [6] Have you ever RT secondguessed your convictions and prejudices regarding Romani people? Have you ever delighted in their success? Righteous indignation can creat a tremendous blind spot. Would "Home Land" work better for you? Steviemitlo (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong! This personal and patronising waffle does you no favours. I thought your words were poorly chosen and said why. RashersTierney (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Then I am wrong, and so sincerely apologize. I get paranoid when all the editors with strong POVs about this article are also administrators who get to pull the switches and ring the bells whenever they decide to do so. We all spend a lot of time thinking these issues through and posting and citing in order to reach a consensus. As regards the present proposal: both MSN encarta encyclopedia and Nation.Master have "Roma (people)" articles. They both stink, however. Why ours takes so long to be implemented is frustrating. It is hard not to slip into skepticism and sarcasm from time to time, as I have done. Again, I apologize. Steviemitlo (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
RM's (particularly those which might be contested), follow a procedure which is outlined at Wikipedia:Requested moves I don't know that any admins have 'pulled switches' since the original move from 'Romani people' to 'Roma people', which should have been proposed as an RM, but wasn't and which took a lot of effort to have reverted. That's the justification for having such a transparent (if slightly tedious) process. RashersTierney (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I said "historical distribution of the Romani groups across Europe", and by that I mean the regions with whom those groups are historically associated. Despite the idea of nomadism that is associated with the Romanis, their movements were rather local and the large groups stayed more or less in the same regions for hundreds of years.
On the other hand I avoid words like "homeland" and other nationalistic concepts for two reasons: 1. I think that this would be rather OR, and 2. I'm not sure weather this concepts apply to cultures that are very different from the European culture, like the Romani culture. AKoan (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The notion of a nomadic lifestyle is not so much unidirectional mobility over large distances, it is associated more with lack of a permanent family dwelling and traveling with one's worldly possessions, more often than not among various places of familiarity and areas of repeated temporary settlement by themselves and others of the same community/group--which we would call areas of historical mobility and settlement. And "homeland" is not the worst concept to apply, practical mobility is limited to a significant degree by one's knowledge of local language; to advocate total freedom of movement and no concept of homeland is, in fact, the true "apartheid" as that is the only existence that does not require interaction with and knowledge of local language and customs.
   For those that eschew the nomadic style and move on to building elaborate family compounds, that's notable too, obviously, but as a proportion of the population, no different than, say, the proportion of Americans who build or buy mansions in Beverly Hills or Vale. One opinion. PetersV       TALK 19:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

This issue and page is probably the biggest naming mess I've ever encountered in Wikipedia, and I've seen some doozies. I am going to try to make some sense out of all of it, and hopefully we can all find some common ground.

There is an active move proposal, but it was changed midstream, once if not twice, and appears to have stalled. The initial proposal was to move the dab page at Roma people to Roma (people). In the middle of that discussion some editors began to change the dab page to become an article about one of the uses listed on the dab page - the subgroup of the Romani known as the Roma, even though there was already another article covering that topic at Roma in Central and Eastern Europe, thus effectively (but not explicitly) changing the proposal from moving a dab page to moving an article and merging it with another. When I reverted this article back to the dab page, the proposal changed from moving this page to Roma (people) to moving Roma in Central and Eastern Europe to Roma (people) (even though no notice was posted at Roma in Central and Eastern Europe, until I added it there just yesterday).

In the mean time, there are people who are arguing that "Roma" (in terms of referring to groups of people) is only commonly used to refer to the entire Romani people, there are people claiming that the only proper use of "Roma" with respect to referring to people is the use at Roma in Central and Eastern Europe, and there are those who note that the term is ambiguous, even when limited to the context of people references, and may refer to either.

As I've argued above, I think naming any article Roma (people) is inappropriate since even if the only "correct" usage of Roma (in the context of people references) is to refer to the Romani (as Brittanica does), or to refer to the subgroup (as several editors here claim is the case), it's quite apparent those both usages are in common use. Therefore Roma (people) is inherently ambiguous and needs to be the title of a dab page, or a redirect to one.

