Jump to content

Talk:Romani people/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Now that I've deleted the "Dom as a Romani group" I want to fix the old problem of the supposedly related ethnic groups. It was already discussed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Romani_people/Archive_8#Romani_people_and_supposedly_related_ethnic_groups

Any thoughts on that? AKoan (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have certainly pounded the dust out of this rug, as the "talk" archives reveal. You are correct. Doms are not Roms. There is, however, this provocative old article worth citing by Dr. Brown, Irving. "Roms are Doms." Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society (third series) VII, 1929, No. 3-4:170-185. In sum, Roms are Doms, but Doms are not Roms. The Dom Research Center on line is a nice, attractive site and very informative. Steviemitlo (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if Roms are Doms, but certainly Doms are not Roms. AKoan (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. And this is why you or someone should revise the "Population" section of the article to clarify that Romani people are not Domari people, nor are they Desi peoples of India as the article now states or implies. All the numerical data has to be revised or eliminated. Right now the world populations box states that there are large concentrations of Romani people in India (in fact, it states they are the largest!) I am presently trying to sort out the "Terminology and Manual of Style" section. Please make an initial edit of the "Population" section based on a consensus here that Doms are not Roms. Steviemitlo (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have already made the initial move by deleting the "Dom as a Romani subgroup". I want to create this section first, and then delete the numbers for the "gypsies" that are not Romani, so that everybody have the thing clear.
About the "Desi people", I'm not sure, the Romanies (as well as the Domari, and other South-Asian originating populations) might fit into that definition. AKoan (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
"The Romani share a "common ethnic substratum" with the Jat Sikhs, the Panjabi Hindus and the Rajputs."
What you base this statement on? This is really a very bold claim. Gypsies were an Indian underclass, they come from the original Paleolithic population of India, while upper castes came from Europe and only took some aboriginal women. Besides that, I am not aware of any genetic study that would link their origin to Punjab or to any specific region of India.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18768723
89.235.19.204 (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The genetic studies made on Romanis gave different results, nothing is clear. On what study do you base your claim that "upper castes came from Europe"? AKoan (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Quote from above poster^^^: = "Gypsies were an Indian underclass, they come from the original Paleolithic population of India,".

And where exactly did you base this information on??!! To reply to Romani origins then the language is mostly Rajasthani but also has unique Panjabi words and grammar. i.e. the Romani word for brother is Phral / Phal like Panjabi Phra / Pha(ji). Also research shows that approx 1 in 1000 Romani suffer from Primary congenital glaucoma (PCG). An international collaboration led by Dr Manir Ali of the Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, identifies this as a ‘Jatt’ illness that is also found in one of four Pakistani families. genetic testing shows that both Y DNA Haplogroup H (M82) and haplogroup R1a1 (M56) is found amongst Romani showing a mixed Indian origin. H has however been found in a much larger percent but this still does not prevent the R1a1 (M56) marker being also present. This support the theory of mixed military origin. This also ties in with mixed language finds and the fact that there is other evidence suggesting they left shortly after 1000ad which we know was a time of war and invasion. Tsigano (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC) ^^^This based on pure assumption. Like you said the language is unique to "Punjabi". Jatts weren't the only people residing in northern India Punjab area at that time. This would almost include every caste the resided in Punjab during that period of time, and I doubt that it was only Jatts. ~The section in the article it mentions about Romanis adopting the predominant religion of their host country, while preserving their older beliefs. However, it does not go into detail what Romani religious belief is. Could someone please add more info on Romani religion?--174.91.80.32 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I do support the presence of Roms in parts of Northern India around 600-1000 AD period. But, it would apply to areas other than the present-day Punjab as well. Why I say so? There is a Haryanvi ballad on Raja Ror in which the Raja Ror is said to have got fixated with the wife of the Banjara Lakha. I strongly feel that these Banjaras talked of in this folk song refer pretty much to the same people as the Roms. If you would like to read recorded versions of this song, you can refer to a work by William Crooke called Folklore of North India. But, we must understand that Raja Ror was most probably present in the region around present-day New Delhi and not in Punjab. So, the Roms may even have lived in present-day Haryana at some point in their history. Regards, 122.169.54.123 (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Self segregation

Mention should be made of Romany practises like endogamy and self-segregation which teld to increase the community's isolation from the surrounding society. Ideas of racial purity, held by a minority of Roma - stemming perhaps from the caste segregation in India - are only an extreme form of the community's overall preference to avoid unnecessary mixing with the surrounding peoples. Extremely traditional Roma will often even avoid touching a "Gadjo" or non-roma.

While such cultural practises do not in any way justify the extreme persecution that the Roma have endured, they should be mentioned as contributing to the community's segregation and isolation from mainstream society.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.194.145 (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2010‎ (UTC)

Tzigans exonym

why isn't there any mention of the exonym Tzigan for the Roma people, like there is a paragraph about the exonym Gypsy ? half of Europe uses the word Tzigan for the Roma people - Hungarians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Serbs, Romanians, Poles, Slovaks, Ucrainians, etc. etc. Criztu (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Because in the English world, Gypsy it is used, not Tzigan. The article Names of the Romani people addresses this issue. Kenshin (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Russians as well... СЛУЖБА (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

European Commission

On September 4 2008 the European Commission said Italy's census of illegal gypsy camps does not discriminate against the Roma community. They said the census is in line with European Union law. An analysis of an Italian report on the census showed it did not seek "data based on ethnic origin or religion," said Michele Cercone, spokesman for European Justice Commissioner Jacques Barrot. The controversial fingerprinting programme has the sole aim of "identifying persons who cannot be identified in any other way," he said. The fingerprinting of minors was only being carried out "in strictly necessary cases and as the ultimate possibility of identification," Cercone said. http://www.lifeinitaly.com/news/news-detailed.asp?newsid=10781 http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSezioni/politica/200809articoli/36198girata.asp

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.6.193.60 (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2009‎ (UTC)

European Parliament (EP) monitors the Romani/Gypsies situation in various European countries and issues relevant reports and answers to parliamentary questions. EP references on discriminations are credible and should be included in the article. Examples:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.189.45 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2011‎ (UTC)

Why are the pictures only about romanian gypsis?

Hey, why are the photos only with romanian gypies? people already confuse a romanian with a romani, so please add more difersity in the pictures gallery, most romanians find this offensive to their culture! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.209.107.42 (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that this comment assumes a negative attribute to Romani people? I do not see how it matters where the Romanies in the picture come from. I do not confuse Romanies with Romanians. (Romani is a minority group in Romania, which's native population is Romanian, I thought this is widely known by all?) Lothandar (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Romani people and Dom people

I am from the region of Pothwar of Pakistani Punjab. There is a group of people known as Dom Marasi. Marasi, is the punjabi word for musician and Dom is their caste. They have many features in common with Romani people. First they are traditionally musicians and commonly play music in the weddings. They sing and dance. Due to their low social status, the higher castes consider dancing and playing music dishonorable. Than they are easily distinguishable from other Pothwari groups due to their skin color and facial features. They look like south and central Indians. Then they are sometimes called ,Kaale meaning ,black hence the Romani of wales and Spain got their names from there. Can anyone, who has seen Marasis back me on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.43.219 (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Read here [Brown, Irving, 1928, "Roms are Doms", Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Third Series, vol. 7 (3-4):170-177] for an early summary argument in support of your observation. There is also a good website here http://www.domresearchcenter.com/ that occasionally addresses issues related to your observation. Be aware that there are influential scholars in the Dutch School of Romani Studies, and others in the Roma nationalist movement, who these days downplay or dismiss the ethnic significance and implications of the similarities between Rom and Dom peoples that you observe. I encourage you to research the issue yourself and reach your own conclusions.Steviemitlo (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The origin of the Romani people is a matter of debate, fueled by political agendas. My personal opinion is that a mixed caste origin is the most probable. Kenshin (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly there are Doms further west into Central Asia and the Middle East who also descend from India Doms. Even though like Romani they are living outside of India, it has now been proven that these people did not leave as a common group as the Romani due to the two languages spoken by each both originate from completely different Indian regional languages and there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the two left at times hundreds of years removed. As for this rubbish that Romani look like Doms in India who have a more southern appearance has no grounds for evidence as if comparing features then Romani do not look anything like south and central Indians and many are probably more white than most Panjabi due to being in Europe for so many years. I know Panjabi and also Romani who have on various occasions not been able to tell a Romani apart from Panjabis such as a Jatts solely on appearance. The whole connection with the Dom is solely based in Dom sounding like Rom even though the meaning of Rom / Roman shares exactly the same meaning the Sanskrit Raman. As for any observations on occupations it seems that every foreign and nomad group that lives throughout Europe and Asia take to doing similar trades. Often the trades are not related but are obviously the only available means for survival. Pavee (Irish travellers) tend to do exactly the same trades as most Romani even though we know there is no common origin. Ex-city folk taking to traveling and also travelers such as showmen have also adapted to doing the same trades. much like Indians coming into the west from India today. Regardless of caste and origin they all tend to adapt to similar trades once in the West. Just because a Pakistani opens a newsagent in the UK and also a Gujarati also opens a newsagent it does not mean they came over as a common group even though both share similar words. Further and a more in depth study will find they both speak different Indian languages from different regions. Chinese coming into the UK open a restaurant it does not make them related to an Indian or an Italian also opening a food restaurant. There is no evidence as yet to relate the Domari to the Romani other than the fact both have an Indian root (even though proven to be different) and the fact Dom rhymes with Rom. Hardly something to take as factual evidence. There is however more evidence to suggest that Romani have closer ties to Banjara. Both Bajara and Romani speak a Rajasthani based language. Their dance and dress is similar. If we are to compare names (as in Domari = Romani) then Romani along with the Lomavren of Armenia can also sound similar to Lamani which is another name for Banjara which is used by themselves. To support Lamani possibly comparing to Romani & Lomavren then the only possible root for Romani words such as Raklo / Rakli meaning boy / girl is possibly Hindi (and similar languages) laka / laki also meaning boy suggesting a common shift from L to R ('a' at end shifts to 'o' via Rajasthani). The Banjara are recorded as playing a role in military which would also connect them to the invasions of 1026ad which is the most supported reason and time for them leaving India. This could also help explain the introduction of words from Panjabi and also the more rarer DNA Y hg R1a1 (M56) found amongst Romani and also the Primary congenital glaucoma (PCG) which is also common in Jatt families.

