User talk:Kenshin

To keep all discussions coherent, I will reply on the same page where messages are left for me.
Please click here to leave me a message on this talk page.

Tarogato

I recently queried some information in the Tarogato page. I wrote my query in the Talk page, and added a comment to the main page pointing to it. I thought that might be the best way to get the issue resolved. Another user, who seems to think he now owns that particular page, simply deleted my comment on the main page, without making any effort to address my query. I've no interest in getting into an edit war. Since you are obviously the tarogato expert here, maybe you'd like to look at it David Peacham (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

See what i have responded on the talk page please! AKoan (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Back on the Block

I know my claim can't be substantiated, but it's surely true :) Gareth E Kegg 20:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

it might be true, but i don't know if the paragraph fits wikipedia. i'm sure you can find a citation with somebody praising q's return :)--AKoan 21:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

cut-and-paste move

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy from Madjid khaladj and paste. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Dancter 18:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't move the article, I deleted the old article because it was basically an advert and created a new one with the correct name. AKoan 20:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. You turned it into a redirect to a new page[1] that used a little of the old content, essentially "moving" it through a cut-and-paste. Preserving contribution history is important for attributing contributions to the right sources, per the GFDL. It doesn't matter much anymore, as the article you created was deleted. I have added a proposed deletion tag to Madjid khaladj, rather than speedy deletion tag, as the old articles differs somewhat from your version. Dancter 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I took a little of the old content, added a little from me, and what was left was the standard wikipedia format. I'm not used with all of wikipedia formalities, but that article does not have much history on it and in the end there should be an article with the "Madjid Khalad" name.

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Romani WikiProject

Salut! I guess this is a somewhat awkward moment to ask this, but:

You are invited to join the Romani WikiProject, an attempt to build and maintain an extensive and neutral database of Romani related articles on Wikipedia. To join, simply add your name to the members section of Romani WikiProject.

Would you like to join? --Kuaichik (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not awkward at all, I'll be glad to join. AKoan (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

La multi ani...

...and Happy Birthday!!! Now let me look for a good cake...:) --Kuaichik (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Multumesc, Vijay:) AKoan (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, where are you going?! I haven't dropped off the cake yet! :-D

Looks like there are only two birthday cakes on Wikipedia, and this is one of them!

--Kuaichik (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, man, that is very kind of you:) AKoan (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems with upload of Image:Pg8.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:Pg8.GIF. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or provided a license tag. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, select the appropriate license tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you can't find a suitable license tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent blockings

Can you be more specific about your decision here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Rezistenta_reported_by_User:Desiphral_.28Result:_24h_.28Re.29.3B_36h_.28De.29.29 Although the user Rezistenta violated the 3RR rule, the user Desiphral was blocked just as well, and for even more time. Can you explain your decision, please. AKoan (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Let ME be more specific, also. Look at these 2 consecutive edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roma_people&diff=next&oldid=221484793

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roma_people&diff=next&oldid=221496078

The second was not a revert, he add a source for his precedent edit. So there were 3 (but not more than 3 reverts). And even if you consider the second edit I presented here a revert, still the first block by the admin PeterSymonds was not legitimate since there were only 3 reverts at that time and no more that 3 as the rule requires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Desiphral#June_2008

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RR

It sais: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts..." AKoan (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the three-revert rule, thank you. "I only reverted three times" is the most common defense in the book. WP:3RR also mentions that the rule is not an "electric fence"; one is not entitled to three reverts per day. Desiphral's previous block, which, by the way, was only for twelve hours (rather than the standard twenty-four), was reviewed by multiple editors and another admin, so I consider it fair. (Even reviewing the evidence myself, I still see the block as fair). Desiphral got off his block by immediately continuing to edit war on two different articles. That is why his block is longer. -- tariqabjotu 14:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a 3RR violation and we all know that. When you have blocked him than it was the first break of the 3RR rule (considering that adding a source was reverting). For this reason I think you should reduce the block to 12 h so that it would be 24 h coupled with the first.