Since I've mentioned it three times, no one has objected, and no admin assistance was needed, I have just gone ahead and boldly moved Roma in Central and Eastern Europe to Roma (Romani subgroup). If anyone objects, you are welcome to move it to some other name or start with a fresh new move proposal at WP:RM if you really still think it should be at Roma (people). But I will argue that Roma (people) should be left as a redirect to this dab page, since it's ambiguous. In the mean time, those of you who are interested in content about the Roma can improve the article now at Roma (Romani subgroup) accordingly. I hope this helps more than it hurts. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Pray tell, based on what consensus did you do your "bold renaming"? You have reverted others' attempts to do bold things in the past, based on your own understanding of the need for a consensus; but when convenient, you declare an ongoing discussion "stalled" and go ahead and do your own thing. Consensus is needed in potentially controversial renames. I remind you that Roma (Romani subgroup) was the subject of an AfD in the past, and the result was (at that time) "delete". Hence, the move to Roma (Romani subgroup) cannot be considered wholly uncontroversial, and should require a consensus. —Zalktis (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Zalktis is right. B2c's "bold renaming" is transparently bald conniving. He wants to move all the chessmen on the table himself, and at the same time. Implement the consensus proposal: rename article to Romani (people). Enough with the games. Steviemitlo (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, enough with the dramatizations. I'm just trying to help. If you don't like my bold move, revert it. I'm done here. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Okay, so there is an article about the Ruska Roma. Now, is this a separate subgroup of the Romani people, or is it part of the "Roma (people)" subgroup that many of you on this page talk about? And how are Ruska Roma related to Roma in Central and Eastern Europe? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Ruska Roma are part of the Northeastern Group of Romani speakers (cf. the works of linguist Yaron Matras). Like the Balkan, Central European, Polish, and Latvian Romanies, as well as non-Lom Romanies of Turkey, these groups use the noun "rom" as a self-descriptor, and hence form part of a major subdivision of the Romani people that includes an array of different Romani communities and groups that developed across much of SE, C, and E Europe between the 15th and 19th centuries. Please refer to AKoan's helpful map above for a general picture of the distribution of Romanies who use "rom" as a self-descriptor, and who can thus be considered to constitute the Romani branch "Roma". Please note that this does not mean that other Romani groups do not use the Romani word "rom"; instead the difference lies in the meanings attached to the word: the Roma use "rom" in the more general use of 'Romani man' (cf. "romni", 'Romani woman'), and hence the term is also used as an endonym in these groups; by contrast, other Romanis (e.g. Sinti, Romnichals) use the term "rom" with the more narrow meaning of 'Romani husband' (cf. "romni", 'Romani wife'). "Roma" (pl.) is thus not possible to use as an endonym in the Romani dialects of these groups, and therefore they connot be included in the major branch of Romanis who do call themselves "Roma". I hope this clarifies things a bit. —Zalktis (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Shortly, Ruska Roma are a subgroup of the Roma, who are a subgroup of the Romanies. You can make an entire tree of Romani groups and subgroups. AKoan (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. That helps. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Unlisting from WP:RM

I am taking this off the list at RM, even though I'm not officially archiving the discussion. I'm not archiving it because it's not actually clear where the discussion begins and ends, nor what the discussion is actually about. It seems to be a conflation of two debates: what this article should be about, and then also what the name should be. Once the debate over the article's content has been decided, it should be much easier to reach a consensus on what the name is. Cheers,--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 18:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Aervanath, in this case is not that simple. There are more similar articles that we have to consider, so its not just about this article. AKoan (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Aervanath's point still holds, which is that before asking via WP:RM for admin help to move an article, its talk page, and both pages' edit histories, it is only sensible to first settle the question of the contents (especially the scopes) of the various pages. In a requested move there should be no question about which page to move and where to move it to. --Una Smith (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the unlisting, I just wanted to point to Aervanath that the problem is more complex. AKoan (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I am sure Aervanath knew that. --Una Smith (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Good call, Aervanath. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