I hate it when people say their opinions when it is obviously not real facts and has absolutely no real eveidence behind it other than an obvious racist biasness Tsigano (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC) (sorry. again I forgot to sign my comment)

I just want to add to my above post that even though there may be a possible link with Banjara it is still not as yet proven and even if it is proven at a later date then it does not make Bajara or any other Indian or Asia group as Romani. The Romani are very likely a group of possible mixed origin and Banjara just make up a large percentage. Romani is the name only for the group of Indian originating people found only in Europe who actually identified themselves by that name or those that have directly descended from this same ethnic group found only in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsigano (talk • contribs) 12:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Romani religion

What are the traditional Romani religious beliefs? Not the religions they adopt from their host countries, the beliefs which they have in and amongst themselves. --Splashen (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of Romanians and Szeklers in 'Romani people' article removed

I have removed 3 pictures of Romanians and Szeklers from 'Romani people' article. The user uploading them clearly has no knowledge on the Romanies living in Romania, so is the site on which pictures of Romanians, Szeklers and Romanies are thrown together under the label "Gypsies". Criztu (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure whether the gallery-style pictures section is appropriate. The images should be integrated into the article if there is space. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Change in Contemporary Issues Section II

I added properly sourced information from official government sources about the magnitude of Gypsy crime. These stats are the last ones that were available in Czech republic, because crime stats based on crime were abolished due to the fact that they showed the astronomical crime of the Gypsy community (which gets only worse with time). The most recent stats from Slovakia are several years old.

The statements about Roma being "confined to low-class ghettos, are subject to discrimination in jobs and school" etc. are both completely unsourced and purposedly taken out of context, which creates space for the topsyturvying of the reality and blaming of the majority population for Gypsies' own faults. As a result, foreign readers from countries, where virtually no Gypsies are present, are completely misinformed and often accuse the majority population from absurd things that don't take place in the real world. This is a selective propaganda, whose purpose is to cover the true reasons of the hostility towards this ethnic group. Since Wikipedia is to inform people and use unbiased sources, this selection of sources in unacceptable. And not only this: It supports hateful agenda in misinformed foreign media and denigrates honest citizens of European countries.

If Gypsies want to cover the true problematic character of their ethnicon and spread outrageous fish stories about apartheid and discrimination, they can do it on their own Wikipedia site. Centrum99 (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


"When the Romani people arrived in Europe, curiosity was soon followed by hostility and xenophobia."

And this all naturally happened without any reason, of course?! Well, I must find some historical sources about the mess that they created in Europe then. I am sure that readers and editors of this site will welcome the filling of this gap in knowledge. Centrum99 (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect for Simon Simeonis

Simon Simeonis was linked from History of the Romani people and was a redlink. The same person was referred to as Symon Semeonis in Romani people, so I made a redirect on that basis. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Romani language is closest to RAJASTHANI, PANJABI and SANSKRIT

The fact that some Romani is close to Hindi is solely due to Rajasthani being very close to Hindi. The biggest difference between Hindi and Rajasthani is that Rajasthani uses 'o' on the end of masculine words whereas Hindi uses 'a'. Anyone even slightly knowledgeable in the Romani language will instantly recognise that Romani also uses 'o'. The next thing we notice is that all the Hindi words that are in Romani are also in Rajasthani. words like Kako = uncle ando = in muro = my (notice its muro not mera) In addition to the majority of words and grammar etc are unique to Rajasthani. e.g. Gavado (m) Gavadi (f) for Bull / Cow is like Guruv / guruvni Tingar / Tingari for small child is like Romani Tikno / Tikni athai for here is like Romani akai / (kh)athe (Panjabi is ethe). words such as Thakar for king as opposed to Raj is a word that is commonly used in Rajasthan. quote from Rajasthani online dictionary: "Thakur ठाकुर normally a Rajput, Rajpurohit, Jats of Bharatpur also write thakur" The Romani words Rai (noble / gentleman) & Rani (noble / lady) is from the root of Raj which is Arya(n) also meaning noble / gentleman. Some of these words I'm told by some Indian friends of mine also help point to the Romani leaving India after 1000ad as they are later words but I have yet to confirm this data. There are also words that are uniquely Panjabi as mentioned above in someone else's post Words such as (kh)othe = over there (Someone above obviously isn't fluent in the Romani language as they wrote the Romanichel corruption of adoi), phra -> phral = brother, pa (Panjabi now uses ji on end as respect) -> pal = brother / friend, phen = sister, khar -> kher = house. Many of the words appear to be Rajasthani / Panjabi mix i.e. khuro meaning colt (horse) is from Panjabi Khora with Rajasthani grammar Panjabi for heart is 'dil' & Rajathani is 'Hivado'. Romani is 'ilo. Panjabi for bent is Binga and Rajasthani is Banko. Romani is 'bango'. Panjabi for bride is botti and Rajasthani is Bindni. Romani is Borri. Anyone who is knowledgeable on Indian geography and also Indian history will know that Rajasthani is directly below the Panjab and the two neighbor one another. The two also share much history and the people of both regions are often entwined. A female Jatt in the Panjabi language is called a Jatti. In The Rajasthani language she is called a Jattni. In Romani a married respectable man is called a Rom and his wife is called a Romni. Another word to consider is the Romani word for a youth / unmarried man which is 'Chavo'. This word is usually only used in connection with someone of Romani blood. The word obviously originates from the Sanskrit Sva (Sava) meaning one own / kinsman / offsring and comes from the Sanskrit root va meaning 'like'. In Rajasthani the word for like is Chav. In Rajasthani the masculine 'a' at the end of the word becomes 'o'. The Rajasthani word for boy is Choro. This word is unlike any other Indian word for boy and it could suggest that choro once corrupted from chavorro. Chavorro is also a variation on Chavo used in Romani. Something else to be very aware of is that Romani comes from a language that was about a 1000 years ago so obviously that language would now be different. If we look at the language of England from around 1000 years ago we suddenly find a language more like old German with only similarities in the language where only a few words remain exactly the same but it is possible to see where many of the newer English words came from. The same is with Romani. When we compare many of the words to modern Rajasthani and Panjabi it shocking the number that are exactly the same. There are also a many words which aren't identifiable until we compare them to Sanskrit which is obviously the much older language from which many of the newer Hindi based regional language descended from. On the word Roma as a tribe then I would just like to point out hat it is only a select few trying to represent the Romani as a whole that used the word. Most Romane themselves recognise that Roma either means the plural of Rom or it is the word only used by certain Romane for themselves. Sinte, Kale and Romanichal doe not recognize the word as an overall term for our people. We do however all recognize the word Romani, or more so if using our own grammar Romane & Rromane. With regards to the spelling 'Romany' then this is an English spelling that was brought in and popularized in the nineteenth century by the writer George Burrow who actually originally wrote is as 'Rommany'. Spelling it in English with two 'm's as George Burrow originally did gives the correct pronunciation of the word. It also help avoid it sounding like Rome or Romania. The more up-to-date and is now probably the more recognized spelling as Romani makes it sit happily alongside other similar English words like Panjabi, Bengali, Rajasthani, Gujarati etc. If Romanians complain it sounds like the Romanian word 'Romani' which is with Romanian grammar then they should remember that it English we are writing in and not Romanian. It is like us comparing English to our words rromane dzene (Romani people) which uses Romani grammar and spelling and then complaining the English word shouldn't be wrote that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsigano (talk • contribs) 18:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Preceding unread by most interested parties because it is simply too long. RashersTierney (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Adoi (or odoi, as we would say in my family) is not a "Romanichel corruption" of "real" Romani. That value-laden judgment aside, "odoi," meaning "there," is a perfectly valid term in Slovak Romani and at least one other dialect I know of as well. Depending on how it's pronounced, the use of "adoi" may in fact stem from confusion, since in Slovakia "adai" means "here," not "there," but, again, that does not make it a "corruption". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.136.212 (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Romani coming into Spain via North Africa

I have been studying the history and facts on the Romani (Rromane) for many years now due to the fact I am of Romani blood. Being Romani, I am aware on language and customs and through family have good connections with Romani globally also. I also have an Indian wife and have an amazing amount of Indian family, friends and connections from all various Indian backgrounds who greatly assist me with my needed knowledge into Indian culture, customs, language and various other required insight. On first reading on Romani I observed how many maps show the Romani splitting from Turkey and a branch travelling across North Africa and up into Spain. Since then I have in all my years of study never found one piece of factual evidence to support this ever happening but every piece of evidence I have seen actually suggest that the Romani in Spain actually came via a Northern Europe into Spain.

