Talk:Romani people/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Requested move 21 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus not to move. While the arguments in favor of the move were stronger they were not sufficiently strong to overcome the number of editors opposed to the move. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Romani people → Roma people (added 21 June, 19:54 UTC: or Roma (people))– Note that this would also affect pages like Romani people in Romania. This is a request I'm filing on behalf of Ninhursag3, who has done anything but a formal request for this. Their explanation is here. I have no opinion on this as a result of this filing being on behalf of someone else. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose based on Ninhursag3's own explanation that "Roma" is a noun and "Romani" is an adjective. If that's the case, then "Roma people" would be like "Spaniard people" or "Turk people" or "Jew people" or "Kurd people". Largoplazo (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  LilianaUwU Correction: Not Roma people but Roma (people) like Dom (caste), people is in parenthesis as to not confuse it with Rome (ancient city).

  Largoplazo: You couldn't be more wrong about this. Every wikipedia article title for ethnicities has a noun not an adjective, it's Spaniards not Spanish people, Romanians not Romanian people, Italians not Italian people, Bulgarians not Bulgarian people, Hungarians, not Hungarian people, Germans not German people etc Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Your response is really puzzling. You say I couldn't be more wrong—and then list a bunch of examples that are 100% consistent with what I said. It's Spaniards, not Spaniard people, which was exactly my point. "Spaniard" is a noun. "Spanish" is an adjective. "Roma" is a noun. "Romani" is an adjective. Therefore, Spaniard people and Roma people are bad titles. As for your examples after the Spanish one, those are all cases where the adjective and the singular noun are the same, which is a different situation from that of "Spaniard" and "Roma", and I covered that situation in my comments. And, if you read what I wrote again, you'll see that I pointed out that the approach corresponding to those would be to call the article Roma, not Roma people, but that the problem with that is that the page with that title already exists and is a disambiguation page. Largoplazo (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Spaniards is a noun, Roma is a noun, Italians is a noun, Bulgarians is a noun, Hungarians is a noun etc. We need to put Roma, a noun, plural form, not Romani, a feminine adjective, singular form that for some reason people now use as an adjective plural form. Ninhursag3 (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Also not Roma people but Roma (people), as to not be confused with Rome (ancient city). Roma (people) just as is the case with Dom (caste) as to not be confused with Dom (church), Dom (title), Dom (mountain), Dom (film) etc. Ninhursag3 (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Roma (people) would be fine. That isn't the move that's being requested here. So now it seems you oppose the move that's being requested. Largoplazo (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I already talked to LilianaUwU that it should be Roma (people) not Roma people: User talk:LilianaUwU#Request to change the title of the article from "Romani people in Romania" to "Roma in Romania"

  Maybe she forgot how I phrased it exactly, she was a sweetheart nonetheless and helped me make this request, she has taken from her precious time to help me.

  Please @LilianaUwU, if it's not too bothersome, can you please make a new request, this time not for "Roma people" but for "Roma (people)"? If it's not too much of a bother... Ninhursag3 (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, if you want I can adjust it to be either in the original request. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  LilianaUwU, it's not a good idea to revise the wording of the request after people have responded, at least without making that very clear in the wording of the request. See WP:TALK#REVISE on this. I would reconsider your edit, if I were you. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Cordless Larry: is adding the time at which it was added fine enough? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  So after all it has to be done again, this time Roma (people) instead of Roma people? Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  That certainly helps. Thanks! Cordless Larry (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose This topic has already been discussed many times with “Romani people” being the consensus as the WP:COMMONNAME. Renaming the article to Roma would cause a lot of problems as a lot pf Romani groups, namely the Romanichal and Sinti do not identify as Roma and see that as a separate subgroup of the Romani people, hence why in places like Germany and the UK, Roma is listed separately (e.g. Roma and Sinti). Also the gramatical justification is entirely incorrect, as a native speaker of the Romani language, Romani people is perfectly correct grammatically, as Romani is an adjective that describes our people and plus English Wikipedia is based on English grammar. Lastly, the insistence to give undue weight to the Doma theory, that Roma descend from the Dom caste, which is not universally agreed upon is not correct, Wikipedia needs to present all significant viewpoints with due weight. Significant figures in Romani Studies such as Ian Hancock and Yaron Matras have warned against using Roma to describe all Romani people for this very reason. TagaworShah (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Also in the English language Romani can act as both an adjective and a noun, see the wiktionary page for more details.

  https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Romani

  According Dr. Ian Hancock’s glossary of Romani terms published by Oxford University in the American Journal of Comparative Law, “ Romani- The English adjective (sometimes spelled ROMANY) for "Gypsy," thus

  “the Romani people,""the Romani language.” The word is also used by itself to refer to the language and sometimes as a noun to refer to a Romani person.”

  https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/31217/GlossaryRomaniTerms.pdf?sequence=1 TagaworShah (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Also, you and all the people I talked to on wikipedia acknowledged that Roma used as a noun, plural form is correct grammatically, and it also solves the issue of the confusion with Romanians, so what's your argument against this?

  No one could in the past could argue intelligently enough to change from Romani people to Roma (people), but I'm not the people in the past and I can argue on an intellectual level, toe-to-toe with anyone. I know my argument is rock solid. Ninhursag3 (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  One, knocking other editors down for their intellectual level is not a good thing. Two, we are not going to change our name because it sounds to similar to Romanian, that is ultra-nationalist rhetoric from Romanian politicians and a result of anti-Roma racism, plus “Roma” is the capital of Italy too, so that would just create another confusion. Lastly, Romani people is the common name, this was agreed upon from extensive talk page discussion and consensus among editors. TagaworShah (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's why it's gonna be Roma (people) and not just Roma. Also, in English Roma is Rome, so it's not gonna create confusion. Italians use Roma to refer to Roma people anyway.

  I didn't knock other editors down, they might be thousands of time more intelligent than me on other topics but history and etymology is something I think I'm pretty good at. As for "ultra-nationalist rhetoric from Romanian politicians", was I ultra-nationalist? Was I hateful? It's like blaming people that don't agree with Cleopatra in the Netflix documentary being black African, since statues and paintings as well as coins show Cleopatra as having Greek features (and in Roman paintings she has light brown or red hair), she also came from the Ptolemy Greek family.

  Just like Netflix and the producers of the Cleopatra documentary miniseries, you try to falsify history. You can't accuse me of being hateful or insulting or try to shame into agreeing with you. Roma came from Northern India: religious customs, language, phenotype, DNA, culture, traditions all point to Roma as being from Northern India, it's not something insulting that they came from Northern India, it's just reality.

  It's also reality that religious customs, language, phenotype, DNA, culture, traditions all point to Romanians as being South Eastern Europeans, it's nothing insulting to say that.

  In your blind wrath against possible "hateful nationalistic Romanians" you forget one very important thing: you can't deny reality, you can deny we are people too, that we have our history, our tradition, our mythology, our customs. It's not hateful to point out the confusions made between the Roma (Romani as it's on wikipedia) and Romanians.

  Understand I'm not ultra-nationalistic or hateful, or bigoted, I disavow anyy and all bigoted and hateful, xenophobic things said against or about the Roma. I hope you can take my arguments to heart. Ninhursag3 (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  You can't deny we are people too* sorry for the mistake. Ninhursag3 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  And Romanians is Romanian in English not Romani, so they’re different words. That has no relevance to what our name is; Romani people. Our name is not going to change because it inconveniences you that it sounds too similar to your ethnic group, and I didn’t call you an ultra-nationalist, I said that is an ultra-nationalist talking point from politicians, you’re not a politician I presume. I’m not even going to comment on the rest of what you’re saying as Wikipedia is not a forum and you’re rambling off topic. TagaworShah (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I made a short tangent about Cleopatra, I think that was a topical comparison, since it's in the news.

  You're a Sinti though, not a Roma, and like I said the bigger "Romani umbrella term" than encompasses both the Roma and Sinti doesn't exist, Romani is a singular, feminine form adjective, it's not a plural form adjective at its root. The correct umbrella term for both Roma and Sinti is डोम Doma /Dom (caste), or even more expansive दलित Dalit.