'Roma people' as dab and 'Roma (people)' as new article

=I initiated a proposal to have this page name changed (for reasons expressed). There is a desire to have an article on the sub-set 'the Roma'. The apparently preferred name for that article is 'Roma (people). We should leave this Dab page as is and, for those who wish, commence the article on 'the Roma' at 'Roma (people)'. Both pages are desired and both need names. This is the most rational compromise I can think of. RashersTierney (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Rashers, I'm not sure whether "Roma (people)" is the preferred name; "Roma (Romani subgroup)" seams to be popular lately. AKoan (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes; Thank you, RT. Please commence with that for reasons I have cited above. I anticipate this will allow "Roma people" to be introduced as "Roma"-defined-politically-as-equivalent-to-Romani people, and that the "Roma (people)" article will introduce "Roma" defined ethnographically as a "people" and thus as a subcategory of ethnic Romani people. Steviemitlo (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Stevie, are you (and/or RT) saying that the term "Roma people" is essentially a synonym for Romani people, but "Roma" alone, when used as a reference to a group of people, refers to the subgroup? Is that an opinion of how it "should be", or a reflection of how these terms are actually used? Unless someone presents evidence that this usage reflects actual usage in English, I will continue to insist that Roma (people) is inherently ambiguous, has no primary meaning, and should not be the title of any article in Wikipedia, but should remain a redirect to this dab page. So, the article about the subgroup of the Romani called Roma should be at Roma (Romani subgroup). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Reading B2c posts is like life portrayed in the film "Groundhog Day." Here is his first? B2c post of January 10: "Pardon my ignorance, but how are the two subgroups distingished?" Compare it to the above. B2c has obviously learned nothing over ten days, and demonstrates that he or she is unwilling to learn. Zaltkis simply bailed out in frustration. I am in for the duration. B2c is our pit bull of persnikitiness, god love him. But I can no longer pardon his ignorance even if I do admire his perseverance in pursuit of a lost cause. So Japanese (and I say that with the utmost respect for the Japanese). Will B2c eventually fall on his sword? Stay tuned. Steviemitlo (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The onus is on those of you who contend that Roma (people) is not ambiguous and is an appropriate title for a Wikipedia article to provide evidence that shows the Romani subgroup is the primary usage of the term "Roma" in the context of referring to people. No such evidence has been shown, so, yeah, on that issue I remain ignorant. As do you, apparently. No one can know something to be true that is not true, by definition. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What will the content of the proposed article names Roma (people) that will not be covered in Roma (Romani subgroup) once the RM has gone through and the article is moved? --PBS (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Must say that I missed that discussion. Not at all impressed that it was not brought to general attention here. RashersTierney (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The earlier bold move of Roma (people) → Roma (Romani subgroup) was discussed on this page here. All that you missed was that that bold move was reverted, and then reaffirmed unanimously through the WP:RM process. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The principal of change through consensus is not over-ridden by Wikilawyering. Stating that you have made a 'bold move' is not a discussion, and might well be considered disruptive. RashersTierney (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, please. Stating that a move in accordance WP:BOLD and WP:BRD might "well be considered disruptive" might well be considered disruptive itself. One way to establish whether consensus exists is precisely through a bold move (to see if it is reverted). In this case, the bold move was reverted, a discussion including an announcement at WP:RM about it followed, and a consensus decision was reached. Welcome to Wikipedia, that's how it works. You can't blame others for not watching articles that are of interest to you. Well, you can, I suppose. Suit yourself. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
B2c and PBS, here is authoritative evidence which I have cited before, and which you have yet to acknowledge: "Before the changes in 1989-90, the name 'Roma' was used most commonly as an endonyme (an internal community self-appellation) in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (except for former Yugoslavia) when the Gypsies spoke Romanes (the Gypsy language). This name was not widely popular and did not have an official status. In order to be faithful to the historical principle we use the word Roma only for the period after 1989." (p. 52 in Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov's "Historical and ethnographic background; Gypsies, Roma, Sinti" in Will Guy [ed.] Between Past and Future: The Roma of Central and Eastern Europe [with a Foreword by Dr. Ian Hancock], 2001, UK: University of Hertfordshire Press). To this I add the well-known fact that Dr. Ian Hancock deliberately titled his influential book "We are the Romani People" instead of "We Are the Roma People" even though he is a founder and remains the public face of the Roma national movement. The reason he did so was that the dialect he embraced for the standardization of Romani people language is the Roma (people) dialect. Thus Roma (people) with their distinct ethnographic, historic, linguistic and geographic shared experience deserves its own article out of respect for the importance of their exceptional identity and ethnos, as the major (in terms of population worldwide) subcategory of Romani people. To reduce Roma (people) to Roma (Romani subgroup) dismisses them as just another Romani "chip off the old block" rather than an important ethnic entity in its own right whose members deserve recognition for their ethnic integrity in a Wiki article that focus on them as the important and distinct "people" they are. Roma (people) reduces amgiguity as to their ethnic identity. The red herring "Roma (Romani subgroup)" increases amiguity where both Romani people and Roma (people) are concerned. What do you have against empowering Roma (people) anyway? Wikipersnickity bureaucrats ... Bring in Jimbo to sort out another fine mess you've gotten us into! We need his fine-tuned Objectivist perspective. Steviemitlo (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
One problem with Roma (Romani subgroup) for the article name is that Romani is the language of the Romani people, so ambiguity arises over whether "subgroup" refers to ethnic subcategory or language subcategory. How about "Roma (Romani people subgroup)" in preference to "Roma (Romani subgroup)" or "Roma (people)" or "Roma people" -- if that suits other editors. Steviemitlo (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Ambiguity in a title is not necessarily a problem that needs to be solved with more WP:PRECISION (as you suggest in this case), unless the ambiguous name in question conflicts with another topic covered in Wikipedia. Since there is no other topic covered in Wikipedia to which Roma (Romani subgroup) might refer (please correct me if I'm wrong in asserting that), any additional precision in the title would be unnecessary, and arguably in violation of naming guidelines such as WP:D, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, so we can stop explaining what has already been discussed and explained, please read the discussions at Talk:Roma (Romani subgroup), including How about "Roma (Romani people subgroup)"? Discussion related to the naming of that article should be over there anyway. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Roma (ethnonym)