On the other side, I would like to drag your attention to something that is very serious. Some decisions related to Desiphral and the Romani articles seem to be racially biased. You seem to be a reasonable and balanced administrator, for this reason I would like to ask to check the attitude of the users and admin that sustained Desiphral's block towards the Romani people related problems. AKoan (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. If you're going allege that 'racism' is behind this, this conversation is over. Contrary to popular belief, most people are not biased nationalists and couldn't care less about the petty ethnic disputes that occur on and off Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu 10:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought I commented here yesterday, but probably I just gave "show preview" and forgot to save it.

"one is not entitled to three reverts per day" - that is the most common pretext in the book to block a user for braking the 3RR rule, when he didn't really brake it. If you wanna consider his third edit a revert, than it was only when you blocked him the second time, that he really broke that rule. So I think you should have blocked him for only 12 h, so it would have been 24 h together with the first block.

See also the question that I have asked PeterSymonds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeterSymonds#Your_blocking_of_the_user_Desiphral

AKoan (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You're trying to argue a block that has already expired. It's history. The problem for you is that Desiphral's behavior after the block only serves to demonstrate why the block was necessary. He made baseless complaints that Peter was somehow biased against him, placing the blame on the blocker, rather than the blockee (himself, the one who committed the transgression). Further, he still didn't catch the hint from his short, twelve-hour block that edit-warring was not okay, as he proceeded immediately after his block expired to do just that on two articles (calling his opponent's edits 'vandalism' as well). One can only imagine what he would have done had he not been blocked. As I mentioned on Desiphral's page, had I known he was edit- and move-warring on another article as well, his block would have been even longer. So, don't waste your time complaining about a block that is lenient enough already. Desiphral's block is not going to be removed or reduced, but if you need several more admins to tell you this, you are free to take this to WP:ANI. Feel free to reference this comment or this discussion in any future complaint. -- tariqabjotu 10:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the block has expire, the problem is still not resolved. The admin PeterSymonds has friendly relationships with the user Olahus who is known for his strong Romanian nationalist views. And recently he "slapped" 2 members of the "WikiProject Romani people" in suspect conditions. Yes, I was thinking to take this matter to some upper authorities, but I hoped that the problem could be resolved here. And the decision to go higher rest on the answer to the question I have asked: did PeterSymonds make other blocks like the one of the user Desiphral? Than I will know that it wasn't discrimination. I still hope I shall get an answer to this question. AKoan (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Um...

Weasel5i2 already is part of the Romani Wikiproject :) --Kuaichik (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that Weasel5i2 is already part of the Romani Wikiproject, that is why I would like to see him getting involved in our problems. AKoan (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Roma debate

1. Rezistentza does not represent "all Romanian nationalists". 2. As I've said, proper sources will readily cause me to change my opinion. Biruitorul ^Talk 13:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

All the sources that present the Romani branches show that Roma only refers to those from Eastern Europe. There is one right on the AfD entry of the article, haven't you seen it? AKoan (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review

Please feel free to list this at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Tim Vickers (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can explain your decision considering the facts, than it wouldn't be necessary to go there. AKoan (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? Er, well...:-D

Why don't you keep the discussion on a single page so that people can follow it more easily? :) AKoan (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't expect a lot of people to be very concerned with what's on my discussion page? :-D Why, which discussion(s) would you like to see in its/their entirety? --Kuaichik (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, some things might be interesting. And I think will be easies for you too to follow the discussion :) In the and I managed to read the dialog.. in parallel from both pages. AKoan (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Some questions

The inactivity was on his end. When RfCs are brought on a user, there's generally supposed to be a response from them or some outside views; there were neither. As for what to take to mediation, the dispute would be whether the article should be on the Roma people or the Romani people, and whatever else it is that the dispute is encompassing editorially. Wizardman 13:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm.. how about I unarchive it for a couple days and request community input on it to get a better idea of what needs to be done? That should solve any issues. Wizardman 01:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Romanian nationalists

I've actually met him and his sockpuppets before. It's unbelievable how he can keep pushing his POV agenda, and use his sock puppets, and still edit on wikipedia. I'm not an easy pushover though.  :) --Buffer v2 (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Roma reply