  The fact that Ian Hancock, a non-Roma changed Romani from being a singular feminine form adjective to being a plural form, both genders adjective totally contradict your "That has no relevance to what our name is; Romani people. Our name is not going to change" stance. The Roma people that I speak to call themselves Roma, never heard them calling themselves "Romani". Ian Hancock tries to change linguistics by omitting and even erasing the linguistic history of the Roma people, that originally called themselves डोम (Doma), dancers and musicians. From Doma, to Roma, to Ian Hancock's "Romani", is a long way to go.

  The reasons why Romanians call themselves Romanians is that the Roman conquered Dacia in 106 AD (the territory of Romania today) and they Daco-Thraco-Romans began to speak a Roman language (Latin), thus Romanians. From Doma to Romani is a very big change to be sure, so it's puzzling you say "That has no relevance to what our name is; Romani people. Our name is not going to change" when Ian Hancock, a non-Roma, already recently changed Roma to "Romani", so you clearly contradict yourself. Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I have already addressed all of those blatantly incorrect points yet it’s clear you are not listening. I am not Sinti, Ian Hancock IS Romani, and he by absolutely no means did not invent the word Romani, our language is literally called Romani chib, the -ni is a Romani suffix that traces all the way back to Sanskrit, you do not understand our language and you are spreading blatant misinformation about my people. There is no scholarly consensus that we come from Doma, let alone that we were calling ourselves that when we got into Europe, I’ve already told you that is original research and you have yet to provide a source stating that we called ourselves Dom in Europe. Our name is Romani, end of discussion, this is looking to be a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. TagaworShah (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is not about the Romani language but about the Roma ethnicity, that's all. Didn't know Ian Hancock was a Roma, now I see his birth name is Yanko le Redžosko.

  Still, Roma is a correct word, a correct noun for the Romani people. Roma is also more frequently used. Ninhursag3 (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, that's one opinion, btw I wanted Roma (people) not Roma people, since Roma is a noun. Roma is grammatically correct and that's a fact.

  You are biased because you said you are a Sinti and you think you are different from the Roma but are under the bigger "Romani umbrella". The "Romani umbrella" is not a real thing, Romani is a feminine singular adjective form, there therefore masculine singular, masculine plural and feminine plural can't be under this umbrella. Ian Hancock just took the feminine singular adjective "Romani" (as in "Romani girl") and used it carelessly as an adjective plural, both feminine and masculine form. Not thinking how similar "Romani " sounds to "Romanians". Even at the start of the wikipedia Romanians it says "Not to be confused with Romani people", clearly indicating that confusing Romani (people that came from Northern India) and Romanians (Balkan people) is something that happens OFTEN.

  Since Roma (people) is gramatically correct and it stops the confusion with Romanians, why are you so opposed to it? Ninhursag3 (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Why are you asking why TagaworShah is opposed to it? You already know why. You read why they said they're opposed to it. You responded to it. As for accusing someone of bias, it's easy to dismiss someone whose opinion is different from yours as bias just because they have a different perspective from yours. You have a bias here too, right? Be careful of accusing people of bias unless they're communicating falsehoods and propaganda.

  There is merit to TagaworShah's point that we need to take into account what's actually being used in relevant sources. It doesn't matter what some organization decided if there's resistance to it and others in the field are following a different practice. See WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not saying a particular conclusion is being led to here, only that this is a valid consideration.

  As for your repeated comment on how "Romani" is feminine singular, that's irrelevant because we aren't writing in Romani, we're writing in English. In English, the adjective is "Romani" regardless of what noun it's qualifies.

  Finally, "Roma" can be confused with "Rome" or "Romans" just as easily as "Romani" can be confused with "Romanians". Largoplazo (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I didn’t say im Sinto, I said that certain Romani groups such as the Sinti and Romanichal don’t identify as Roma. Ian Hancock did not invent the term Romani, it’s been used by many Romani people, namely the Romani chal for centuries, Romani people in the UK have been using Romani and not Roma for a long time, Ian Hancock did not invent the word Romani, and your comments show a lack of understanding on how the Romani language (which is literally called Romani chib) works, both Romani people and Roma are grammatically correct, however only one of these terms is inclusive of all Romani people and is the common name. TagaworShah (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  No, you said you're a Sinti when we talked about the doma डोम origin of the word Roma and when I added the Doma were from a Dalit caste of dancers and musicians: Dom (caste). Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  By "adding" I mean at the start of the article, since that information was already on the Romani people page, just way below in the wikipedia article. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, I found it, you said it the the context of the name change, not the doma. You said: "Romani groups, namely the Sinti and Romanichal reject the name Roma and see it as a separate subgroup that is part of the Romani people" so that's why I thought you were a Sinti.

  But you also said: "We call ourselves both. Romani is an adjective and Roma is the noun." So you agree with Roma being used as a noun is correct. You also can't deny Roma is way more frequently used. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ian Hancock and Yaron Matras have warned against using Roma to describe all Romani people for this very reason. you do know that on this very article it says, and I quote to the letter:

  colloquially known as the Roma

  I think this is a rather perplexing situation you've pickle-jared us into. 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 17:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think everyone on the discussion thread has missed this most important DETAIL. I do not conceive further comments and my vote is:

   • Support. 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 17:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  That’s why the statement is regarded as colloquial, this has already been discussed and the consensus was to regard “Roma” as colloquial because even though it is technically correct not all Romani people identify with that term. Please read the talk page archives. TagaworShah (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  This thread has become too long for a new user like me (joined in March) and has lead to an inconclusive SPI CheckUser examination with an investigation currently ongoing. I don't want to get involved with the Clerks or ArbCom, so I rest my case there. 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 17:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  If you could send me examples of references from globally recognised sources I may change my mind. 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 17:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  @LilianaUwU:

  @TagaworShah:

  @Ninhursag3:

  多多123 (✉ • ✎) 17:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  I sure did make this situation more complicated than it had any right to be, huh. I would close, but I'm obviously involved at this point, so I can't. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• With that said, I do have an opinion on this, and it's gonna be oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't think there is much for me to say that hasn't already been said, but yeah, consensus seems to have been estabilished in previous discussions already. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, just another point: Romanians call themselves "români" but many using internet don't use diacritics and it's just "romani". That's exactly, letter by letter the same as "Romani" (Roma). So that's already very confusing.

  What do you think about that? Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  While Roma as a noun, plural form is already perfectly grammatically correct. Also, maybe TagaworShah, a Sinti, calls himself "Romani" but all the Roma I talk to call themselves Roma, not Romani. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  I support the points of view of Ninhursag3. All the best to her and to everyone here. I truly hope you will reach consensus as soon as possible! Have an excellent day! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Please write support in bold, I think that's the rule. Thank you so much @Rosenborg BK Fan ^^ Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  OK, I see. Thank you for mentioning this. I support the points of view of Ninhursag3. All the best to everyone. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  No, TagarworShah is not a Sinti, he is of Armenian-Kalderash-Roma background, see he is User page. Horahane (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 07:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, he is not a Sinti. What he said " made me think he is a Sinti: "Romani groups, namely the Sinti and Romanichal reject the name Roma and see it as a separate subgroup that is part of the Romani people". Ninhursag3 (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  In Germany as example no one said Romani, in German language its Sinti and Roma (Sinti und Roma). The word roma is for the people, and romanes is used for the language, but be careful, here in american english wikipedia, people with other minds will be dismissed and call sockpuppet of other users who have the same or similar mind. Also many roma groups call themself gypsy and havent a problem with it. Best example are the muslim roma in dobrudja-romania. They said we are Cingene or Horahane, (Turci tsigani) and speak turkish here a very good article https://www.academia.edu/6998709/The_Muslim_Gypsies_in_Romania Horahane (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 07:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, thank you for the information, so do you agree with the wikipedia title article to be Roma (people)? If you agree please write support in bold letters.

  Also, please take this into consideration: Romanians call themselves "români" but many using internet don't use diacritics and it's just "romani". That's exactly, letter by letter the same as "Romani" (Roma). So that's already very confusing being Romani and Romanian. Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Don't bother taking it into consideration, I've already responded to this twice, and I will once again: This is English Wikipedia. The vast majority of people here know no Romanian. They can't be confused by something they aren't even aware of. And, meanwhile, you flatly discounted the possibility of English speakers, who often do know the Italian name for Rome, confusing the Roma people with Romans. So you contradict yourself. Largoplazo (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  On English wikipedia it says the first words of the Romanians English language article say: "The Romanians (Romanian: români, pronounced [roˈmɨnʲ];"

  So yeah, "români" appears in the English wikipedia article.