The facts are there are no remnants or signs of Romani left or found in North Africa from this supposed route. The only Romani groups found in North Africa are very scarce and we know they came into Africa via the Mediterranean across from Europe at a much more recent date. The only Indian originating nomadic / semi nomadic groups of any number are of the Domari group who we know left India from a different region and at a time most probably hundreds of years removed from that of the Romani.

Study on the Spanish Romani who refer to themselves as Kale (Cale) shows similarities to that of Romani found in Western Europe such as the UK and also the Baltic regions. Observations of the language also show that the Spanish Romani share the identical corruptions in the language as all other Romani groups suggesting the absence of an earlier split. There are also early records suggest the Iberian Kale came into Spain via Flemish lands hence the name of the music Flamenco coming about. Any influence from Africa into the Iberian Romani it seems much more feasible to have come from living in poorer suburbs or working alongside alongside immigrants who had come across from North African such as Moors. Tsigano (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right, the North African route theory doesn't stands. As for the North African influence that is understandable as the Romanis assimilated some of the Moors, hiding in southern Spain from the Reconquista. Kenshin (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

discredited sources protected from editing

Under "Contempory Issues" a Professor Rushton's marginal research (the sort of faddish Racialism popular around 1930) is used to "prove" that perhaps the Third Reich had it right in sterilizing and killing those "nogoodniks" popularly known as Gypsies. It is the sort of source material no more - nor less - reliable than Michael E. Levin's Why Race Matters, a similarly-reasoned screed that dares to ask why "th' Blacks" have been so irrelevant in shaping the course of our increasingly thanatocentric Western Culture. Shockoegrind (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to add that a great Russian poet Pushkin wrote a poem with elements of drama named The Gypsies. It is an excellent example of literature of romanticism, and Roma people in it represent symbol of freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.74.159 (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Czech Republic in 1990???

The crime rate of Romani communities is highly disproportionate as well; for example, in 1990, when ethnic-specific data were still available, the Roma population was responsible for 13.3% murders, 30.5% thefts, 25% all property crimes, and 18.4% total crime in Czech republic.

As far as I'm concerned, Czech Republic did not exist before 1993... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.65.232.149 (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It did exist, but was not a separate state and the official name was different. СЛУЖБА (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Haplogroup R1a.

>>> "northern India, where haplogroup R1a lineages makes up at least half of male ancestries..."

Haplogroup R1a does not make up "at least half of male ancestries" in Northern India. It does make up half of male ancestries in several Northern-Indian populations, as well as in many Brahmin groups in northern India. However, these populations are few, and Brahmins do not comprise a large percentage of the population. In total, haplogroup R1a does not make up more than 30% in northern India (in fact, probably much less). I suggest changing the sentence in the article to "Northern India, where haplogroup R1a lineages make up to a half of male ancestries in several groups...". СЛУЖБА (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


Suggestion for personalities.jpg

Contribution of Serbian Roma to Roma culture is certainly significant. Also Dzej Ramadanovski is not the person which should be included in Roma personalities picture in this article. His music is not recognized nor in Serbia nor worldide as significant artist. Saban Bajramovic as gypsy singer from Nis recognized world wide. Few months before his death, The Times magazine awarded him on life achivement and called him one of the three biggest alive blues singers in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RacoYes (talk • contribs) 11:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC) RacoYes (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I might also suggest a prominent, pioneering woman in academia of Romani heritage, Sofia Kovalevskaya. By only including entertainers and celebrities, one reinforces gadžikano stereotypes. Or am I wrong? —Zalktis (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I do agree, I also thought of Sofia Kovalevskaya. Kenshin (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
And, also, Django Reinhardt should definitely be included. Kenshin (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Anybody speaks Czech?

Is there anybody here that speaks Czech? Maybe it could take a look at this article, to verify the info in it and if the source is reliable: http://www.blisty.cz/files/isarc/0108/20010829f.html#05 Kenshin (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Romania/Romani

Apologies if this is explained elsewhere but I honestly can't find it. Romanians and Romani people are not the same thing and there is a lot of confusion over this but why is their name so similar? Romania gets its name from the fact that there is a strong connection with the romans. Why does "romani" have this same thing in the name? Is it because they are/were populous in Romania? This needs to be explained --Chrisjwowen (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no etymological link as can be seen from the respective introductions at these articles. Please remember too that this page is not a general forum. This point on names occasionally comes up, so don't think you are the first to make this error, but that is what it is none the less. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for your reply but I certainly make no mistake/error, I only ask the question. I have no idea and perhaps the article could be improved to include whatever misconceptions certainly exist. Is it because if it is mentioned in the article then people kick off? I have ZERO connection to Romania or Romani so I have no prejudice or motive. If it is meerly coincidence then perhaps the article could be improved to mention this. I notice you speak Romanian. I am not treating this as a general forum. Thank you --Chrisjwowen (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.252.136 (talk)
The error is in thinking there may be an etymological link - there isn't. Such 'false cognates' are not uncommon in linguistics. This is just one more example as is evident from these articles - Name of Romania and Names of the Romani people#Rom, Romani. RashersTierney (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, I made no error. I fully understand the difference between Romanian and Romani. If the spelling is purely coincidental then perhaps it should be mentioned as you are correct in saying many people make that mistake. --Chrisjwowen (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I did not say many people make this mistake. The question is sufficiently addressed in my opinion. RashersTierney (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request for File:Romani population average estimate.png, 24 April 2010

The map of distribution of romani/gypsy population among Europe is outrageous File:Romani population average estimate.png ! Although it is mentioned from official data that the biggest number of gypsies (aka romani people) are in Spain where the highest percent per total population is in Bulgaria and Macedonia, yet Romania gets the largest and most eye-catching wheel symbol. Even the legend of the map states that the size of the wheel symbols reflects absolute population size, Spain gets a smaller wheel than majority. I don't get it! We have had enough of this stereotype Romania = Gypsy country, and this map is further consolidate this impression. Please be decent and update it accordingly.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorneanub (talk • contribs) 15:38, 24 April 2010‎ (UTC)

Edit request from Vehawnj, 29 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} To be added under the heading of "Gypsy" within the first paragraph after discussing the English term.

Where in many languages the root word relating to Egypt is used, many other Indo-European languages use a different word. in Russian, for example, it is "tsigan". It comes from the Farsi word "cheng", the name of a musical instrument similar to the harp. The rest of the word ("-iyan") is made up of two suffixes from Arabic. The first, "-i, "makes it the "cheng" player, so it is like the English suffix "-ist "in "harpist". "-yan "makes the word plural and the word means, "cheng players" (harpists) or "dancers" (dancing to the accompaniment of "cheng"). In 19th century Ottoman language it started to mean "women dancers. "

http://www.angelfire.com/in/turkey/dil03.html

Vehawnj (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A verbatim application of the request would be a clear WP:COPYVIO, though the source (Ahmet Toprak?) should probably be considered reliable, and some useful info. possibly incorporated into this article or the article at Names of the Romani people. RashersTierney (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Not done for now: see above. mono 19:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

This is as suitable as any to test the proposed initiative. RashersTierney (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is there so much information missing?

I couldn't help noticing that this article makes no mention of the pickpocketing, the theft of children, the scams, the black magic or the curses. Do any of you actually know anything about Gypsies? This article is seriously deficient in information. (Huey45 (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC))

Racist "information" does not belong in a factual article. The article on African Americans doesn't include information on how black people "love fried chicken and watermelon," another well known, offensive stereotype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.20.126 (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

But a factual article could list official stats of Gypsy crime from the time, when they were still available? If this is so, then there certainly exist no reasons, why they shouldn't be listed here. Centrum99 (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
A taste for fried chicken and watermelon isn't offensive, but it's not noteworthy or well-known either. Besides, these people really do perform black magic and that's what most people could tell you about Gypsies, if nothing else. (Huey45 (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC))

I dont know about racist information, but it is really strange that the article goes into long detail about "purity" practices, while making no mention of living in poverty in illegal makeshift camps. I read the headlines today about the French expelling Roma.. The only Roma I have met here in California, lived in subsudized public housing (projects), gave fake names to non-roma, and were distinctly dirty, young, adult and senior. I think there is some PC correctness preventing the telling of factual detail about the real context of people's lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.201.170 (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No.,this isn't censorship. The problem is simple. The majority of people who add information on such aspects just "write something". And since it's (even if true) not a fact that might well be disputed by some people as its such a negative thing, a good reference is needed. Now, if you went and looked, for example, in the census data on Hungary and Romania and came back with an edit saying that "according to the 2002 census, Z% of Roman in X lived below the poverty line and Y% lived in sub-standard housing [reference]", then very few people would even think of removing that information. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Romani connection of Maharaja Ranjit Singh

Please add this text to the article. It is backed up by solid reference. For Sansi and Romani connection please refer to the following work :

  • The Sansis of Punjab; a Gypsy and De-notified Tribe of Rajput Origin

It is also cited below.


