Talk:Romani diaspora

Italy

Although arguably considered not very politically correct, Zingari doesn't translate to mosquitoes, which is Zanzare in Italian, but to Gypsies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.232.228 (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peru

The Roma-ethnic population indicated seems not to reflect reality. Different sources indicate the Jewish population is below 3,000 individuals. Definitely the Roma-ethnic population is not higher than the Jewish population. Peruvian Census does not track ethnic population; therefore, the only way to determine ethnic populations is simply guessing it. Chesuq 00:49, February 2 2009 (UTC)

Croatia

Could someone stop false data editing for Croatia, according to 2001 offitial data there was 15k of them and someone keeps on pasting FALSE data based on survey that was done when part of Croatia were parts Bosnia and parts of Serbia (late 19th century).

Dear Authors:

You have reported that in the USA there are approximately one million Roma-ethnic individuals. However, the source that you have cited reports on the population size of Roma in the Americas that include both North, Central, South America and the Caribbean. Howefully you will make an appropriate adjustment to your report.

Thank you.

Norway

The list of groups in Roma groups in Norway gives both Romanoar and Tavringer. Aren't these essentially the same thing, one being the name of the ethnic group, and the other being the name of the languge group they belong to? Or am I wrong? —Zalktis (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia fake data

Vandalism of this article is beyond rediculous. 300,000 of Roma people in Croatia? That would be around 8% of Croatian population. There are officialy 15k of Roma people in Croatia. If we count ilegals number can be up to 40,000. Please don't use some 19 (!) century data. Use your common sense and true data provided in 1st two links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StraniPlacenik (talk • contribs) 00:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Gypsies

This collective term for various SE-Asian groups seems to have nothing to do with Roma people, the main subject of this article. I am removing the entry for Myanmar for this reason. —Zalktis (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user Olahus

Can someone stop this guy and his false editing? This isn't funny anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danniboizg (talk • contribs) 14:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must explain first why you consider the datas to be falsified.--Olahus (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it to you, i provided you link with real data but yet you keep on vandalizing this article with your false and not reliable source. I will keep on changing your every edit because i won't allow someone to vandalize articles (or just parts of it) related to my country. Danniboizg (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The continuation of this discussion here. --Olahus (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by Olahus continues. It's really sad that this frustrated individual is allowed to vandalize this article and no one seems to care about it. StraniPlacenik (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opposal to your antiziganst POV is not vandalism. Besides, the creation of sockpuppets and personal attacks are forbidden. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You call me anti romani just because i provide correct data? You are out of arguments so you are insulting me now? Dude, 300,000 people??!? There is no that much Serbs in Croatia... and thats almost twice as much as biggest city in Croatia! Where are those people then? Where?!? Your link is wrong, outdated and simply not correct. Tell me, if there is 300,000 Roma people living in Croatia like you claim why was there 15k on official census? You call me anti roma for providing true links, i call you anti croatian for providing fake links and vandalising this article StraniPlacenik (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romani populations

I thin that the old title of the article, "Romani populations" was better. What do the other think? AKoan (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, it is organized by country at present. Perhaps we should split off the list section. But I suggest waiting with the split until the list has been cleaned up properly. --dab (𒁳) 10:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anymore how we should organize it, myself. AKoan (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

let's take our time and do it properly. There is no deadline. --dab (𒁳) 06:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa

I have also heard about some Romanis in South Africa. Maybe Kevin Montes can bring a source for that. Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mttll misquoting sources

The population figure given in the source [1], the news article from Milliyet says "Bunların arasında çingeneler 700 binlik nüfusuyla başı çekiyor." (Among these [other ethnic groups], gypsies are in the lead with a population of 700 thousand.) Clearly no mention of the minimum figure "550,000" unlike what Mttll tries to deliberately manipulate. Behemoth (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't come up with that 550,000 figure. I vividly remember some other source mentioning it. Olahus knows about it.--Mttll (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just found that specific source [2], it's not 550,000 but 300,000 - 500,000/400,000 - 500,000. I expect an apology from you.--Mttll (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No wait, 550,000-700,000 is from Council of Europe apparently. Either way, I'm completely innocent. You must apologize.--Mttll (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unofficial estimation for Turkey is 35,000 to 5,000,000 and the official is 550,000 to 700,000. --Olahus (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes an estimation "official" ? There is no estimate for Turkey carried out by officials.--Mttll (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