In response to your message, the following discussion contained the discussion on the phrasing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roma_people#Where_and_how_many.3F_Cont.27d Lihaas (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Note

I posted a question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romani people#Help needed. Please have a look. Thank you. Sebastian scha. (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Roma people re-started

Please feel free to add your 2¢ worth to this re-started article, since you have argued for keeping its predecessor in an AfD discussion. —Zalktis (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not argued to keep "Roma people" as an article!!! There is a subtle, but very important difference between "Roma" and "Roma people". Please read what I've said here. AKoan (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Plase note that I myself did not re-start the article, nor did I choose the name for it. My suggestion was that the article on the Roma be called Roma (people),[2] following WP practice to distinguish it from Roma (city), etc. —Zalktis (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Roma (people) is a good name! AKoan (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

I answered here to your edit. Personally, I must admit that I feel somehow disappointed about you. Personal attacks have been the last thing I expected from you. Regards, --Olahus (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have answered there why I don't think it's a personal attack. Just so you know, I appreciate you more than I appreciate Rezistenta, but you clearly have a nationalistic agenda. Thats my opinion and I have good reasons for it. AKoan (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a nationalistic agenda, but I know Romania very well.--Olahus (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rom as adjectice

Please undo your revert. You do not seem to appreciate the concept of consensus through discussion. I waited very patiently for your reply to my questions at the talk page which for a long period you simply ignored. Your confrontational approach seems designed to invite edit warring and is very discourteous. RashersTierney (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have answered as fast as I could, please read what I've said, there is no confrontational approach. Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I made that edit yesterday, while you were actively editing and the only reply I got then was from Dahn. I read your answer of today which doesn't address the points I made, specifically to the OED which you cited as your authority for this usage of Rom. If you want to argue the merits of the use of Rom in this way, please do so in the usual manner after returning things to the status quo ante. RashersTierney (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen your edit yesterday. I saw it today, and I answer it right away. Please don't hurry up. I have continued the discussion and explained things properly. Roma is not an adjective (not in the correct English language). Rom and Romani are. I have said why I have used Rom for this article, although I also prefer Romani. So we have right away a consensus on Romani, but lets wait enough for other people to tell their opinion. Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't take it confrontationally cause its not. Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Romani is preferable to Roma as an adjective, but either is considerably preferable to the use of Rom in this context. And thank you again for your revert. RashersTierney (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with Roma over Rom, not at all. Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we at least agree that Romani is the preferred form. RashersTierney (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the form that most people agree with, but some of my co-nationals already consider me anti-Romanian, so I tried to avoid it in this article. It's a delicate situation for me. Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

animated cartoon ≠ animated series

I've rollbacked all the edits you did in relation to changing the term animated series to cartoon due to the long-standing consensus that animated series is the acceptable term for the subject matter involved. Sometimes, you also changed some terms to animated cartoon which is something of a tautology and should be avoided. treelo _radda 10:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As you said animated cartoon ≠ animated series and this is exactly the reason for which I did those modifications, because "animated cartoon" was the most precise in those contexts than "animated series". Besides, all those "animated series" were redirects to "animated cartoon", so I don't understand whats the logic! And where exactly did I left tautologies behind (my English is not great, but I tried to pay attention)? Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The term animated cartoon is a tautology, I know there is an article about it but still seems like a tautology even though I know what the etymology of the word cartoon is, the meaning has changed as far as I'm concerned and no longer represents short form illustrations as a primary meaning. Anyway, consensus is that animated series is correct even though the link should redirect to cartoon series and not animated cartoon, precision or no. treelo _radda 14:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The primary meaning of "cartoon" is still that of a (static) illustration, so "animated cartoon" is not a tautology: [3]. Where exactly was this discussed? Kenshin (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, just mentioning as such as my own opinion, not that it has any push. It wasn't discussed but the fact you changed several articles with the terms to something you didn't discuss yourself probably indicates there's already an accepted consensus where a conversation didn't take place but was agreed to be correct nonetheless. You unilaterally changing so many articles doesn't look good, onus is on you to get consensus and not for others to prove a consensus exists. treelo _radda 11:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So there isn't a real consensus in Wikipedia terms, but a silent one. That is OK, I have started a discussion here: Talk:Animated_cartoon#Cartoon_series_vs_animated_series. Kenshin (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is a distinction. All animated cartoons are animation, but not all animations are cartoons. I've never seen a discussion on this "consensus" either... --Janke | Talk 08:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, now I've started one, to see whats the best terminology. Kenshin (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