There is a well-regarded scholarly opinion that Maharaja Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the great ruler of Punjab, and decidedly the most powerful Indian rulers just before British raj, was also of gypsy or Sansi banjara background. According to several reputed scholars [1] [2][3][4][5][6] [7] [8] , Maharaja Ranjit Singh[9] was from the gypsy tribe of Sansis. The origin of these Sansi gypsies is traced to Bhati Rajputs.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.241.254 (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC) The Sansis, Banjaras etc. owe their origin to Rajpoot kingdoms lost to Muslim and Mughal invaders. They were probably making weaponary for the Rajpoot kings. Jats of Greater Punjab or Uttar Prdesh are a different tribe who came to India after Aryans, Ahirs and Gurjars. Maan, Gill are few common surnames found in India and Europe.The Jats Book on Jats by A S Dahyia (IAS retd.)explores the origin of Jats. Connection of Banjaras or Sansis or Romas to Jats is just a streatch of imagination without any authenticity. The latest study on genetics have proved that Romas probably are from central or south India and majority of them still live in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Gujrat. Some of them in Nander (Maharashtra) adopted Sikh religion when Guru Gobind Singh Ji went there.

Edit request from Udermu, 31 August 2010: Contemporary Issues

The current version about the 2007/2008 events in Italy is highly biased and does not provide the correct context for what happened at the time.

The mentioned crackdown by Italian authorities on Romani campsites was indeed triggered by the brutal murder of a woman at the hands of a Romanian gypsy (who was later given a life sentence), an event that made the headlines of all Italian papers for weeks, and by a massive and steady influx of Gypsies from Romania (up to 1,000 Gypsies a week, see linked Guardian article in my edit).

Failing to mention such circumstances makes hard to understand the so called 'emergenza nomadi' ('gypsy emergency') and simply puts the blame on the Italian government without providing enough context to explain its actions.

Also note that the author of the article present in the current revision (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/30/roma-italy) cannot be considered an objective source: Tana de Zulueta has been a member of the Italian Parliament from 1996 to 2008 for various left-wing parties: hardly an unbiased observer.

In the current revision there is also a quote that I propose to remove. It reads as follows:

"Mario Marazziti, spokesperson of the Community of Sant'Egidio human rights organization said "There is no national emergency ... What is an emergency is that in the 21st century the life expectancy of a gypsy living in Italy is under 60 years of age."

This is clearly an apologetic view on the Romani community, with no factual evidence (where does the data Marazziti mentions come from?) from a person who, again, is highly biased in favour of such community. On top of that, it is hard to understand how life expectancy can correlate to a specific country for such mobile and nomadic individuals. In any case, if the important bit is Romani life expectancy, I suggest to link to some official source that can provide such data in a more rigorous way.

Bottom line, please remove the slanted portions above and add only relevant information and proper and complete circumstances from neutral sources.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Udermu (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Romani Birth rate

I am from Romania and the Romani people seem to have experience an abnormally high birth rate.while most romanian couples have one or two kids gypsies have ,on average, at least 5 .are there any statistics available on this subject because i couldn't find any and mind you they must be thorough because some don't declare all their children,the poor gypsies in particular —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.5.76 (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Chapter 2 of this report has a discussion of birth rates. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Romani people → Romany people / Roma people / Romanies — There is no reference provided as to why Romani and not Roma or Romany is used in any of the instances referring to Gypsies. Google gives 291,000 results for "Romani pleople", 7,150,000 results for "Roma people" and 151,000 results for "Romany people" (and 112 million of gypsy). I cannot find any academic reference for the "-ANI" ending vs the "-A" ending. But the major reason for this move is that EVERYWHERE in Europe people confuse RomaNIANS with RomaS, and using here RomaNIES only further adds to this confusion. I expect lots of controversies arising from this but I will start with this. Nergaal (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Nergaal (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I second the movement of the titles Romani to Romany / Roma, whichever is more accurate. Ciprian.Enache (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look through the talk archives, you'll see that this has been discussed many many many times before. Roma people refers to some (but not all) European Romani people, and certainly not those Romani people from outside Europe. ie. all Roma are Romani, but not all Romani and Roma. "Roma" has more hits, because they get more press than other Romani people because of their location and population size. The fact that some people in Europe confuse the two is easily remedied with the disambiguation tag at the top of the pages, and does not require a page move. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I'll second what MightyQuill said and also, ignorance by readers is not a reason in itself to change our naming practices if they're sound in themselves. Leave this page where it is. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I would be very fine with that argument it ONE reliable reference was provided. I cannot find one authority saying -ANI is correct, not -A, nor -ANY, nor -ANIES. Without a single reference I have a hard time accepting a status quo that does not benefit anybody and add confusion instead. Nergaal (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't entirely understand the motion. Is this a proposed rename whereupon you propose that one of 3 options be selected? Either way I don't see a reason to move the article. Romani and Romany seem to be used interchangeably. I found over a million google books hits that employ –ANI ending, so I don’t entirely understand the argument to not being able to find any academic reference for and –ANI ending. Confusion between Romanian and Romani is why hatnotes are employed as necessary. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't really believe the argument of people confusing Romani with Romanian to be true and I don't really see how changing an I to a Y, which appears to be the crux of the argument, would even change that.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The present title may not be ideal, but the proposed alternative is a non-starter. It is well-established on Wikipedia that we do not try to get round these problems by using slash titles e.g. "Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali" or "Gdansk/Danzig". PatGallacher (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Well if so this was an incompetent move request. It would have been better if you had tested the water on this page about these alternatives before submitting a formal move request. PatGallacher (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This has been discussed at length before, please see the archives of this talk page. Then if there's anything new to say, please justify why we should reopen this tired old discussion. Andrewa (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

politically correct silliness

Gypsy is the more common term. We should use it until the PC police have won the battle. Also this article has nothing about the camps or criminality. If you want a well researched article showing how those aspects are not the only parts of gypeis, fine. But to ignore it, shows a lack of guts. PC is for wimps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.236.167 (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

depends very much on the context. Judging from google news, I get the impression that "Roma" is clearly more commonly used than "gypsies" in a contemporary context. --dab (𒁳) 14:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about Roma vs. Gypsy, but to leave out criminality and thieving as a well-established, long-practiced, well-documented part of the Gypsy culture is to miss the understanding of who they are, their attitude toward society, and why they have been persecuted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.55.8 (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The Roma have traditionally considered themselves as a society of their own, apart from the society of non-Roma, and consequently, they did not feel compelled morally or ethically to comply with any standards or laws set up by these 'foreign' societies. That's pretty much a natural attitude, see Viking, colonialism. You aren't violating the code or ethics of your society by plundering members of another society. --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than complain about perceived "political correctness", why not go ahead and add this material if you think it's worthy of mention (using reliable sources, of course)? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Indic equivalent for Romani

Closest word in Sanskrit for Romani is Bhramani, one who is rover or playful wanderer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.220.91 (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

funny, you would think it was ḍoma, the Sanskrit name from which Roma is actually derived. --dab (𒁳) 09:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.81.2.231, 19 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In your article you are looking for the meaning of the word atsinganoi. It is the same as athinganoi, which means do not touch in Greek: http://romaniprincess.tripod.com/language.html

92.81.2.231 (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for the explanation. The source, though, is what we call a self-published source and can't be used to verify the claim. Do you have a published source which also makes this claim? Also, could you provide the words you would like to add to the article? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it does mean "untouchable", and we have been aware of this for a long time, just read names of the Romani people. See also Melchisedechians. --dab (𒁳) 13:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Legitimate use of 'Gypsy' as proper noun in reference to the specific ethnic group