  I will say that again, Romanian is an ethnicity, Rome (Roma in Italian) is just a city, it's not a country or an ethnicity. An entire ethnicity should take priority over one single city. Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Also, the confusion is greater between two ethnicities: Romanian and Romani than an ethnicity and a city: Roma (people) and Rome (city). Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  The confusion between Romani and Romanian is not just in English but in most if not all languages, like in Turkish, the Roma user @Horahane said here: Talk:Romani people#Çingene

  "In Turkish the word Roman or Romanlar is also a new thing, started in the 1990's before the word Çingene was in use. yet if you said Roman they thought you are from romania or you are romanian, because in turkish Romen or Romenler is Romanian people, Romanya is Romania, Romence is romanian language, while Romanca, Roman and Romanlar is used for the roma people. This words are too similar. This confused sooo much in turkish language. Compare:

  • Roman and Romen
  • Romanca and Romence
  • Romanlar and Romenler"

  Ninhursag3 (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Sure, Roma people, not romani. romani is the language. This is american english phrase only to call the people as romani, laughable, nonsense. For all who can read or would see the romani language...the term romani to describe the people is not. Its roma, rom, or romalen. By the way many groups call themself Çingene (Gypsy), because Gypsy is not allways a slur as it claimed here in english wikipedia.

  https://cingeneyizenglish.blogspot.com/p/i-am-gypsy.html

  https://www.vice.com/ro/topic/me-sem-rom Horahane (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 07:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  Please write support in bold, thank you so much ^^ Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think that the vast, vast majority of people using English Wikipedia have no idea what the Romanian word for "Romanian" is, so it doesn't matter what the Romanian word for "Romanian" is. We also get along managing with both Slovaks and Slovenes (and the Slovaks get along calling their country Slovensko and their language slovenčina while calling Slovenia Slovinsko and the Slovenian language slovenščina). Largoplazo (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Also, you're fixating on what name we use for the people in article titles. It barely matters because the instant we use the adjectival form in the body of articles, it's going to be "Romani", because that is the adjectival form, and that's the way it's going to be despite any concerns of confusion. Largoplazo (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm fine with the adjectival form in instances like "Romani culture", "Romani language" etc but when used as a noun, Roma is the noun. So like the Roma did that, the Roma migrated, the Roma travelled etc. Are you fine with that? Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  The confusion between Romani and Romanian is not just in English but in most if not all languages, like in Turkish, the Roma user @

  Horahane

  said here:

  Talk:Romani people#Çingene

  "In Turkish the word Roman or Romanlar is also a new thing, started in the 1990's before the word Çingene was in use. yet if you said Roman they thought you are from romania or you are romanian, because in turkish Romen or Romenler is Romanian people, Romanya is Romania, Romence is romanian language, while Romanca, Roman and Romanlar is used for the roma people. This words are too similar. This confused sooo much in turkish language. Compare:

  • Roman and Romen
  • Romanca and Romence
  • Romanlar and Romenler"

  So it's weird you still don't care how similar Romani and Romanian is similar in almost, if not all languages when the perfectly good, grammatically correct noun "Roma" exists. Also, @Horahane said here: User talk:Ninhursag3#TagaworShah

  "In europe, the name romani especially in Germany or the Balkans, for the people is not known at all, We call Roma and the language is romani chib or Romanes. No Roma I know said I am a romani ...this made no sense in romani language. Me sem Rom (I am a Rom). A rom male and romliya is a female and the people are the roma, also Amaro Romalen (We roma). I think this tagarowhsha doesnt speak any word of Romanes."

  Romani languge is "romani chib or Romanes" so Romanes is a perfectly good way to say instead of Romani language.

  Also another noun is Romalen, not just Roma. While the male adjective is "Rom", the female adjective is "Romliya" and no sight of the adjective "Romani" other than "Romani chib" that refers only to the language. Ninhursag3 (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Hey, @LilianaUwU, have you see this? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nalanidil

  @TagaworShah accused me of: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry

  And the verdict said "Inconclusive" that they don't agree that I'm a sockpuppet. I can give dozens of articles I edited: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romanians&action=history

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thracians&action=history

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Hunyadi&action=history

  If I were @TagaworShah right now, I would be very ashamed. He tried to delete my account because he doesn't like the English wikipedia title change. Ninhursag3 (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  I was notified by @

  Horahane

  here:

  User talk:Ninhursag3#TagaworShah

  I think it's a very cowardly move by @TagaworShah done in bad faith. Also: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers Ninhursag3 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  have you seen* sorry for the mistake Ninhursag3 (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  By my count, you have 28 comments (so far) in this discussion, which has only four votes. Everyone clearly understands what your point of view is here; please let the move discussion play out now, and let people have their say. See WP:BLUDGEON. Mathglot (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, sorry for being bothersome. I tried to give new arguments though... Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  I consulted an expert on the Nalanidil socks @RoySmith on his talk page and he advised me to file the SPI because you literally repeat the same exact talking points and behavior that got Nalanidil banned in the first place, you are literally collaborating with them right now, they confessed to being a sock puppet of Nalanidil and you are trying to persuade them to vote support here and using a banned user’s personal opinions as evidence in this discussion, this is not good behavior and you have been warned and notified of the Wikipedia guidelines several times over this past month by me alone, this is not about biting the newcomers, you continue a pattern of disruptive behavior. TagaworShah (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  I can 100% prove I'm my own person and not a sockpuppet account, I have many other different interests than just the Roma/Romani people. I didn't want or plan to be disruptive WP:DISRUPTIVE. I didn't insult and wasn't hateful towards anyone, I was polite and respectful to everyone. I deeply apologize if I bothered anyone, but you also were pretty hostile towards me. Now I understand you thought I was a sockpuppet account of @Nalanidil. I think Nalanidil has potential as a good wikipedia user if she stops personal attacks and stops making sockpuppet accounts.

  You already said Roma is correct as a noun and Romani is very, very close to Romanian, it literally says "Not to be confused with Romani people." at the top of Romanians. Can you please see things my way as well? Ninhursag3 (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This is the English Wikipedia, and article title policy calls for using terms that follow English usage. The argument in favor of changing the title here would be the same as arguing for changing the titles of other articles to Americans people, Italians people, and Brazilians people, and we're not going to do that, and we're not going to change this title either, for the same reason. And we're especially not going to take into consideration what the demonym is in their own language, if it's different from English; that's why our article on "Germans" is called Germans and not "Deutsche". Mathglot (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC) updated per inconclusive search tallies below; by Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Americans people is an adjective, just like Romani people is an adjective. Roma is a noun, plural form just like: Spaniards, Italians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Hungarians etc

  So why don't you agree with Roma, since it's in English as well? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/roma

  "plural Roma ˈrō-mə  or Rom also Roms

  a member of a traditionally itinerant people who originated in northern India and now live chiefly in Europe and in smaller numbers throughout the world". Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's simply not how it works in English. I appreciate your passion for this discussion, and I'm very sorry, but it is evident that your English is not sufficiently proficient to make grammar-based arguments about English usage in this discussion. In addition, as previously noted, please stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, it's preventing others from !voting and making occasional responses. Please let others bring their views to this discussion now; your view about this topic is crystal clear, and does not need further expansion. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - The article should not be moved to a new name based on arguments made by Largoplazo, TagaworShah, and Mathglot. “Romani people” is correct and is the WP:COMMONNAME per consensus. Additionally, the Romanichal and Sinti do not identify as Roma, thus a name change would introduce bias. Netherzone (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Both the Sinti and Romanichal have their own pages so that is a non-issue. What is an issue is that instead of using Roma, Romani is used, which makes people confuse them with Romanians, it even says at the top "Not to be confused with Romani people." Since there is confusion something should be done about it, thus the use of Roma (a noun, plural form) as the title of the article. Most ethnicities/nationalities have a noun, and not an adjective, example: Spaniards, Italians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Hungarians etc