HI

I find that the two banners are inappropriate for the following reasons. 1. The article has 37 references which is more than 99% of all articles of the same category (pick random Romania related article of the same size, see how many refs), so an unreferenced is definitely odd. 2. You stuck it on a section where the info is trivial and non controversial. If you want more refs there you should simply find them and put them into the article. 3. The unbalanced and similar templates require that you actively address the issue on the talk page -What do you find problematic -What should be done to fix it -Backing your argument up with sources, wikipedia policies etc. Hobartimus (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, Marian's death is used as a pretext to promote anti-Romani feelings. If his assassins wouldn't be Romani, probably he wouldn't even had the "honor" to have an article here. That fact that it has 37 refs doesn't makes it unbalanced. Kenshin (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone care about Marian? I think it differs from person to person, for example how much research did you do to improve the article how many articles did you read how many sources you added are all somewhat indicative. Also I think your expectations are a bit high if you expect a perfect article to be produced in 10 days. The key here is to improve the article I don't think your banner does that, adding sources and content is the thing that will achieve improvement. Hobartimus (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You answer to a question with a question? Well, then, I'll be honest and I'll tell that Marian's article is not in my priorities. There are articles that are much more important to me, but I don't have the time to work on them. But that doesn't mean that I'll just watch how this article is turned into an anti-Romani manifesto, under the excuse that we didn't had the time. Adding the unbalanced tag was the first step, the next step was that I've called for other people to look at the article. Kenshin (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, very well thanks for your answer, "If his assassins wouldn't be Romani, probably he wouldn't even had the "honor" to have an article here." I think I can help you with that question [4] all you have to do is look at the history and check who started the article it was Jjmihai (talk · contribs) and you can simply ask him if he started the article for that reason or for any other reason. Hobartimus (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:History of the Romani people during World War II

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:

[[Category:Romani history]]
[[Category:People of World War II]]

Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't done any work on Wikimedia, so I doubt I can help you with categories there. --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Romani stuff

Kenshin, you can do the suggested cleanup yourself, you don't need my permission. As regards the moves to "Romany", I'll look into it. Btw, tsigani is an ok romanization of τσιγγάνοι for Modern Greek. You are right of course that for Ancient Greek it would be tsinganoi. In fact it is just how Greeks spell /tsigani/ upon loaning it. It isn't directly derived from ατσίγγανοι within Greek, but loaned back from the Balkans. --dab (𒁳) 09:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find any moves to titles including "Romany" in Olahus' contributions. Please be more specific. --dab (𒁳) 09:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done lots of clean-up lately, when I could. The moves I'm talking about are this ones (they were done some time ago when the "R-word" was of great concern among some Romanian users):

• Balkan Romany language

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balkan_Romany_language&diff=208979075&oldid=208978890

• Baltic Romany language

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baltic_Romany_language&diff=209000820&oldid=198151317

• Serbian Romany language

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbian_Romany_language&diff=208977542&oldid=171850358

• Vlax Romany language

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlax_Romany_language&diff=209003381&oldid=184017581

• Welsh-Romany language

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh-Romany_language&diff=208991182&oldid=179573849 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh-Romany_language&diff=next&oldid=208991577

• Angloromany language

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angloromany_language&diff=208993694&oldid=201839334

• Also, the Albanian-Romany should probably be deleted as it has no base. Kenshin (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Do the Ashkali speak only Albanian? --Olahus (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I know. It is not even sure if they had separated from the Roms. Kenshin (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