There seems to be a genuine misunderstanding that 'Gypsy' cannot be used as a proper noun. This has led to one editor reverting this usage across a number of articles.[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]' [6] insisting that lower case 'g' (ie 'gypsy')is the only correct usage. Despite good faith efforts efforts to explain that this is erroneous, its legitimate application has again been reverted. The web-based OED states (usually Gypsy)a member of a travelling people with dark skin and hair, traditionally living by itinerant trade and fortune telling. (unambiguously demonstration its use as a proper noun) when applied to this group. Most modern academic sources also capitalise when using the term in this way. Input sought please. RashersTierney (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I always understood it to be capitalised and if that's what the OED uses, I'm happy with that. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The difficulty appears to be that versions of OED do not appear to be consistent. The latest iteration, (as I understand it to be) uses capitalisation. The older, though 'full' version makes no reference to use as a proper noun (ie capitalised) though most other authoritative sources use the proper noun form. I've tried to make this point clear to the dissenting ed. but only get the stock reply evidenced in various edit summaries as if no discussion could possibly be warranted. RashersTierney (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I've just checked the full, subscription-only online version and they still have the 1989 edition entry, which uses lower case. Do we know if the link you give above is to a more recent revision? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this link will work to on-line entry, but if gypsy is entered as site search term, then numerous examples of its use as a proper noun are produced. RashersTierney (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
These are the two apparently conflicting entries as previously discussed at removing eds TP. On-line entry with capital 'G', and 'full' entry from 1989 screen-shot as posted, which apparently fails to mention use as proper noun. RashersTierney (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, well given that confusion I think we should just go with the most common academic usage. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Under the circumstances that does seem the most reasonable approach. I'll allow the dissenting ed. some time to respond here before rectifying, in case there are any misunderstandings. RashersTierney (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Kenrick's Historical Dictionary of the Gypsies (Romanies) (2nd ed., ISBN 9780810854680) capitalises the word 'Gypsy' throughout. By contrast the Daily Telegraph's style guide says : "gipsy: not gypsy", expressly in lowercase.[7] The difference in capitalisation can be explained thus: Kenrick, and most Romani studies scholars, treat the term "Gypsy" as an ethnonym (albeit often an outmoded one); a such, it is a proper noun, and must be written with a capital letter. By contrast, the Telegraph and many in the media use "gypsy/gipsy" as a term referring to a "lifestyle" (e.g. living in a caravan, not working, causing problems for 'respectable' people, or, more generously, living in a 'bohemian' manner). Incidentally, we see the same differentiation in the uses of Bohemian (geographic/cultural designation) and "bohemian" (describing a carefree, artsy lifestyle). In that case, I would say that this article on an ethnocultural group should only mention the form that is an ethnonym, i.e. "Gypsy" with a capital letter. —Zalktis (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback. Original capitalised spelling now restored at affected articles. RashersTierney (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It would be helpful if we could signal that Gypsy is potentially derogatory in the lead, for people who don't read through to the terminology section, or skip over it. For example: "potentially derogatory exonym: Gypsy".--Carwil (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is sometimes used in that way, but it is also embraced as an endonym (if less frequently - see Acton) by others. I would be reluctant to 'impose understanding' of the minutiae of words with contested 'appropriateness', particularly in an article lead. The first instance of use in this article leads to a DAB, which prominently links to the Wiktionary definition. That entry gives considerable space to the fact that the use of this term can be problematic, and why. If readers are sufficiently interested in gaining a deeper understanding, its only a couple of clicks away. Others may of coarse feel differently. RashersTierney (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


Propose to add hatnote

I believe that the addition of the following hatnote is appropriate to reduce confusion over misinformed readers:

Not to be confused with Romanians, a completely unrelated ethnical group.

Nergaal (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The use of similar 'disclaimers' at the Romanian people article over a year ago was decided against for the same reason this addition will be contested. It is presuming a general ignorance that has yet to be demonstrated. If such confusion actually does exist, then by the same logic a corresponding hatnote should be applied to Romanian people, Romans and a plethora of plausibly similar article names. RashersTierney (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Nergaal, you seem to think that if you propose this often enough the answer will change... Akerbeltz (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a link to when was it decided? If you would really want not want to get proposals like this periodically, you would bother to create a disclaimer similar to those at Talk:Pluto or other controversial pages. And no, it is not the same idea to put hatnotes elsewhere. The only reason this is an issue is because Romani is not a term in common, everyday use (those are usually variations of Gypsy of Zigeuner). And Akerbeltz, please bother reading the responses to my previous proposals before trying to throw subtle personal attacks. Nergaal (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
As for confusions, please read the bottom of this article. Specifically:

The coverage in the Italian and indeed the international media, however, has created the impression that "gypsy" encampments -- and whatever problems for public safety may be associated with them -- are a "specifically" Romanian problem. Indeed, the coverage in the media -- reproducing a confusion that is widespread in Europe -- largely elided the distinction between Roma and Romanians altogether. In fact, even based on the most liberal estimates, only some 5-10 percent of the Romanian population consists of Roma and Roma have long been present throughout continental Europe: in several countries (Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Spain) in a proportion roughly equal to or greater than in Romania. The proliferation of Roma camps points to the difficulties that all European countries, including Italy, have had integrating Roma minorities.

Nergaal (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

All very interesting if ´old hat´. Are you seriously saying that after several days of considered thought, this dated news article is the basis for your proposed hatnote? Your issue in this paragraph of a three year old news report is that the distinction between ethnicity and nationality is not always sufficiently drawn according to this particular journalist. That is an editorial matter; others claim that it is ´´too´´ often made. This question has nothing to do with whether or not our readers require a hatnote to distinguish between ´Romanian people´ and ´Romani people´. As I said before, if it´s desirable here, then by ´´necessity´´ it is also necessary at the other article subject to ´confusion´, namely ´Romanian people´. At the moment I am not in the comfort of my ´home base´, so I hope that you´ll forgive that I don´t take on the requested search of the records, but you´ll find the debate I alluded to above is there, and there was also a contemporary spill over into the ´Romanian people´ article regarding corresponding hatnotes/disclaimers. --RashersTierney (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

hatnotes are for actual disambiguation, not for telling users we think they may possibly be confused or mistaken. --dab (𒁳) 20:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not all Romanies are of a stereotypical dark apperance should this be addressed?

I read the following quote by Félix Colson a French traveller (non Romani) who travelled throughout Romania in the 1839. He quotes "Their skins [Romanies] are hardly brown; some of them are blond and beautiful" as a reference to the romani populatuions diversity even in the Roma groups of the mid-19th century. This was quoted in the following link [[8]] page 218.

Even Romani authors have addressed the diversity found among different groups, such as Ian Hancock's We are the Romani people "Ame sam E Romanie dzene" 2002 [[9]] quoting in the introduction on a light skinned British Romanichal and Roma children; "These two young Romani children, one from Hungary, one from Britain reflect the wide range of physical type among our population." As there is no one standard look for the Romani people and having a diverse ethnic group within Europe and elswhere having lighter fairer skinned groups in Spain, Britain, Scandinavia, olive skinned or lighter looking Spanish Kale or even Roma for that matter as seen by Colson in 1839. Also darker pigmentation of other Roma and even in contrast the darker pigments as seen in the Turkish gypsies etc. The groups are all diverse and all considered Romanies with a physical apperences from blond and fair skinned to a darker look and share a common ancestoral lineage and a similar parallel could be seen in the diverse Jewish groups. Should we adderss this within the Romani people article?Uthican (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.40.32.13, 20 November 2010

please be sensible. the terms you use roma, ramani, etc. are completly fabricated and have no real merrit.

{{edit semi-protected}}


72.40.32.13 (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The term "Roma", although disputed, nevertheless really is used to refer to these people, including by at least some Romani organisations (see this link). "Ramani" does not appear in the article. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Response to this edit by (User talk:72.40.32.13) and the one above (Propose to add hatnote):
It is with interest I read that above comment stating as fact “without citations” the ethnic term Roma, Romany, Romanies is somehow made up. Come on he can’t even spell the term and uses ramani! I’ve seen Romanian nationals on You Tube argue with people about the fabrication of the term Roma(ni) and somehow this is a modern invention which sullies the term Romanian. They can be quite racist at times I have noticed and swear blind the term Romani etc is false. Well on closer inspection the term Romani “Rowmais” is documented in 1505 in Scotland. In fact the Scottish Traveller page says the following:
“Written evidence for the earliest presence of gypsies in Britain more specifically to the Scottish Lowlands can be dated to 1505, in the reign of James IV, when an entry in the Book of the Lord High Treasurer records a payment to Peter Ker of four shillings, to go to the king at Hunthall, to get letters subscribed to the 'King of Rowmais'. Two days after, a payment of twenty pounds was made at the king's command to the messenger of the 'King of Rowmais'.[10][11]”
Really the above argument falls flat on its face and at least in the UK we have called gypsy people as Romanies it’s not made up, fabricated or an invention at all. We are being reasonable and the above editor is being racist. In fact Romania wasnt even called Romania until 1881 before then it was Moldavia and Wallachia etc. Uthican (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on protected page

Could someone do away with all links to gypsy? That's just a disambig page that directs people here to the romani people article. There's even a part on the page that says "Further information: Gypsy", implying there's another article titled "gypsy" with more information. That article doesn't exist, it's just a disambig page. 24.68.241.7 (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure what it is you are asking. I don't see a section "Further information: Gypsy" at gypsy. Dab pages have their uses, and I can't see that many articles that direct to it. RashersTierney (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The origin of "tzigan " and "boratura" is hindu-afghanic

Abu Mansur Sebük Tigin, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seb%C3%BCktigin , former slave and then son-in-law of Alp Tigin was responsable for the creation of Ghaznavid Empire, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghaznavid_Empire , centered in the city of Ghazni(Afganistan,border with Pakistan), spreaded in the period of 963-1187. This empire also has conquered Punjab from where are the "țigani". The traditional relation (call it mythological) between the name "țigan" and slavery is given by the life accounts of this Sebük TIGIN. His son, Mahmud TIGIN Ghaznawi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_of_Ghazni , was responsable for the starting migration of the ancestors of gypsies towards the Byzantine Empire, known in those days as Rum Empire(The eastern "Roman" empire). Tigin=Țigan! It's not a peiorative name given by romanians(people of Romania, the name is derived not only from Rome, who has conquered Dacia in 106 CE but also is the name of southern and northern Danube river thracian tribes called Arimi-versions such as Armini/Erembi/Arami/Arambi/Arimaspi/Arimphaei-centuries before the conquering of Dacia by Roman Empire, dwelling in the today romanian region of Hateg/"Hades" for the ancient greeks). So, the today name given in a "political correct way" to gypsies(rroma/romanes) is in fact a recent forgery.