  You are totally ignoring the Romanian issue. Ninhursag3 (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Responded to a behavioral issue at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Ninhursag3, Please STOP bludgeoning the process and let the discussion unfold naturally. Netherzone (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hello. I have not read this long discussion nor do I intend to. Could someone briefly show to me how "Romani people" is more common than "Roma people"? Super Ψ Dro 22:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  In the top results they actually seem to be pretty similar in number. See for example this OR'd search in books containing either term, double quoted, this century. The tally is 18::15 (slightly favoring "Romani people") on the first page of results, but the second page of results tilts strongly the other way. Inconclusive, but maybe more tests could help. Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, it is "Roma people" that appears to be more common in Google Scholar. Compare 18,800 results with 6,860 results of "Romani people". That margin is in fact huge. Super Ψ Dro 06:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus From the previous discussions about this name change, all of which have been extensive and resulted in Romani people as the best compromise, users have pointed out that: “Using inverted commas/quotation marks in a search is much less intuitive than searches without. Roma people returns fewer (864,000),and more ambiguous hits than Romani people (58,200,000).” This is a quote from a previous talk page discussion where the same point you make was brought up, these are old figures but the links still work, I unfortunately can’t see the hits because I’m on mobile but I suspect the difference between the two is still similar. TagaworShah (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Without quotation marks I get 1,340,000 GS results for Roma people [1] and 408,000 GS results for Romani people [2]. I am guessing that results vary depending on the country each person is in. Maybe the insight of more people is needed in this issue. Super Ψ Dro 07:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I've also researched in the archives of this talk page. I am on the 8th archive only and I am already at discussions from 2009. I haven't seen any demonstration of "Romani" being more common up until now in the archives. I really hope the supposed demonstration was not made in 2006 or something. If so it is perfectly okay to dispute the alleged consensus notion after so long.

I am also researching in other places. Google Ngrams shows that "Roma people" surpassed "Romani people" in the mid-1990s [3]. In fact the latter is actively declining in favor of the former in recent years (since 2017). As I see it, that "Romani" is more common appears to simply not be true. I am also unsure as to how the Google Books link provided by Mathglot would favor one title or another. As far as I know, a search using two quoted names and an "OR" would only show sources employing both terms. It doesn't seem useful to me for determining a common name but maybe I've understood it wrong.

With all this it appears to me that "Roma people" is in fact more common than "Romani people and I thus support the move. I would also like to dispute the !votes of TagaworShah, LilianaUwU and Netherzone as they're partially or entirely based on WP:COMMONNAME. Maybe they will be able to show to me Romani is indeed more common. Super Ψ Dro 08:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus I would like to point out that “Roma people” is rarely used in sources, and most of the sources that use it are not from subject-matter experts, the most trusted and reliable sources use either “Romani people” or “Roma” that is because “Roma people” is what is actually not grammatically correct (it’s like saying Jews people), as a native Romani speaker I can tell you that virtually no Romani-led organization, specialty historian or linguist would use that. In fact if you search the link provided you’ll see that the vast majority of sources aren’t actually saying “Roma people” they’re saying “The Roma” or “Roma/Gypsies” followed by “Romani people,” this is why we can’t take these google statistics at face value without taking a closer look and consulting subject-matter experts, I stand by my claim that Romani people is used more commonly in quality sources than the highly incorrect “Roma people.” TagaworShah (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Does "Roma" carry this meaning also in the English language or only in the Romani language? Because it appears authors widely use "Roma people", even in the case that "Romani people" was more common. I've sometimes seen accuracy being sacrificed over the common name. I've seen other more certain examples before and I'll give cite them here if I remember but right now the best I could offer is Muslim conquest of Spain (article includes Portugal as well because, allegedly, "Spain" is the most common way of referring to this event). WP:COMMONNAME simply overrides anything except in extreme cases in which another title would not be appropriate, such as Gypsies which is considered informal or even derogatory as I understand. Further, I do see some usage and advocacy for the name Roma in English-language contexts. See for example this user here [4] but also articles (some already cited above) related to the Romani using "Roma", see Roma Special School, European Roma Information Office, National Agency for the Roma, European Roma Rights Centre. Being used by national and international (EU-level) institutions, it appears to be at least a formal designation for the Romani. It is true however that none of these articles use "Roma" followed by "people". But it is a common designation in Wikipedia with many redirects [5]. And also to note, searches in quotes will only give results including that exact same succession of words. In the quoted searches I cited above there is no risk of "Roma people" not actually being in the source. Super Ψ Dro 08:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus You’re missing the most important part, “Roma” is not the common name for all Romani people, groups like the Sinti and Romanichal do not identify with that term and that is why phrases like “Sinti and Roma” exist throughout Europe and Roma being considered a separate designation from the Romanichal in UK. This why the previous consensus worked, it was built on compromise and Romani people was found as the best compromise. Let’s not be rash and hasty with google searches, as I previously mentioned, top experts in the field of Romani studies have warned against using “Roma” for all Romani people for this very reasons, subject-matter experts should be prioritized or else you’ll have people arguing that Sinti and Romanichal and potentially other groups shouldn’t be included in this article and a whole bunch of other mess. Also, as I said before, notice how those organizations say “Roma” and not “Roma people” we shouldn’t settle for an incorrect and frankly offensive title just because non-specialty sources seem to have recently picked it up. TagaworShah (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Picking up on the example given by Dro, Muslim conquest of Spain (article includes Portugal as well because, allegedly, "Spain" is the most common way of referring to this event). shows that Wikipedia does not care about the minorities, it does talk about them and may even have articles on them, but the article title is most oftenly a major view on the topic. Wikipedia does not have bias towards attempting to "be on the good side" of any one population or group of people, offending a country is not of concern to an encyclopedia, it shows it from a neutral point of view, showing the facts, even if they are offending to a minority or majority. Or else we would be vandalisers. Showing opinion instead of fact. Personal opinion. Wikipedia shows things as they are, and does not make them look good or bad, they are what they are. If you think this is "unrelated" read it again a few times and think on what you've written here. If you still think it's unrelated then your reply on top is also unrelated. 多多123 14:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

多多123 No, that’s incorrect and a false understanding of how Wikipedia naming conventions work. Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) that clearly states:

”How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided.”

It also mentions the precedent on how articles about ethnic groups should be named, Adjectival with "people" is one of them and widely accepted however adding (people) after a plural ethnonym is not and frankly a bit dehumanizing in my opinion. TagaworShah (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, here I was actually quite confusing on how I phrased this, I wasn't actually referring to naming an article with derogatory wording, I was talking about the content of the article being unbiased and if someone has made a offensive comment it still is included on the Wiki, the main point here is about the majority and minority. 多多123 23:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

If we use the word Romani, wouldn't the ones using Roma be left out? There's no way you can get all of them in one title. We have to choose from majority and minority; there's a template which calls for clean-up when an article only talks about minority, wouldn't that be against Wikipedia's standards? 多多123 14:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The map you showed also shows that we should be calling this article Kale instead. Why don't we just change it to Sinti/Romani/Roma/Kale people? 多多123 14:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Romani people refers to all the groups, Roma only refers to a portion of the groups, and the similarity between Romani and Romanian is subjective and not a proper argument for renaming the article, I have already addressed this to you and we have already repeated ourselves enough in this conversation. TagaworShah (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@TagaworShah is correct. Netherzone (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

We have also talked about COMMONNAME and Super Dro showed results of Roma being a more predominant result within the searches. You have also mentioned grammar as being important at the bottom of the discussion, so Romani would be wrong, as Ninhursag3 demonstrated.^{(Many times.)} 多多123 23:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

A quick note, the title is actually being discussed to be moved to Roma (people), this uses Roma by itself and the disambiguation from the redirectory link to the multiple uses of Roma, situated here, Roma. Romani is also quite confusing for me, and probably for others too, as it seems to be related to Romanians; as most often in the English language -ians is added to an individual word, normally from the "root" of the word itself, casually derived from the Latin language group. 多多123 14:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Super Ψ Dro for your support ^^ Also please read the first paragraph of the article: "The Romani, also spelled Romany or Rromani (/ˈroʊməni/, /ˈrɒ-/), colloquially known as the Roma".