I added the Romani knowledges in your balbel. I suppose you're a Romani speaker. If you're not, remove it and excuse me for the change of your userpage. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak Romani, I just have some very basic knowledge of it. I didn't had the time to go more deep into it, thought I wanted to. Next time you wanna modify my userpage please ask me first. Kenshin (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok! Imi cer scuze! --Olahus (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:The Romani population in Romania

The census results from 1930 to 1992 are taken from here. The estimated data from 1886 from here. However, the census data from that time must give a lower number of Roms (see the census results from 1899). The 210,806 "others" included around 100,000 Dobruja Germans, Bulgarians, Turks, Tatars, Csango's/Hungarians, Lipovans etc. I suppose that around 100,000 Roms have been counted, but without a source how should I put it in Wikipedia?--Olahus (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the data before 1900 should be skipped, as I'm not sure how relevant it is and it is quite "fuzzy". Also, the data after 1900 should be discussed in more details, as the censuses obviously do not give the real figures. Kenshin (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The proposals are very good. --Olahus (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much time for editing lately, so if you wanna make those changes please do. Kenshin (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to find time to do it in the next few days. --Olahus (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the paragraph from "Romii din România" is excellent for this as it presents a synthesis of the existent data. Practically it does the job for us. Kenshin (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

But it must be translated ;) --Olahus (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I will translate it. Hope I'll find the time soon. Kenshin (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I inserted the chapter "Demographic history" and added also the time before 1900 because I think that the events around the year 1856 have influenced historically the Roma demography so much that it would be too bad to be not mentioned. For example, around half of the Roma from Bulgaria are "rudari" who crossed the Danube after their liberation. Important rudari communities live also in Serbia, Croatia (Slavonia), Hungary (Southwestern) and Ukraine (Transcarpathia). --Olahus (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is true that many Roms from the neighboring countries come from the Romanian principalities, but this could use a separate section (or sub-section) with proper sources. Kenshin (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bulibasa image

Already left the same message for Olahus. Is it possible for an editor in Romania to access the book in question to see if there is additional info. about this image? Should be easily accessed in any academic library over there. Photo would be a good addition if it could be salvaged and I think the book as a reference could be a good source for several articles. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This book is about the Gabors, a Romani caste from Romania, but I know there was an earlier book with this cover that was referring to all Roms from Romania. I'll keep in mind to search for them, though I have little time this days. As far as I know, the guy from the picture is a Caldarar (Kalderash), not a Gabor, but, from my own experience, I know that it is probable that the Gabors have separated from the Cadarars, so that might explain the photo there. Anyway, I've read some of the articles by Sala that are available online and he seemed to me relative superficial compared to other authors. Kenshin (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kenshin, any luck in tracking down the copyright status of this image? RashersTierney (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

'Leave message here' button

The button above is redirecting your messages to User talk:Ohconfucius. You may need to tweek the code if you did a cut and paste. RashersTierney (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed that for you. Hope you don't mind.RashersTierney (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, I've copied that, but I didn't know that it has to be personalized. Kenshin (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The form from the source

Concerning your question, I ment that this source doesn't use the form "Romani", but "Roma" (or even gypsies, however). --Olahus (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We use the exact form from a source when we use a citation from that source. It is true that not all Roma live in camps, but probably most do. This is not the problem anyway. The problem is that I think that the entire paragraph is irrelevant to the section. Kenshin (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is what I mean: the source uses the desigantion "Roma". However, I believe the paragraph is important because we need as much as possible demographic data. I'm searching now datas about the Rom migrants to other counties (mostly to Spain). --Olahus (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

When we use a citation we reproduce it exactly as it is, in the rest of the cases (in most cases), we adapt it to the Wikipedian context. To bring demographic data on Romanian Roms its ok, but it should be relevant and NOT OR. Basically, to suggest that because some of the 60% of 152.000 Romani immigrants in Italy are from Romania might have significantly affected the number of Roms in Romania its not quite OK. Kenshin (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: I never heared about Anca Parghel to be a Roma. Are you really sure about it? --Olahus (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you never heard that Anca Parghel was a Rom?:) Though, like most successful Roms, she was quiet about it, it wasn't a secret. Kenshin (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I found here that her grandmother was a Roma. Maybe her grandfather too, but it's uncertain. --Olahus (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, towards the end of her life she started to be more open about her Romani origins. She even took part in an edition of "Caravana romilor" and in an exposition dedicated to Romani artists. Kenshin (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Roma/Romani