700,000 is official, or, at aleast, it is more reliable and worthy to be begarded as official then any other figure because it appears in a report demanded by the Turkish ministry of defence. Personally, I trust the number 700,000 (only 1% of Turkey's population) more than 35,000 or 5,000,000. But: the article Romani people by country includes for every country both official and unofficial estimates, so me must accept them both. --Olahus (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

700,000 is not official, first of all.

Second of all, It's not ministry of defense, but national security council.

Third of all, 35,000 is the number of Roma who identify themselves as Roma. Hence this is the counterpart of censuses in other countries like around 500,000 Roma in Romania.

Whatever. If you think we should have extremities like 35,000-5,000,000 here, that's fine. But if someone ever comes and says we should have a reasonable number range like 300,000-700,000/550,000-700,000 I will support him.

Okay, but you see, the references are outdated and duplicated. Let me fix that. Or fix it yourself. BUT DON'T ACCUSE ME OF VANDALISM WHEN I'M FIXING THINGS.--Mttll (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm accusing you of vandalism when you are POV-pushinig. You cannot proove that 35,000 Roma identify themselves as Roma since this is not a census result. And the result of the study for the National Security Council is the most related to an official level because it was demanded by the Turkish officials and hence it is the only number accepted at an official level in Turkey. --Olahus (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot proove that 35,000 Roma identify themselves as Roma since this is not a census result

When did I say that it was a census result?! It's from a report based on a scientific study, an extensive survey. Yes, it's the counterpart of, say, Romanian census as it shows how many people identify themselves as such.

And the result of the study for the National Security Council is the most related to an official level because it was demanded by the Turkish officials and hence it is the only number accepted at an official level in Turkey.

Has it ever been published by any official authority? No. It's just from newspapers. Am I saying it's not reliable? No. Am I saying it's not official? Yes.--Mttll (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even that what you call "a scientific study, an extensive survey" (who knows if it really is) is not a census result. --Olahus (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time... I didn't say it was.--Mttll (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

there is a mistake in this arcticle. In the beginning it is stated that 500000-700000 (census) estimated 2500000, and the picture in the antet shows 10%. But in the arcticle body at the Gypsies in Romania Chapter it is stated there are 2.5 % gypsies.

Cem Romengo - Romania

If a minority claims to have a state, it's recomended to specify the existing conditions. In Targu Jiu, in Romania, acordind to the 2006 census, the Gypsies (Roma people) are a minority. If you erase this detail, it's like all the town Targu Jiu it's inhabited by Gypsies (Roma people) and the lobby for Cem Romengo it's corect. I do not agree with you. This is not vandalism. If you don't agree with me, you're not racist, xenophob, antisemit and etc. This is a point of view. Different by yours. Accordind to 2006 population census, in Târgu Jiu, from the total of 104.596 people : 96,79% are Romanians (93.546 people), 3,01% Gypsies (Roma people)(2.916 people) and 0,20% others.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.218.51 (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No minority, as you say, claims to have a state. (Even the individual credited with this absurdity supposedly says it is a State without the essential characteristics of a state; defined territory, exclusive population, sovereignty). This is a piece of patent nonsense emanating from a single source and persistently inserted by you. To what end exactly? Your obsession is becoming tedious and disruptive. Please drop it. RashersTierney (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A state is a state. Today a litle bit forward, tomorow a litle bite and you'll have what you wanted. All that I'm saying, and you have no reason to be upset, is the true. They claimed to have a state in an area where they're a minority. I mentioned that because in no other state the gypsies claimed that. So, if you are concerned to exist an objective point of view, you'll apreciate this. I'll continue, my friend, because for me it's an obligation to remember this. I must to do this, I must. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomád Terv (talk • contribs) 16:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you say "a state is a state" and this isn't remotely close to one by any objective criteria, based on the info. provided. If you wish to pursue a campaign good luck; I suggest you take it to a blog or some other outlet. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. RashersTierney (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Article :Population by country table : Bosnia and Herzegovina, referenced article 21 gives 40.000 poeple, article 22 - 400.000! Reference 23 is article about languages in Bosnia and Hercegovina 'Languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina' with 'tipfeler' : it gives 3,915,000 inhabitants of B&H: 2,000,000 speak bosnian, 469,000 croatian, 1,300,000 serbian and 400,000 vlax romani (in total around 4200000). As you can see, there is a mistake in original article.Same article is reference for article Vlax romani language on Wikipedia. Reference 20 - AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL gives us number 60000 Roma in B&H. article :Romani language - Wikipedia gives number of Vlax Romani speakers 40.000. Could someone please correct wrong data? Dada7 (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal

I removed the entire xenophobe comment in the portuguese section:

The Ciganos are the ethnic group that the Portuguese most reject and discriminate against, and are also targets for discriminatory practices from the State administration, namely at a local level, finding persistent difficulties in the access to job placement, housing and social services, as well as in the relation to police forces.^[1]

Ciganos in portugal ARE portuguese just like any other portuguese citizens ... with the same rights and responsabilities as anyone else who has citizenship.

Those reports are completely out of context .There is no discimination at all , if one is badly treated it is so because everyone in that same situation gets that kind of treatment (that only means that something is wrong and must be solved) ... and the comment about ciganos having troubles in access to housing surelly must be a joke.

Social Housing for free , proactive access to minimum gain policies , periodic market sales (it only takes a licence to go and sell) , special subsidies to by VAN's ... it seems that ciganos are collecting a greater benefit from the state than most of the remaining population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotavento (talk • contribs) 06:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC) One thing worth mentioning is that ciganos in portugal are well adapted to the XXI century society and completely moved from the nomadic way of life to a more upscale distribution and sales business model. Let's put it simple ... in a 600km country if you have a van to carry the goods you can live anywhere and made it in the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotavento (talk • contribs) 06:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ECRI (2002), Relatório da Comissão Europeia contra o Racismo e a Intolerância - Segundo Relatório sobre Portugal, Estrasburgo, pp. 23-25.; ; See also: European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, Third report on Portugal, 2006.

US has largest population

It has an estimated one million Roma, which is more than any other nation with cited numbers in this article. You don't need a source that says "the Roma population in the US is the largest" to have a statement like that. It's not controversial. Parkwells (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.web4desi.com/Articles/36-ArticlesbyJorgeMFernandezBernal/52-the-rom-in-the-americas
Triggered by \bweb4desi\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 15:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)== Egypt ==[reply]

it's said that there are 1.5 million Romani in Egypt the largest in the middle east and there is no mention of that!!!--207.35.24.228 (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Said by whom? RashersTierney (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Romani diaspora. 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:

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) 14:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on Romani diaspora. 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:

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) 23:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Romani diaspora. 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:

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) 06:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Romani diaspora. 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/20081218105506/http://www.gddc.pt/direitos-humanos/portugal-dh/relatorios-ce/CBCRelatorioPortugal_2002.pdf to http://www.gddc.pt/direitos-humanos/portugal-dh/relatorios-ce/CBCRelatorioPortugal_2002.pdf

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) 01:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Branches

The sources cited do not support the eleven branches we have as the main Romani branches. Indeed some like the Welsh Kale seem to have very little claim to major branch status. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Romani people in Afghanistan" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Romani people in Afghanistan and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Romani people in Afghanistan until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Romani people in Iceland" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Romani people in Iceland and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Romani people in Iceland until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt

There is some strange technical issue. In the first column of the (big) table below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_diaspora#Population_by_country "Egypt" cannot be sorted in alphabetical order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:6B0:E:2B18:0:0:0:71 (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ECRI (2002), Relatório da Comissão Europeia contra o Racismo e a Intolerância - Segundo Relatório sobre Portugal, Estrasburgo, pp. 23-25.; ; See also: European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, Third report on Portugal, 2006.

[1]