"Colloquially" means more commonly used which is true but also it means "informally" which is untrue. Roma is a noun, plural form and is formal, not "informal".

So the whole Roma is colloquial therefore shouldn't be title of the page assumption doesn't stand. Roma is a noun and should be used as a noun when it's needed, not be replaced with an adjective and then a noun like "Romani people". Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

See this map on the difference between saying Romani people and Roma, they are not always interchangeable. That’s why previous editors compromised on saying “colloquially known as Roma” because not all Romani people are known as Roma. Per the article title naming policy wikipedia:PRECISION, Romani people should be used as it is unambiguous as opposed to Roma which is ambiguous on what groups it includes as shown below.

TagaworShah (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Also would like to point out that according to Wikipedia:COMMONNAME: “ Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.”

Reliable sources say that Roma/Roma people is both ambiguous in its scope and “Roma people” is inaccurate grammatically, for all these reasons I stand by my case of common name. TagaworShah (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Quick note, that has been repeated about 5< times, it wouldn't be Roma people, it would be Roma (people). 多多123 14:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

There are two options in this name change discussion, Super Dro was clearly supporting the “Roma people” option so I don’t see the relevance of repeating something that has been repeated over and over again. Also same concerns and it goes against Wikipedia precedent, we don’t say Jews (people), in that case it would just be Roma. TagaworShah (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The relevance is that you said “Roma people” is inaccurate grammatically. 多多123 23:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Roma (people) would be grammatical. Roma people would not be. We should be avoiding parenthesis in titles when able to, so Romani people is the preferred option. What comes to mind is Jews vs. articles like Jewish culture. If Roma only had one meaning than of course that's what we could name the page, but it doesn't, so we can't. TheSavageNorwegian 17:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  I requested @LilianaUwU to change the title to Roma (people) not Roma people. She recently corrected her mistake: Romani people → Roma people (added 21 June, 19:54 UTC: or Roma (people))

  You said Roma (people) is grammatically correct, so do you support Roma (people)? Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Also please read the first paragraph of the article: "The Romani, also spelled Romany or Rromani (/ˈroʊməni/, /ˈrɒ-/), colloquially known as the Roma".

  "Colloquially" means more commonly used which is true but also it means "informally" which is untrue. Roma is a noun, plural form and is formal, not "informal".

  So the whole Roma is colloquial therefore shouldn't be title of the page assumption doesn't stand. Roma is a noun and should be used as a noun when it's needed, not be replaced with an adjective and then a noun like "Romani people". Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  The discussion of whether the lead should read "colloquially known as the Roma" or "also known as the Roma" is a different discussion entirely. Upon reviewing more of this thread I still oppose this move. I don't think we should be using parentheticals in titles if we don't have to, and strong points are made that here on en.wikipedia the name Romani is more accurate and unambiguous to the group than Roma. The argument that it's ungrammatical in languages other than English is irrelevant. TheSavageNorwegian 16:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Ninhursag3 Please stop pinging me. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  A way to do this is using {{no ping}} or just the username on its own without any Wikicode. 多多123 15:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't believe that Roma (people) improves recognizability enough to outweigh the loss in WP:NATURALism that comes with using a parenthetical disambiguator. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. In English, Romani unambiguously refers neither to Romanians (Romanian: români) nor to Romans (Italian/Latin: romani), even though it is spelled the same as those non-English words. It is also entirely irrelevant that romani is feminine in the Romani language; it is gender-neutral in English. With that, I do not see good reason to move to the parenthetical Roma (people), even though Roma is generally synonymous with Romani people. SilverLocust (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need for new sources for estimates

I have noticed this in respect to the data for Romania, but I tnink it might be related to other Coutries estimates.

The source given was https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/roma-eu/roma-equality-inclusion-and-participation-eu-country/romania_en which does give the procentage of 8.32% but the 2022-2027 report does not, it only reports that the number of Roma might be heigher than the official number (the official number is that of the 2011 cesus). The 2015-2020 report does sight a number in respect again to the 2011 census--this on one had would be outdated numbers--but the source for this number is missing. Only in the 2012-2020 report we can see a sorce for the number being given: An EU framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to, which if if looked up, gives the source to a retracted EU commision page.

I have tried to look up for better sorces for an up to date maximum estimate number, but the best I can find is this recent article https://m.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/politica/partida-romilor-acuza-rezultatele-recensamantului-si-spune-ca-300-000-de-romi-nu-au-fost-numarati-2199963 which suggests the official data is down by 300 000, which would mean, I think 4.56%.

2020DiGrande (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@DiGrande It’s not secret that Romania’s census severely undercounts the Romani population in the country. In addition to the 300,000 Roma purposefully left out in this recent census, that figure does not take into account the very high number of Romanians of Roma or mixed Roma descent that do not declare themselves Roma because of the high social stigma associated with being Romani in the country. An official estimate by the EU is the most accurate representation of what the actual Roma population is in the country, not just adding 300,000 to the census numbers, that’s just Wikipedia:Synthesis and goes against wikipedia policy. For an official population estimate to be considered “outdated” you’d have to prove with sources that there has been a significant population shift in the Roma population in Romania that would cause such a drastic shift. The EU estimate is still the most accurate estimate of Romani people in Romania due to the great social stigma and institutionalized racism in the country that was addressed when creating the estimate. TagaworShah (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Look man, I have nothing against putting up an estimated higher value. I am aware, the numbers are most likely higher than the official data for the reasons mentioned by you. But I would like some actual reliable and up to date numbers on it. The source I provided I think it's a temporary fix, it does give an estimate 4.56% and it has an actual organization behind it that did some counting.

Now, EU's Commission's numbers are problematic in multiple ways, for once it uses this in reference to the 2011 census. And on the other hand as I pointed out, it is not clear where they got those numbers since the citation for it is missing or it literarally circles back to the webpage. To not speak it also references the 2005 World Bank study which puts the number at 970, 000, half of what they propose... Really Dubious. So no, it doesn't seem like the Commissions are the best estimates.

Again, I encourage you, if you really are interested, look up for actual studies on the matter with some real counting behind them if there are that do actually give a good estimate and well is reliable, not guess work.

That's what I would like actual data. DiGrande (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@DiGrande The source you provided is not “actual data,” it’s an estimate by Nicolae Păun (politician) of the Roma party saying that he believes that more than 300,000 Roma were left uncounted in the new census, it is not a comprehensive analysis like the one provided by the EU. The EU estimate is the most recent of its kind and the one with the most accuracy and reputation, it’s is undoubtedly a reliable source and it’s actually more recent than most of the other sources for population data in the article, there is no reason why it should not be used in the article. The claim that they don’t use “actual data” is unsubstantiated and not supported by any reliable news source. TagaworShah (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, as I said I do consider it a temporary fix, it's not really data. But tehnically what you said is not the claim is that APRPE (the Association Pro-European Roma Party) has made a paralel counting and they came up with 300k or more; that's what the source claims, if you read more than the title.

On EU Commission's estimates, I think I explained enough in the previous comments why it's actually an incomprehensible Analysis, with well ... numberes pulled out of the air and citing studies that actually give vastly different estimates than it.

If you want, you can remove the roma party's estimates, or add some new ones that atleast say on what they base the estimates--and hopefully in time an actual study will be made and we could cite that--but not the commission's since all it's got going for it is "it's the EU commission, they must be reliable" when under close examination they are not on this matter. DiGrande (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@DiGrande Unreliable according to who? Your own original research? Just because a source seems unreliable to a non-expert does not mean it is, you don’t know or understand their methods of estimation and approximating the Roma population, yes they cite estimates that give different numbers, that is normal, they did their own original research and found this estimate, they are professionals and have a high reputation for accuracy, you’re going to need a lot more than empty accusations to deem this source unreliable. TagaworShah (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

1) Ok, well if they did, as you say, their own research? Where is it published? They don't offer any explanation at all on where exactly they get their numbers.

2) Why do you presume I am a, as you say, a non-expert?

3) No, they are the EU commission, they are a govermental institution not a research one. So, uh, why do you think they have a high reputation for accuracy? DiGrande (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

1) It’s published in their report, they don’t need to give you a step-by-step explanation of their methods for it to be reliable, review the Wikipedia guidelines for what constitutes a reliable source.