Hi. I hope I didn't mess up too many. I did use that map and really read both of the pages and tried to link appropriately. J04n(talk page) 14:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No major problems, good luck:) Kenshin (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Călinescu

From an MOS viewpoint, that version was a nightmare; what I've restored is just a stub, but at least more legible. I won't object if you restore the prior version, but do keep that in mind. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose. Style in itself is an objective secondary to good information, but let's hope the style improves - I went ahead and restored the longer version. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My answer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RomanyChaj#Romani_terminology RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Slavery

Hi, Kenshin! I made here a proposal for renaming. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Template

Este intr-adevar ceea ce a scris autorul, dar nu cred ca a fost in vreun fel gresit ceea ce am scris eu. Dimpotriva, cred ca ceea ce am scris eu e mai aproape de realitate. Sau poate ma insel? O zi buna! --Olahus (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Salut! Cred ca forma prezenta este cea mai corecta. Dar singurul care poate raspunde exact la aceasta intrebare este Dbachmann. Kenshin (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Dieter Bachmann nu mi-a lasat impresia ca ar fi un interlocutor echitabil, de aceea prefer sa nu il mai bag in seama. Uite, sursa acelei harti este aceasta pagina. Se vede clar ca estimarile nu au fost facute de Consiliul Europei. --Olahus (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

CE nu a facut estimarile, a facut doar mediile, dar nu asta e problema (sper ca nu pui la indoiala fiabilitatea datelor de pe siteul CE). Problema este daca descrierea hartii propusa de tine este mai buna decat cea pusa de Dbachmann cand a uploadat imaginea, si, fireste, ca nu este. Kenshin (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Este o media a forumului romilor si a calatorilor (care nu sunt neaparat romi) din cadrul Consiliului Europei. Desigur, nu pun la indoiala fiablitatea datelor, insa acea colectie de date a fost alcatuita pentru a stabili numarul de locuri a membrilor din fiecare stat (in fine, si acea colectie de date nu e completa, de ex. la unele state scrie ca nu exista date oficiale, dar iata aici ca acestea chiar exista). Eu am creat chiar o harta mai buna (anume aceasta) care include atat datele oficiale, cat si cele mai mari estimari. De fapt numarul real al romilor in fiecare stat este mai mare decat datele oficiale si mai mic decat estimarile mari (uite de exemplu in cazul Romaniei, unde oficial traiesc 535.000 romi, inoficial pana in 2,5 milioane, dar in realitate 1-1,5 milioane (conf. studiului efectuat de institutul de cercetare a calitatii vietii). Desigur, nu am neglijat deloc colectia de din pagina CE, dar am inclu si si informatii din Ethnologue, ONU, date de recensaminte etc. (vezi in harta in stanga jos de tot). Astept si propuneri de imbunatatire a hartii. O zi buna! --Olahus (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take it step by step:

• if the averages were made by the European Roma and Travellers Forum, doesn't mean that the data include other "travellers" besides Romanis. There is no indication that this might be the case.
• if the averages were made to establish the number of seats at the forum, it doesn't mean that we can't use them in other ways than they did. if you want you can make a map with the number of seats, I don't mind, but I strongly doubt that it would interest anyone. But to use the number of seats instead of the intial data, in order to give an idea of the number of Romanis in each country would constitute a gross discretization with bad results.

About your map:

• while you expressed concerns that the COE map might mix Romani data with other "travellers" (and it doesn't), you have mixed in your map data about Romanis with data about other ethnic groups (Banjara, Dom, etc). Not only that these are not Romanis but the relationship of the Romani people with these ethnic groups is only speculative. The only Indian people with whom the Romanis have (recently) been proven to be related are the Jats. This is, actually, an irony, but its not the time and place to discuss it.
• I have to object to the terminology of the map also, we have discussed this plenty of times, I would hope that by now we wouldn't make this kind of errors.
• I also object to the data about the (official) distribution of Romanis inside particular countries, I think it's highly irrelevant.
• I also think that the graphical way dab presented the data in his map is better than in your map, thou I like more your colors. :)

What I would support: two other maps like the one made by dab (hope that he still has the vector version) with the official data and with the highest estimations.