Also, the name "borât", given by romanians to gypsies, is not considered peiorative but is the original and actual name of India: BHARATA! It is the name of the hinduistic mythological family of the gods, the Bharata dinasty. It does not mean the romanian "borâtură"(puke/vomit), it shows the original land of the gypsies: India/Pakistan. The situation of "țigan" and "borât" names is identical with the one of "bozgor", name given to hungarians by romanians, because "bozgor" means dweller of Bașkiria/Bashkiria, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashkortostan ,region from today Russia, from/through which the ancestors of today hungarians have passed in their migration towards Carpathian mountains. Bigshotnews 15:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs)

Is there a point to this semi-coherent rant? RashersTierney (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is a point in "my rant": wikipedia is saying that "tzigan" is originated in the greek "atinganoi". It's false. You cannot talk about "gipsies" and "romani" if you don't talk about the other versions of their name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs) 16:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The claim is referenced to Fraser, generally considered a reliable source. If you can provide similar RSs for your claims, they will of course be considered. RashersTierney (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Rajko Djuric, Ian Hancock, Marcel Courthiade, these are some of the researchers supporting the "Mahmud Tigin/Ghaznavid" connection with the name. I don't remember a specific paperwork or something similar, maybe someone else can find it. And there some informations provided by chronicler Al'Utbi in "Kitab al-Yamini" from XI century. Bigshotnews 06:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Roma Routes website

There is a new site funded by the European Culture program that might be good in the external links section http://www.romaroutes.eu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazmog (talk • contribs) 15:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

On Romani people and Athinganoi and concerning undoing last revision

disproportionate - broke flow of text - covered at Names of the Romani people, - perhaps could be expanded there

(copied from User talk:RashersTierney) I don't think it's disproportionate; if it were only for Greek etymology, the present text would perhaps be enough.But it also makes sense for the name in many other languages.Greek has both Egyptians and Athinganoi for this people(this is circular and obvious of course cause Greek seems to the origin of both the names).But other languages have predominantly only either one (like english -> gypsies and german -> zigeuner).And it would be helpful for people to know. I don't think that being covered at Names of the Romani people (which in fact isn't fully covered there;what is more covered there is the history of the heresy-cult that initially had the name and so on) suffices.

What I do I agree with is that it indeed breaks the flow and that therefore it should be expanded there or somewhere else in the text by someone better in expressing himself in English than me. Anyway that's my opinion. Will copy this at the article's talk page and let the crowd decide. :)

Thanatos|talk 19:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record this is the diff of my revert. There is already a specific section on Terminology, with Names of the Romani people as the main article. Perhaps the edit in question could, in some shape or form, be included in a brief sub-section here titled 'Terms in other languages', perhaps following the sub-section 'English usage'? RashersTierney (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to make my point,no argument here,just have some time to kill so here it goes :D :I don't know if you native anglophones (or Irish ;)) are aware of it ;) but the en.wikipedia is read by many non natives also :D, due to its sheer volume and due to english being the lingua franca of the age.So,ok common english usage is the right way of doing things,but having references and info once in a while about other languages helps ; sometimes greatly.It might help you english speakers too :).Let me illustrate this by using an example of another wiki page(ok I know in a way it's offtopic but please bear with me).Take a look at this.Look at the present form and then at the one before my edit,differences here.It's not that good looking, I know but: have then, a look at this and this.Do you undestand how things like this (besides the encyclopaedic info-knowledge per se) can be helpful to other people?And perhaps to you too? My view on this: Presenting the seemingly redundant non english-language-centered info (granted it should be expressed in a more eloquent and grammaticaly-syntactically correct way by people much more fluent in english than me (and others)) at the right place is sometimes good and also better,more suitable than having seperate sections and subsections.P.S.Sometimes the info can be relevant to the english usage and language per se:didn't mentioned this there but the french word had also been once upon a time an english word too,see here.P.P.S.I really think adding a sub section for this would be even less attractive than they way I had it written.We would then have to have subsections for each and every non english info in each and every article around...P.P.P.S Are you really satisfied with the present form: "(meaning "untouchable" in Koine Greek: α+θιγγάνω)"??? A.It's not exactly koine greek:It's medieval greek(a descendant of koine).B.Do you speak greek and/or medieval greek? If not what does α+θιγγάνω stand for???? ;) My way(at least there it was stated it's a verb) or RashersTierney' way, this needs clarification and change of form...Thanatos|talk 22:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a practical problem. It's like a page on a plant which grows in South East Asia, it starts out with the English and Latin name, then someone adds the Chinese name to the lead, then someone wants the Japanese and not to be outdone, other people add Vietnamese, Thai, Khmer and Laotian and you end up with a lead that's nothing but a list of names. Unless the Greek example was particularly meaningful to the English lead, it should go in the Names/Etymologies section and not the lead. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
A.The two basic exonyms of these people at least in European indoeuropean languages were first given to them by Greek speaking people using Greek(or Greek made) words-names.These two names are already mentioned in this article.B.English is the de facto lingua franca of the age and the world.The English language wikipedia is massively used by non native anglophones too;I'm one of them. :) So yes English usage is the first priority but not the only one.C.It's an encyclopaedia.I think mentioning additional info doesn't run contrary to an encyclopaedia's rules and raison d'etre.If it's only English then why mention Latin or Greek in the first place? ;-)
I must repeat: The two exonyms that the Greeks gave to the Roma, Aigyptioi-Gyphtoi and Athinganoi-Tsinganoi, are both mentioned in this article.Why not add to this -expressed of course in a more eloquent way- that this has caused in some European language the Roma to be called Gypsies (or something analogous) and in some other European languages to be called Zigeuner (or something analogous)???? Thanatos|talk 13:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Enslaving of Romani people in Bulgaria

The article reads "One of the most enduring persecutions against the Romani people was the enslaving of the Romanies..." and as this is well known about Byzantium, in Bulgaria there has been a law prohibiting any form of slavery long before the Romani came to Europe at all. Hence "it seems the situation was the same in Bulgaria and Serbia" appears to be a claim with no factual grounds that is not backed by any source, and using some logical thinking and some knowledge on Krum's codex, one can prove this claim to be infact not true. If it just "seems" then I don't think it has any place in the article unless some form of evidence for it is provided. It's just that "it seems" is not a phrase that has any place on Wikipedia whatsoever, especially when it makes a claim that is not proven.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.193.171 (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It is the view expressed by the author of the ref'd source . Perhaps this should be made explicit in the article. RashersTierney (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Azis is not representative of romani culture

Please delete Azis as an emblem of romani music, it has nothing to do with our culture; it's really offending, and only a person that is racist and hates romani people will put him as a good representative for a nation of people. It's like me putting Hitler as the most representative of how good white people are and arguing that he was a popular person so it's good to put him as as a representative. Men that dress as women and wear lipstick it's not representative for us, by the contrary.. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Marcu (talk • contribs) 04:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about representing static Romani culture. He's ethnically Romani. It's like including someone on the list because they're Romani and a prime minister of country X. Being prime minister isn't Romani culture either but it's notable.
Your comments, that aside, suggest it's just you who has a problem with him being a drag artist. Which is YOUR problem, not the problem of Wikipedia. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Static romani culture? What is that??? What does this phrase even mean? IS IN THE ROMANI CULTURE TO NOT LIKE DRAGS, you are the one that likes them or are one of them (and that's your problem,if you consider to be a problem, not of romanis as a nation of people) or better yet, maybe you simply want to ridicule romani culture. Being a prime minister is not against romani culture, being a drag yes.From what I know Wikipedia articles should be about romani people,their culture and history and I think you have a problem if you think Azis is representing the romani culture when there are hundreds of other examples of artists that sing real romani music like flamenco. We are as conservative as muslims and what you did with Azis is like posting pr0n with muslim women wearing hijab on wikipedia, just because those women are famous and you like it for whatever reason it doesnt mean is right or represents islam or muslim culture. Understand my point? Or you are a closet racist editor here and you can just write whatever you want using fake invented arguments phrases like "STATIC romani culture"? There is no such thing as a "static culture". (talk)