2) Wikipedia editors are not experts, doesn’t matter who you are, here you are an editor not an expert, you can’t give your own original research on a topic, it’s not allowed.

3) Because they do, their estimates are widely cited by reliable sources, which by Wikipedia guidelines means a they have a reliable reputation for accuracy. TagaworShah (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

1)Idk if you read the guidelines on reliable sources, but well, the Commissions source fails as a secondary source since... they don't cite a primary source on the numbers given. And it fails as reliable scholarship since the numbers are just pulled out of the air.

2)There is some misunderstanding here, what I've did here wasn't "original research"... I've just checked the sources and saw they are unverifiable.

3)Well so you mean like reliable by association? As in "many other sources from them were reliable, so even if this one cannot be verified, we should let it slide," is that what you mean? DiGrande (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

1) PLENTY of reliable sources do not cite other sources, this is even covered in the guidelines, almost every single reliable news article from places like the New York Times, Washington Post etc. do not have a bibliography, that doesn’t make them unreliable. These numbers are not “pulled out of air” they are an estimate given by experts.

2) You said the source was unverifiable because they were just making numbers up, who are you to make such a claim? Do you have any reliable sources that state the EU commission just makes up their estimates?

3) No, reliable sources citing this source in their work is a measure of its reliability, again that also comes straight from Wikipedia guidelines. TagaworShah (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

1)The numbers used here for statistics, so they should be verifiable; again they are not, you can't know where those numbers came. And well in this case we have nameless "experts," may remind you no source, no expert, no anything is cited behind this numbers, not even of the people writing the report. I am sorry, but you are just asking us to have faith.

2)"Made up" was hiperbaly, yes, uh... what you called "original" research is just checking the source, it either has an empty citation, or it cites back to the webpage. The numbers don't come from anywhere.

All in all, I am not changing my mind on this, I suggest maybe looking for a third opinion. It seems very clear to me why we shouldn't use the Commissions source for the reasons outline here. DiGrande (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

All in all, that's the way verifiability and the assessment of a source's reliability are handled on Wikipedia. If you are opposed to this, if you think that WP:V and WP:RS should require the sources used here to cite their sources or else not be considered reliable here, then the place for you to launch that debate is at the talk page of one of those pages. The talk page of an individual article is not a place for that debate. This is the place for discussions that involve applying the guidelines as they exist. Largoplazo (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What ever happened to WP:COMMONNAME?

WP:COMMONNAME says that topics should be referred to by their common name and the common name like it or not for the Romani is "gypsy". I appreciate that some people use the term gypsy as a slur but some people also use the term "Jew" as a slur that doesn't change the fact that most people, including people meaning no insult to gypsies, use gypsy as the predominate term for this people. Thomas Norren (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

i think this worth discussion too. Especially considering it's use in Britian and North America, where a majority of English speakers are. A reasonable voice (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is pretty clear about this, please read Wikipedia:Namingconventions (ethnicities and tribes) that clearly states:

”How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided.”

The autonym and native name is Romani and that is how we self-identify, and it is commonly used in English without a doubt. It is also well sourced that the word Gypsy is viewed as derogatory so it’s not suitable for the article title and it’s also very ambiguous as there are non-Romani groups that use it as well. TagaworShah (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

As above, see MOS:IDENTITY ("Use specific terminology. For example, it is often more appropriate for people or things from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) to be described as Ethiopian, not carelessly (with the risk of stereotyping) as African."), and the essay Wikipedia:Slurs ("The terms preferred by an individual or group should be used to refer to those individuals and groups when discussing them, except when discussing them being called slurs, in which case the slur may be referred to but not used. Thus "American Indian" is preferable to "Native American", though not a slur, and "Inuit" or "Arctic" is preferable to "Eskimo", a slur.") Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok cool 2600:1005:B1C7:8911:619D:BFB4:C44E:D663 (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Article issues

Sometimes things just creep in: Some issues need resolving to prevent possible reassessment?

This article is assessed B-class but there are what appears to be several issues that someone should check out.

There are two unsourced paragraphs in the Artistic representations section and an unsourced single sentence paragraph in the "Porajmos (Romani Holocaust)" section. The criteria (#1) states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.

The Romani people#Romani subgroups section has unsourced sentences dropped in after a source. This just gives the appearance of an unsourced tag along sentence. "The Other endonyms for Romani include, for example:" (subsection) is a long embedded list with 49 entries. Many are sourced. Many are active links, but several are unsourced.

If a source is just misplaced this would be an easy fix. That may or may not be the case. Any content that does not have an inline citation needs a Reliable source: This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The WP:Verifiability policy requires proof on any material "challenged or is likely to be challenged". This is satisfied by providing an inline citation.

Several citations (I didn't count) appear to be the same source. One such source, Hübshmanová, is used 15 times. The source does not have pages but many paragraphs. It seems to me a paragraph number (count) identification could be used.

The "See also" section is very lengthy having thirty-four links (two removed), three subsections, and I think some can be trimmed. The article has a fairly covered "Persecutions" section, "Historical persecution" subsection (with a main of Anti-Romani sentiment, a "Forced assimilation" subsection, with Main article: Expulsion of Romani people from France, and a "Porajmos (Romani Holocaust)" subsection with Romani Holocaust as a main article. The Contemporary issues also has a Main article: Anti-Romani sentiment § Contemporary antiziganism, and a "Forced repatriation" subsection listing a Main article: Expulsion of Romani people from France

Note: I have not considered that any of these should not be in the article. My point is that the "See also" section has Anti-Romani sentiment, Anti-Hindu sentiment, Anti-Indian sentiment, and near the bottom, Romani Holocaust. It just seems the article is leaning away from "Romani people" and towards a more negative narritive.

I have removed two links that were redundant. Any others that are used in the article do not need to be repeated, and some can likely be used and linked to in the article.

External links: This is a mess. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, has grown to Twenty-four links in six subsections. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links in this section.

The problem is that none are needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
• ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

Some of the links may include ones that are probably not needed, and some that can be included in the article with sources.

Per WP:ELBURDEN I have trimmed excessive links and moved those here for any possible future discussion on what should be included.

Excessive links moved from article:

• "History of the Roma in Czech Republic". CZ: Rommuz. Archived from the original on 28 October 2013.
• Deportation, EU: Romas Inti, archived from the original on 15 December 2013, retrieved 28 October 2013. History of some Roma Europeans
• Gypsies in France, 1566–2011, FYI France, archived from the original on 19 May 2011, retrieved 28 October 2010; The concentration, labor, ghetto camps that the Roma were persecuted in during World War II
• Auschwitz, archived from the original on 6 May 2012, retrieved 28 October 2013.
• "Hodonin", History: Camps, CZ: Holocaus.
• History, CZ: Lety memorial, archived from the original on 26 March 2017, retrieved 28 October 2013.
• "The situation of the Roma in the European Union" (resolution). European Parliament. 28 April 2005. Archived from the original on 26 December 2007..
• "Final report on the human rights situation of the Roma, Sinti and travellers in Europe". The European Commissioner for Human rights (Council of Europe). 15 February 2006..
• Shot in remote areas of the Thar desert in west India, Jaisalmer Ayo: Gateway of the Gypsies on YouTube captures the lives of vanishing nomadic communities who are believed to share common ancestors with the Roma people – released 2004

General information

• "RomArchive" (in English, German, and Romany). — education on the arts and civil rights movements
• "Romani Atlantic". — transcontinental perspective

International organisations

• Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti within the OSCE Area.

Non-governmental organisations

• European Roma Rights Centre.
• The Gypsy Lore Society. Beginning in 1888, the Gypsy Lore Society started to publish a journal that was meant to dispel rumors about their lifestyle.

Museums and libraries

• Museum of Romani Culture (in Czech), Brno, CZ.
• Studii romani (specialized library with archive), Sofia, BG, archived from the original on 21 August 2006, retrieved 21 August 2006.
• Documentation and Cultural Centre of German Sinti and Roma, Heidelberg, DE.
• Ethnographic Museum (in Polish), Tarnów, PL.
• "Who we Were, Who we Are: Kosovo Roma Oral History Collection". March 2004. Archived from the original on 17 May 2017. Retrieved 8 May 2018. The most comprehensive collection of information on Kosovo's Roma in existence.