PS: Am scris in engleza ca s-ar putea sa-i intereseze si pe altii. Toate bune! Kenshin (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mersi pentru raspuns. Iti voi da raspuns in cateva zile ca acum am putin timp si e mult de scris. Oricum, in cele mai multe privinte ai dreptate. --Olahus (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nici-o problema, nici eu nu prea mai am timp de Wikipedia in ultima vreme. Kenshin (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation

See the section "Page style" "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link; including more than one link can confuse the reader." Hope that helps. --PBS (talk) 09:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Great Information on Jatt and Romanies

I knew my ppeople were somehow related to the Gypsies and I had read recent reports but I could not find them. Thanks for finding them and including them. Great Work!--Sikh-history (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Are you a Jatt? Kenshin (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Census

Hi Kenshin. I saw you revert a statement on Roma in Romania re population figures. This same edit has been made across several articles by the same editor and I was considering removing them all as I could not see how the added anything, but if they were 'true', then it might lead to a long drawn out process. Are you saying the figures are not derived from a national census? Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I never heard of such a census and Nomád Terv has a long history of anti-Romani "contributions" so, please if you can, revert that info. Kenshin (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Added source

Hey Kenshin

This is 3swordz, who corresponded with you a few months ago. I decided to incorporate the other source regarding the genetic studies that I showed in the previous discussion. That study, that drew upon larger representative samples of Jats and Roma as opposed to a single family, strongly suggested that the two groups are rather unrelated in terms of male descent, which was the focus of the study.

About your recent source, I do have my doubts about its content, although I am in no position to debate it. This form of glaucoma associated with the Roma (1 in 1250) also occurs in other populations: "estimated at 1:10,000 in Western countries and higher in inbred populations such as those of Saudi Arabia (1:2500), Slovakia Roma (1:1250), Arab Bedouins of the Negro region in Israel (1 of 1200),and Andhra Pradesh in India (1:3300)," and "the incidence of PCG is geographically and ethnically variable." SOURCE: http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:15322984 mutation history of the roma/gypsies. I believe the mention of Andhra Pradesh in Southern India is of note. There are no standout populations in north India, I think due to greater variability (I read in another article), and the Jats don't have this condition at a noteworthy rate, which would also imply that they don't have some kind of monopoly on this gene, which seems somewhat silly to name the gene after them. Some of the other info regarding Roma origins struck me as a little incorrect, but whatever. I did take the liberty of changing the wording from 'confirming' to 'suggesting,' which struck me as especially unscientific, with no actual group studies of PCG prevalence, along with the haplogroup stuff sharply suggesting otherwise.

I pulled some of the y-dna prevalences in different populations from other wiki articles (cited ones), just so you know. I also nixed the subheading due to the contradictory study.