Oh go away and take your hatred somewhere else. A Romani can be LGBT or drag just as much as a Kenian, Russian or Kayapo. Your personal prejudices have no place on Wikipedia.
Culture, in case it has escaped you, is an ever-changing thing. It does not stand still for anyone. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Akerbeltz on this matter. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. Azis may not be considered representative but he is certainly notable, and the inclusion of the link is not excessive. Please do not ascribe racism to good-faith editors as a motivation for content you would rather not be included for reasons of pride or modesty. The above references to porn are also entirely over-the-top. RashersTierney (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You have a problem with adding an international famous person like Charlie Chaplin as a notable person because he is not full blooded but you have no problem with adding an obscure drag that doesn't even sing real romani music under romani music. I don't see Joaquín Cortés and others under notable cultural romani personalities but I see Azis! Akerbeltz anybody can be whatever he wants to be but this doesn't mean is emblematic of a culture, which for Romani is like religion, it's not a changing culture, it hasn't changed over thousands of years. Like I said, how it would be for me to write under Basque culture as the most emblematic and patriotic people for that culture, name of terrorists and if this is offending please read WP:NOTCENSORED. RashersTierney, Hitler was also a good-faith leader, but for the german nazi people. And my pr0n example is not over the top is exaggerated in order to make a point without using made up phrases like "static culture". Dr.Marcu (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to come up with something better than that, otherwise stop wasting our time. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, it's good, it's good!It's good because it's the truth. If you are racist, ill intended and don't want to change anything, and there are editors in this project that don't understand romani culture, or you are their master that they totally revere... whatever.. then don't change it.I know this makes you very happy in your propaganda "make-fun-of-gypsies on wikipedia because I hate them" life, but me, it's just makes me sad but again you are just a gadje or better said goym, I expected that from you. Sorry for disturbing good people around here.

Dr.Marcu (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Tread carefully. You are judging and accusing people you know next to nothing about and name calling is a poor substitute for an argument anywhere. And that aside, my track record on Romani pages speaks for itself, as do your own prejudiced posts. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I tread how I like to tread, who do you think you are? What are you going to do, ban me for speaking out? So what?!LOL! You are just telling me "Tread carefully!" and gave yourself the defender role of your friends in order to gain their sympathy and win them on your side. That means you are weak and you know I am right. Again, I just don't know how a fat man who is dressing as a woman prostitute and people ridiculize him and sings pop-folk has anything to do with romani music and culture. Anything that I can think of is what I have written. I didn't called names, from my point of view you are both goym\gadje which means the same thing - a stranger, a foreigner ;). I am sorry if you feel offended (not) As about your colleagues I thought that they might not understand the situation correctly and wanted to offer a perspective on the matter then I just rightly supposed that if they didn't take action it means of either they approve of your ill intention or respect you for something that has nothing to do with the case in question and the scope of wikipedia. There is only two reasons somebody would add Azis in the Romani people music section - either making fun of romani people or to demonstrate there are drags in every ethnicity (which is true but not relevant to the article, is only relevant to you and your desires).But since that section of the article is not about you but about romani music which is art NOT POP-FOLK gay drag music I objected, because "IT DOESN'T REPRESENT OUR MUSIC" but your music and lifestyle, so why is he added in the music section of romani music. "Your" meaning again - gadje or goym - nonjew\nonromani which history taught us were always hateful and full of prejudice against jews and rom and the rom always have had a special vulnerable seat until this very day, the widespread propaganda lead by the church (sons of cain, steal babies, etc) to hide the fact that we were killed for gold and that trough history the gadje had killed and persecuted a honest virtuous people. "Refuse schooling for them, block any means of survival so they will go into petty crime so our past propaganda will still live and be strong, we need to get rid of these people and never admit is our fault and our propaganda, and that we are in fact the bad guys, is their fault.. it coudn't be our fault because we are superior and good people" Now, I'm sorry I'm not so much in love with the cunning ways of the gadje to bring hate to the rom and promote a misleading image and I am sorry if the term gadje,payo or goym offends you.

Dr.Marcu (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Any more invective in this vein will be removed without reply as off topic. See the banner at the top of this page and note especially Avoid personal attacks. RashersTierney (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Czech republic

The Czech Republic is home to between 250,000 and 300,000 Roma, who make up the country's second largest minority population after Slovaks. Yet nothing is said in this article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

See Romani people#Post-1945 and Romani people#Contemporary issues, but feel free to add. RashersTierney (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Czech lands and post 1945 migration of Roma people

I miss one important information in the article - the Romani people have underwent relativelly recent movement from Slovakia to Czech Republic. This movement dates back to the post 1945 period and coincides with the expulsion of German speaking minority from so called Sudetenland after the World War II. The empty Sudetenland has been re-populated by people from Slovakia/eastern Europe (see also Expulsions and resettlement after World War II in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland). As a result, the population of Roma people increased rapidly. From estimated 10000 Roma people inhabiting Czech lands before WWII, i.e. less than 0.01% of Czech population, only ca 300 "ethnical" Czech Romani have survived the holocaust, the rest being annihilated (http://romove.radio.cz/en/article/18913), but the population now reaches 200000 or more (i.e., 2-3% population) due to recent immigration from Slovakia. These recent immigrants, living in CZ in their 2th-4th generation have big troubles with incorporating into the majority society (a situation that partly resembles Turks in Germany).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.141.38 (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2011‎ (UTC)

MOVE NECESSARY! Romani->Roma

According to 1971 World Roma Congress, we should call travellers Roma, not Romani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef (talk • contribs) 23:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

1971 was a good year for many things, but life goes on! RashersTierney (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Just last week Dr. Ian Hancock (as "xulaj") apparently had an epiphany of sorts when he read that Doma were being referred to by the politically-correct press as "Roma". He wrote on the Roma-in-America site, on September 18, post number 6068 "I'm also heartily sick of the misapplication of the word "gypsy". We might as well admit that we're not going to get rid of it. Maybe our efforts should be towards getting it ONLY to refer to people of Romani descent, and nobody else." This implies that his movement to apply "Roma" as an umbrella term for all Romanies is in Dr. Hancock's own estimation a floundering if not failed project. I applaud Dr. Hancock after these many years for thinking the matter through at great length and finally reaching the most pragmatic conclusion, which is to empower again the exonym "Gypsy" as an acceptable dictionary denotation for the ethnic Romani. Bullybasha (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

number of speakers of Romani

I really wonder about the stated number of Romani speakers in this article. Two million seem little. The Swedish official institution responsible for languages in Sweden, Språkrådet or Swedish Language Council, state that speakers in Europe alone are estimated to between 14 and 17 millions. http://www.sprakradet.se/GetDoc?meta_id=2332, website in Swedish though. Stajn (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the underestimation. The reference purporting to give a value of 2 million actually states Even the most conservative estimates agree that Romani is spoken by a population of more than 3.5 million people worldwide. BTW, here is your Swedish source translated by Google Translate. RashersTierney (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Roma personalities.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Roma personalities.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

HUGE Mistake about Spanish Inquisition

Please correct the 3rd paragraph of the 'Other Groups' section. It says 'Much of Spain was under Islamic Rule by the Moors until the Spanish Inquisition eradicated the Moors and Islam in the Iberian peninsula by the late 14th and 15th centuries'. Really, Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with ending the Islamic Rule. It should say 'Much of Spain was under Islamic Rule by the Moors until the Christian Kingdoms conquered the territory. The Moors and Islam in the Iberian peninsula were then erradicated along the 14th to 17th centuries' The conquest was done by the Spanish kingdoms. Normally local population was forced to convert to christianity, but it wasn't always so (see Toledo under Alphonse X of Castile, where christians, jews and muslims were together). Later, by 1492 and after all Spain had been conquered, all non-christian (mainly jews) were expelled, and by 17th century some officially christian moors, that had kept the moorish uses (and maybe the religion but under cover?) were expelled (see Morisco). The Spanish Inquisition was the agency which investigated fake conversions and had a big role before the expulsions, but certainly the 'Islamic Rule' was not ended by the Inquisition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.97.76.70 (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Added Religious and Economic Reasons for persecution of gypsies, no reason to revert it back

I added more information in Historial Persecution of romanis. Everything in the content has verifiable historical facts and there is no reason to revert it back RashersTierney.

Dr.Marcu (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is a clear case of playing around with the sources. RashersTierney (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense? Please! There are only two sources: Kenrick, Donald and Grattan Puxon. The Destiny of Europe’s Gypsies. The Columbus Centre Series and Howard Greenfield "Gypsies" New York: Crown, 1977.I just posted different pages where that particular information is on. Why don't you let me write about the horrible things happened to romanis? If I say "World war II started on 1939" why don't you let me post them and call it "playing with the sources"? The books you can probably find them online, go and read them, you will find much more horrible things there than what I wrote. These are historical facts, that are written by historians. And you will find them all over the place, including probably in your countries history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Marcu (talk • contribs) 01:05, 21 October 2011‎
Thanks for the lecture, but your 7.5k edit amounts to synthesis. RashersTierney (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
What you are saying is that this is original research? Yes? Like I said there are many sources (not only one) from historians. Search google books for "gypsy mass murder","gypsy genocide","anti gypsy laws" and you will find many original sources. I did NOT write my own conclusions. Did you even read what I wrote? Please undo the article and follow the wikipedia rules which I followed when I documented for this section.