Internet Visual Media

• Inaugural Romani Studies Conference at UC Berkeley: YouTube
• Florian: YouTube TikTok - Romani YouTuber & TikToker whose material covers Roma culture, history, and civil rights -- Otr500 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hindutva propaganda in article?

although the Indian origin of the Romani people is undeniable, and likewise that Saint Sarah is the syncretization of the Hindu goddess Kali into catholicism, there's a section I take issue with due to how arrogant it seems to me "Saint Sarah is now increasingly being considered as "a Romani Goddess, the Protectress of the Roma" and an "indisputable link with Mother India"" Mother India to me at least seems like a very loaded and nationalistic way to refer to India, and is the main issue I have, and while we know it's a link with India no serious researcher until 100% sure says something is indisputable, it sounds like whoever added this is trying to frame a akhand Bharat narrative or is at minimum a hindutvadi, although a hindutva takeover of English Wikipedia is unlikely to ever happen we must avoid alterations in articles that may tend to a far right nationalist direction, else we get what happened to Croatian Wikipedia that was basically taken over by fascist apologists Dusamatriarch (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

maybe they're just quoting a source tho, if so that should be emphasized to avoid giving the impression of bias, no matter how true the overall point is Dusamatriarch (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The syncretization you suggest might well be correct among the Romani, by I would note that the Saint Sarah mentioned is actually not a Saint of the Catholic Church. Bobby Lawndale (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Romani roots in India

Although the article states that the Romani are from Rajasthan, what I had heard over many years of reading about them is that they are from Punjab. I would like to follow up on this at some point but would invite others who may be more into linguistics to pick up and take it forward. Augnablik (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The citation is basically someone speculating on cultural elements of the Romani people. Modern genetic research points towards a Punjabi origin, but just like anything else, most of us are tired of edit warring and its seriously demoralising to see academic sources being removed all the time by the usual suspects. KamranHassanUK (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a disconnect with this article and the “History of the Romani people” that article states

“Mitochondrial or Y-chromosome haplotype studies provide valuable information, but a limitation of these types of studies is that they each represent only one instantiation of the genealogical process. Autosomal data permits simultaneous analysis of multiple lineages, which can provide novel information about population history. According to a genetic study on autosomal data on Roma the source of South Asian Ancestry in Roma is North-West India. The two populations showing closest relatedness to Roma were Punjabis and Kashmiris which also happen to have the highest West Eurasian related ancestry amongst South Asians.[24] However according to a study on genome-wide data published in 2019 the putative origin of the proto Roma involves a Punjabi group with low levels of West Eurasian ancestry.[25] The classical and mtDNA genetic markers suggested the closest affinity of the Roma with Rajput and Punjabi populations from North-Western India.“

But more importantly they don’t state these at facts just scientific theory on their origins which is very important this article language speaks as if it’s facts and there’s no debate on their origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.112.243 (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

They originate in Haryana and Rajasthan, Haryana is geographically part of the Punjab Plain, so you are technically right. 1Dude345 (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

gypsies Are Jews new research 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Macrodynamics For Religious Origins From Shem and Advance of Hebrews And Future Israelite, Jewish, and Related Groups 2A02:8108:50C0:3A54:B564:9A6E:7E6C:866 (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

One paper on genetic analysis and semantic games by one person whose fields are physics and computational science and whose writing is scattered, sometimes unintelligible (there's a paragraph in there that isn't even a complete sentence) and filled with "may" and "hypothesis" and "it is proposed" isn't a valid basis for anything that might be said in this article. Largoplazo (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

it is stated clearly and unambiguously that it is confirmed. And the source of the Jewish priests is also mentioned. It is also highlighted that the Gypsies, like other peoples, have very high Middle Eastern haplogroups. It is also mentioned that all of these groups with apparently Semitic origins have the right to return to Israel according to certain criteria and can even be Israelite citizens. It is also mentioned in the Romani sentence which letters they are assigned to, which you can see on page 3 at the bottom of what these letters stand for (H,I,JM,C), and you can read this reference in another study. Within the H-M82 haplogroup, an identical 8-microsatellite Y chromo-some haplotype is shared by nearly 30% of Gypsy men, an astonishing degree of preservation of a highly differentiated lineage, previously described only in Jewish priests. The source is also indicated as marked on page 4, footnote 12. Thomas, et. al. 1998. "Origins of Old Testament priests", Nature 394 138-140 2A02:8108:50C0:3A54:B564:9A6E:7E6C:866 (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The Moon is made of cheese and I confirm it. I am stating that clearly and unambiguously. There, it's true, on the strength of one person saying so, even with no one else on the planet, including actual astronomers and geologists, vouching for my finding, let alone any larger consensus. I'm going over to the Moon article and update it with my findings right now.

Besides, neither you nor Lissner seems to understand that Semites include more than Jews. If you think the Israeli Law of Return applies to Semitic peoples in general, you must think that most of the people in the Middle East have the right to settle in Israel. Largoplazo (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

you're talking utter nonsense. First read the research carefully. Apparently you don't understand what the professors are writing to you. And it's not just one institution that's researching everything, but several scientists, which is also stated right at the top of the document who was involved. They have been researching this study for years with other scientists and genetic researchers. Everything in this document has been recorded, from different studies over the years, always on different groups of the world. The genetic database is publicly available to every researcher and scientist. And it is clearly marked in this document which peoples, groups and subgroups the Israelites and Jews belong to who are of Hebrew origin. And it is also marked which group is new and is not identified as originally Hebrew. They only became Israelites through mixing. But the gypsies, like other groups, have been analyzed as originally Hebrew. There are many factors involved, including genetic inheritance, which is where the Romani place is marked in black, which means that the Romani, as described in 3.2 Table 1, have very high numbers of G. J1, J2, R1a, T E1b1b (Y-DNA). This has been confirmed in all Romani studies, which shows that they have very high Middle Eastern/Caucasian ancestry. Only the calculations were all wrong that they took on this haplogroup from India to Europe and stayed in the Middle East/Caucasus for a very long time. But this document refutes this because the Romani already carried the Hebrew, Israeli Jewish from the beginning and then migrated east. They received the female M5a1. But what is also not certain is whether this was in South Asia, Central Asia or West Asia, as the new genetic study from Barcelona confirms, because it is not known where this M5a1 originated 1800 years ago. This study from Barcelona also analyzed that the gypsies inherited their U3 before the M5a1. U3 was inherited approximately 2,100 years ago and M5a1 was acquired approximately 1,500 years ago. Scientists have repeatedly said that the Romani have a complex genetic history and called for further studies to be carried out. That they were a mixed group from the beginning. This has now been proven in this document that I have sent you, through precise genetic analysis as well as other aspects analyzed by various professors. They not only analyzed Romani genetic and other factors, but also all the other peoples that are listed and who was assigned (Extant) and (Defunct). You have to read the document carefully and pay attention to the footnotes. And all of these haplogroups that were mentioned in this document are all Defined All Haplogroup Clades from Y-DNA G, J1,J2, R1a, E3b, T are represented in Hebrew, Israelite, Judean, Jewish and Closest Exogamous Groups. Of Hebrew origin. which has been analyzed and researched for many years in various studies on Jewish, Israelite DNA. The geographical origin and distribution of Y-DNA has also been researched by these various research scholars. These haplogroups are Hebrew, Israelite Jewish haplogroups. And it was also precisely in these documents that a distinction was made between who carried these haplogroups from the beginning and who received the haplogroups through mixed marriages. And with Romani it is indicated that we carried these haplogroups from the beginning. Take a close look at who has the right to return to Israel, it is all in this document. And these people who have researched and analyzed all of this are not just normal students but professors with multiple titles and disciplines. And it was confirmed not only that Romani are Israelites but also have the lineage of Jewish priests. 2A02:3030:A61:3691:D9CD:3CE3:B5A4:A69F (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

And it's not just one institution that's researching everything, but several scientists, which is also stated right at the top of the document who was involved. I'm looking at it, here, and at the top the only name listed is "Jonah Lissner" so you really should be careful about telling other people they're talking utter nonsense. As for the rest, the fact that Lissner wrote stuff, but that you're repeating that stuff at length here, doesn't make it more reliable. Has any of this been peer reviewed? Are his data sound? His methodologies? His analysis? As I illustrated for you, people can write misleading or false information or reach invalid conclusions clearly, so it does no good to keep telling me how clearly things are stated in the paper.