As it is not clear if this should be a dab or a redirect, and if it will be a redirect, what article should redirect to, "Romani people" or "Roma (Romani subgroup)", I think that a solution would be to create an article called Roma (ethnonym), and to make this a redirect to that article. What others think? AKoan (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think most people that come upon the term 'ethnonym' will not be familiar with it and will not know what it means. With this dab, at least there is a chance to explain terminology. RashersTierney (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure that few people know what "ethnonym" means? Even so, I think they'll get it from the article, especially since the term kinda explains itself. AKoan (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ p. 52 in Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov's "Historical and ethnographic background; Gypsies, Roma, Sinti" in Will Guy [ed.] Between Past and Future: The Roma of Central and Eastern Europe [with a Foreword by Dr. Ian Hancock], 2001, UK: University of Hertfordshire Press
  2. ^ p. 13 in Illona Klimova-Alexander's The Romani Voice in World Politics: The United Nations and Non-State Actors (2005, Burlington, VT.: Ashgate
  3. ^ http://www.rromaniconnect.org/Romanihistory.html
  4. ^ e.g. Mayall, David . 2004. Gypsy Identities 1500-2000: From Egipcyans and Moon-men to the Ethnic Romany. London: Routledge
  5. ^ http://www.rromaniconnect.org/Romanihistory.html
  6. ^ http://www.carlogianferro.com/gypsyarchitecture/index.php
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roma_people/Archive_1&oldid=1085538895"