Dr.Marcu (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

For one thing 'your' edit is in large part cut-and-paste copyvios from various sources. (four random examples here [10],[11], [12], [13] ) It is also disproportionate and full of your own analysis. Instead of casting aspersions on the motives of other editors (in edit summaries) and edit warring to retain this vast change, it would have been more productive, collegial and ultimately more likely to be retained, in part at least, if you had invited comment before presenting this behemoth as a fait accompli. RashersTierney (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok. You try on so many levels that people should not be aware of what the romani people have gone trough.I've been citing pasages from books on the history of gypsies." the King of Denmark decreed that any leader of a Gypsy band was to be sentenced to death." - cannot be a copy paste, it's a historical fact that can be written - example: "Hitler declar war on 1 september" - I will remove the said copy paste, correct it and then publish it again.

Dr.Marcu (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a dedicated article on discrimination against the Romani people at Antiziganism. Whatever you decide to do, it is worth considering not applying 7.5k of material in a single edit in order to allow for discussion and modification if necessary. And again, please stop the accusations of bad faith. It can quickly lead to a block. RashersTierney (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a section here called - Historical Persecution, and this is what I am contributing here. Nobody knows what Antiziganism is, that page is merely visited. I think it's fair to be on the first page. I am not acussing, I am just asking why you don't want this on this page and how come this was overlooked. 900 hundred page of romani history and persecution and you don't want it here.Where should it be if not on a page about romani people under Historical Persecution, just what I did, I presented chronologically the persecutions of what the romani people have been going trough. You menace me with blocking for no reason that trying to expose real historic facts about romani people on a wikipedia page about romani people, how do you not find this out of place? I am not the one who should be blocked. Dr.Marcu (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It clearly states at Romani people#Persecutions that the Main article is Antiziganism. Discrimination against the Romani also redirects there. This is where the phenomenon is dealt with in depth. It is also well linked to on the project. Romani people' is already overly long at 77 KB or 10,627 words -(see WP:SIZERULE). RashersTierney (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 December 2011

The (Romani_population_average_estimate.png) on the article representing Roma distribution on the European continent is innacurate. Roma people represent 2,5% of the Romanian population, and not 8,5% as indicated. The largest minority in this country, are hungarians (7% of the total population)

Romani_population_average_estimate.png file presented in the article, does not reflect the real distribution of the roma people on the European Continent, therefore it should be removed until replaced by a legitimate source.

The chart was prepared in acconcordance with the report edited by "Council of Europe Roma and Travellers Division" as an estimate, not being based on reports provided by the european countries.

Reliable Sources: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/romania/political_profile_en.htm http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/romania/index_en.htm http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/minorities/3_fcnmdocs/PDF_2nd_SR_Romania_en.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Romania http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/romania.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_minority_in_Romania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania

Bidinson (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

why the Dom -> Rom comparisons?

I thought the whole idea that the word Rom had any connection with the word Dom was old hat and totally out dated due to the sheer amount of information now available that proves the two aren't related?

The fact that Rrom means either 'husband' or it refers to a respected and married man of Romani descent which when looking at Indian words we find the Sanskrit rooted word Ram(a) also meaning 'husband'. The fact that Ram(a) also become Raman the same way Rom becomes Roman(o/i/e). The fact that it is no surprise to see that most Indian words when entering into other languages such as European, we find that the vowel often gets confused (Classic example are Panjabi (from Panj = five) can also be spelt as Punjabi, Papadum which is also papal, papad, appalam etc become poppadom in English)

The fact that the Domari speak a three gender language that is closer to Hindi where as Romani speak a two gender language that is from Rajasthani / Panjabi.

The fact that Romani uses Panjabi & Rajsthani words for 'over there / here' which are "othe / Athai" where as Domari uses "Hundar" which is exactly like Hindi "Udhar".

The fact that Romani uses the Panjabi shift of 'bh' to 'ph' as seen in Panjabi uniquely originating words Prahl (from Panjabi 'phra') = brother & phen = sister, where as Domari uses bharos = brother & bhenos = sister which is like Hindi 'bhai' & 'bhen'. Romani uses the word Phuro for old which comes from the word for ancient / elder "Purano". Obviously from the Indian word 'Purana'. Domari use a word that comes from the Hindi word Bhuda (I think Domari is whudar - but can't remember off top of head without looking it up - its definitely of the Hindi root though unlike the Romani word)

The fact that Romani uses the Rajasthani 'o' at the end of masculine words (such as ando - in, lacho - good (from acho), muro - my, kako - uncle, kalo - black etc etc) where as Domari uses the Hindi 'a' (such as mera - my)

The fact that Romani uses the panjabi shift of 'gh' to 'kh' (such as Kher - house (from khar), Khuro - colt etc) where as Domari uses the Hindi 'gh' and 'a' (such as ghora - horse)

The fact that Romani uses the Rajasthani shift of 's' to 'ch' as seen in the Rajasthani word 'chav' for like from Sanskrit 'sv' (sav). sva (sav) in Sanskrit means kinsman / offspring / one's own like the Romani word Chavo. Romani like Rajasthani uses the masculine 'o' instead of 'a' hence it being 'chavo' and not 'chava'. Boy is Rajasthani is choro. Romani also uses Chavoro.

Domari as mentioned uses three genders which suggests a much earlier time of leaving India. The Domari have tales of ancestry that they were brought into the land by the Persian king to be entertainers. This story was also recorded by a famous Persian poet. The fact that both historical written records this account and that the same story survives amongst the Domari themselves suggests strongly that it would have a basis of truth. This means the Domari would have been spread throughout the Persian kingdom at the time of Islam invading. Some Islamic Domari tribes have a tale explaining their lack of wealth to being due to being with the Persian King and opposing Muhammed (Islam).

The Romani however speak a two gender language which points to the Romani leaving India after 1000ad and their language proves they are from the Rajasthani / Panjabi region which putting the facts together. Rajasthan & Panjab came under major invasions shortly after 1000ad. At this time the Domari would have been already established as a part of an Islamic kingdom covering Persia, Afghanistan, the Middle East and parts of North Africa - the same area we find them to this day. Lands we don't find Romani.

How the Romani got to what is now Turkey, nobody knows but evidence suggest a quick and prompt journey. The Persian words found in Romani are not the same as those found in Domari which shows they shared no links with one another. There are no Arabic words found in Romani other than a possible two words which could have been picked up later. The Persian words in Romani are either found in Urdu which suggests they were words also used in India or they are found in languages of eastern Turkey such as Kurdish which suggests that these Persian words could have been absorbed alongside the Greek & Armenian words whilst living in the Byzantine & Armenian lands of what is now Eastern Turkey. Romani we find only in or from Europe. There are no remnants of any Romani people in Islamic countries that would have been on their route out of India. There are only Domari people in these lands = fact!

Why then do we have to keep making comparrisons which have no real evidence other than both come from two completely separate Indian origins? Tsigano (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b The Sansis of Punjab; a Gypsy and De-notified Tribe of Rajput Origin, Maharaja Ranjit Singh- The Most Glorious Sansi, pp 13, By Sher Singh, 1926-, Published by , 1965, Original from the University of Michigan
  2. ^ Tribalism in India, pp 160, By Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya, Edition: illustrated, Published by Vikas, 1978, Original from the University of Michigan
  3. ^ Sociological Bulletin,pp 97, By Indian Sociological Society, Published by Indian Sociological Society., 1952
  4. ^ Indian Librarian edited by Sant Ram Bhatia,pp 220, Published by , 1964 Item notes: v.19-21 1964-67, Original from the University of Michigan
  5. ^ "Two, Ranjit Singh who seemingly got “total ascendancy” in Punjab was not a Jat but a Sansi...", Sangat Singh, MCLEOD AND FENECH AS SCHOLARS ON SIKHISM AND MARTYRDOM, Presented in International Sikh conferences 2000 , www.globalsikhstudies.net
  6. ^ The Sikhs in History, pp 92, By Sangat Singh, Edition: 2, Published by S. Singh, 1995, Original from the University of Michigan
  7. ^ Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society , Page 114, Gypsy Lore Society - 1912
  8. ^ The History of the Panjab, Page 335, Syed Muhamad Latif, Calcutta, Central Press Company, Limited, 1891
  9. ^ Sir Lepel Griffin, Punjab Chiefs, Vol. 1, p 219 "...and from Sansi the Sindhanwalias and the Sansis have a common descent. The Sansis were the theivish and degraded tribe [sic] and the house of Sindhanwalia naturally feeling ashamed of its Sansi name invented a romantic story to account for it. But the relationship between the nobles and the beggars, does not seem the less certain and if history of Maharaja Ranjit Singh is attentively considered it will appear that much his policy and many of his actions had the true Sansi complexion"
  10. ^ http://www.scottishgypsies.co.uk/scotland.html
  11. ^ The Gypsies (the Peoples of Europe Angus Fraser 1995 Wiley-Blackwell; 2 edition
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romani_people/Archive_10&oldid=1137162652"