On top of all of this, as I pointed out to you, the paper is full of "may" and "it is proposed" and "hypothetically"—for heaven's sake, even "it is proposed these hypothetically originated ...". The author doesn't see himself as confirming anything. Hypotheses aren't conclusions. Largoplazo (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The paper concerned isn't even published. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? It's official on the internet. It's just new and not yet widespread. 2A02:8108:50C0:3A54:757A:55D8:55D6:C816 (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's just been posted online by the author. It's not published in a scholarly journal. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

what kind of statement is that from you? this professor is an expert and he has examined and evaluated all the studies on the different peoples. This evaluation is in these documents. I really don't know whether they are doing it on purpose, because what they are doing and insinuating is discriminatory and racist. The professor is not telling you a made-up story. Instead, he is describing facts with evidence. Which were evaluated by him and other institutions.

Jonah Lissner 1,2,3,4

1.Alumnus. Fonkzon aboratory. Center for Mathematical Sciences.

2.Technion Invited Scientist. Georgian Mathematical Union

Researcher.

3. Mugur-Schachter Ouantum Mechanics and Information Structures Laboratory

4.Director, Center for Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Physics COSMER].

and all the disciplines required for such analysis and reports were involved in this fact. And it is not without reason that all of the names that Jonah Lissner has given are here. these institutions have done this work otherwise it would not be there. And then Jonah Lissner summarized this document and published the study. Like every other study does.

He is an expert, Professor Lissner is Founder and Director, Center for Computer Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Physics, Invited Scientist, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Computational Intelligence Lab University of Manitoba, Georgian Mathematical Union, Foukzon Group Technion Israel. He has earned 15 Editorial Boards, 45 Academic Conference, Book Chapter, Journal Papers or Resource Citations, 64 Journals Reviewer, 115 research works Single-Author, 105 Committees Technical or Science Advisory.

Skills and Expertise

String Field Theory

Evolutionary Algorithms

Quantum Optics and Quantum Information

Computational Astrophysics

Algebraic Combinatorics

Software Engineering

Applied Geophysics

Computational Thermodynamics

Electrical Power Engineering

Computational Intelligence 2A02:8108:50C0:3A54:757A:55D8:55D6:C816 (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Have you seriously not noticed that none of these has anything to do with genetics or linguistics? Perhaps you could point me to those portions of the paper that draw from his expertise in string theory or quantum optics or thermodynamics. It means nothing to say he's an "expert" unless he's an expert in the field(s) relevant to his writing. Largoplazo (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

all gypsy studies always claim, or "can", "could", "they assume" or "probably". And the professor also mentions the evaluation and confirmation. And in gypsy studies nothing is ever said with 100% certainty, only "it looks like it", "probably", "could" and so on. They mention again and again that they need more volunteer gypsies from the west because they want to conduct further studies to verify the western European ancestry because it has not yet been fully verified. The scientists would like to analyse the western northern gypsies and the Balkan gypsies in the same way. But there are too few samples from the western northern gypsies. Only a few, but not from all groups and countries. The reason is because the western northern gypsies are different from the Balkan gypsies and show considerable distance with a different genetic inheritance. Because the western northern gypsies have M5a1 from 0-12% and 56% U3 and the male J2 more than the H-M82 in the Balkan gypsies. 2A02:8108:50C0:3A54:757A:55D8:55D6:C816 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

all gypsy studies always claim, or "can", "could", "they assume" or "probably".: If that's true, then it follows that all gypsy studies aren't "confirming" anything. You don't seem to know what "confirm" means. Suggesting is not confirming. Getting an impression isn't confirming. Formulating a hypothesis isn't confirming. Assuming isn't confirming. Saying something is probable isn't confirming. Largoplazo (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Just read through all the existing studies on Gypsies and you will see that these expressions are there: "probably," "could speculate," "assumption," and so on. And this professor is not saying anything hypothetical about the groups, but about the dispersion of the Israelites, when it might have occurred. He is not talking about the different peoples who are of Hebrew descent, but about the history of the Jews and Israelites, which of course means the House of Judah and the House of Israel. I don't know if you know this, but for years, different scientists have been trying to trace the Israelites. That's why these different scientists are doing these different studies that have to do with genetics, Jewish history, the Torah, the Talmud and the Tanakh. The greatest scientists in Israel and around the world are involved in this. The open database and the studies have made it possible to verify these groups, which took a very long time, and more studies are still being done. The Gypsies, the most hated and persecuted group in the world, are not listed here for no reason. There are 420 studies on our subject, all of which are accessible. And researchers know perfectly well that our traditions, customs and laws are not compatible with those of old or new India. But all these traditions and laws are found in the Torah. There are hundreds of books and studies about it. Not all of it is unknown; researchers and various institutions know about it. And everyone knows that we have more Middle Eastern/Caucasian genetics than Indian. And everyone knows that they call us Indo-Aryans, Indo-Iranians, Indo-Europeans, and the Indo-Aryans, Indo-Iranians, Indo-Europeans came from different groups that were originally genetically West Eurasian. It is even said that the Indo-Aryans, Indo-Iranians, along with the Indo-Europeans, were the first in West Asia, the Middle East and the Caucasus, for example, the Mitanni Empire. There are many different studies about whether they were the first in India or West Asia. Old Sanskrit was very widespread in West Asia and the Middle East by the Indo-Irish, Aryan and Indo-European peoples. Alongside these Indo-peoples, the Israelites also lived there. That is why Israelite haplogroups are also found in South Asia. The professor took all this into account, just as some genetic studies indicate that we Jews are genetically very close to each other and that our DNA can easily be confused with Jewish DNA. Like, for example, as I mentioned, the 30% of Jewish priestly ancestry. This was mentioned in a 2005 study. Another confirmed that we are in a genetic cluster with Iranian Jews. It is also publicly known that almost all Gypsies have Jewish DNA in varying percentages in a simple DNA test. There are thousands of samples from Gypsies. As well as thousands of private samples from Gypsies who have done a DNA test themselves, and all of these private samples are used for scientific purposes, as it says in the privacy policy. Like Myheritage, for example, which was founded by Israel. And you still get the impression that not everything has been analyzed in the background and studied by scientists. And you name Gypsies, this ignored group, was just written in this document by chance to make a hypothesis. You can't be serious. I know that the document doesn't reveal everything, but it has certain symbols and markings so that you have to read carefully what it means. Because if you just read it quickly, you won't understand much from this document. I'm not surprised either, because this research has listed so many peoples and groups that if you had to describe each group in detail and reveal the genetic connection, you could write a book about the study. It would have to be a book. So the document is kept short with the most important results. Another thing to note about this document is that the Gypsies were also assigned the letters JM. What does JM = Jewish Mitzrachi or most similar. And everything that is said in this document about the Mitzrachi applies to every group listed below that has been given the letter JM. And the Gypsies have this JM task, so you will find a lot more information about the JM Mitzrachi in this document. 2A02:8108:50C0:3A54:757A:55D8:55D6:C816 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Five hundred words to say "Lots of people have been studying this hypothesis" doesn't any further establish that the paper you cited, on it's own without your WP:SYNTHESIS of other papers, has any authority whatsoever. And taking the stance that "when they use lots of waffle words, I understand them to mean 'definite' and 'confirmed'" isn't going to convince me that they're as bad at expressing themselves as you're implying they are.

If what you really intended was to say, "I believe enough research has been done to indicate that the scholarly community largely agrees on a Jewish-Romani connection. Here are my sources. What do you think?" and left it to others to discuss, it would have been more constructive. But to drop one paper by a non-expert in the field here with that non-expert's analysis and with no context, with zero editorial review, and with you falsely claiming that it's supported by a list of names on top when there is no list of names on top, and then to act indignant that someone else doesn't have that context and to fight to the death insisting on why you think it's meaningful based on materials you've read without anyone else having a chance to look at them wasn't very productive, in my opinion, for the reasons I've already given. Largoplazo (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.