A lot of sources say that Roma language is related to a multitude of Indo-Aryan languages (no surprises there), among them Hindi, rajasthani, Punjabi, Sindhi, etc. I decided to look at some Romani vocab to see if I could see a trend. Most Romani words aren't really recognizable anymore unsurprisingly, but I do think that the language is most related to Hindi; the few words that were immediately recognizable to me were in Hindi, and if anything was in common with Punjabi, it was the same in Hindi as well. An example of this was the Romani word "amaro" (Our), which was more akin to Hindi ("hamara") than to Punjabi ("saadda") The pronunciation of "haath" [long "a" sound] (hand) was the same as Hindi ("Haath", also long "a",) than to Punjabi (huth, or h'th, it is hard to capture the phonolgy, but there is no vowel, let alone extended, in that pronunciation. Languages have a trend to simplify pronunciations/grammar over time but not to add to them. So Romani probably retained the pronunciation)There were other examples, these were among the more striking. It jives, at any rate, with the notion that the Romani originated farther south. Just a few more interesting facts. If the semantics doesn't suit, again, feel free. I do think my source is rather valid, and I will keep yours as well of course.3swordz (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi 3swordz. Thanks for your stopping by, but I have to tell you that I don't much agree with you. First of all, the discovery in the article is not about PCG, but about a specific form of PCG, caused by a specific mutation (the Jatt mutation). After the 2004 study there was another one in 2008 that found that the 'classical mutation' does not fully explain the particular Romani glaucoma (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18537981). It ends with: 'Data on other Mendelian disorders and on the population genetics of the Gypsies suggest that a true founder mutation is likely to exist and has remained undetected. Our analysis of another candidate gene, MYOC, and the GLC3B and GLC3C loci did not provide support for their involvement. The molecular basis of PCG in the Gypsies is thus unresolved, and diagnostic analyses should be extended beyond the E387K mutation'. And now that particular 'Romani mutation' was found, it was the 'Jatt mutation'. I'm pretty sure that those people are not that stupid to make assessments based on a mutation that can be found in many parts of the world and with little representation among Jatts. Also, this mutation was not found in single Romani family, but in many disparate Romani communities.

I know prey much all of the genetic studies made on Romanis and you have to be careful that the study you pointed out only compared the Romani haplotypes with those of some Jatt groups (Jat Sikhs and Jats of Haryana). As you know, there are many Jatt groups that are endogamous and, so, their gene pool might vary quite significantly. There was also a study once that found great genetic similarities between Romanis and Rajputs, while other didn't found.

On the other hand, the Jatt ancestry of the Romani people doesn't exclude other Indian groups (mixed ancestry). But for me, it makes sense, because the Romanis are quite European looking. And, while intermarriages had happened, I think that their looks and diversity is better explained if they are descendants of an already indo-european mixed people (like the Jatts).

I don't particularly mind changing 'confirming' to 'suggesting', although the article uses 'confirming', but I think that the subheading is important, as this is the first time that strong evidence was found to relate the Romanis with a particular Indian group. Kenshin (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kenshin. Some thoughts I have is that the study actually mentioned the discovery in a single Pakistani family, not a Romani one. They were comparing it to Romani populations. The team studied four Pakistani families and isolated it in one. If you have any studies regarding this form of PCG regarding Jatt populations, that would be cool. I was a little thrown by how momentarily the article gleaned over the mutation besides calling it a name. The particular strain, or PCG in general, isn't unduly present in Jatt populations to my knowledge. Jatt Sikhs and Haryans Jats also make up about half of all Jats roughly as well so it's pretty significant, even being "endogamous".

In terms of looks (if you really want to bring that up), Jatts tend to be rather fair skinned actually, either that or a few shades darker. The younger Punjabi populations, Jatts especially in the West (myself included, never got the "farmer's tan," lol) don't really have that "indian" look or how you want to call it; I can tell you out of experience that a lot of Punjabis in general but Jatts in particular are immediately distinguishable from "Indian looking" people, the ones raised here especially, it's quite a vast departure. Perhaps you may have seen some Sikhs (religious or not)like this. Their looks just scream "not indigenous" at any rate. I know that Romani are at least on average 50% European genetically by now (may even become mostly European in due time maybe), but before they started to mix (fairly recently, picked up in the 1800s) they were commented on their darkness of skin and even now some are quite dark and Indian-looking, at least from pictures I have seen and comments made in texts.

I didn't want to get into the whole "looks" thing because it struck me as a bit unresolvable (we could go on all day about looks of Romanis and whatnot) but that is my take on it. The genetics and such showed a large discrepancy, along with my look at the language vocab, as well as the traditions and dances and such, there is little in common, like the dances (the lively spinning dances and skirt style and the presence of distinctly Hindi words/syntax) just don't jive as Punjabi at all, but look like Rajasthani dress and movement. I honestly don't think people can just pick up traditions like [forgive my stereotyping for a sec] fortune-telling, itinerancy, musical entertainment and entertainer class traits, whatever, especially from a settled "warrior past" that strikes as being more self-empowering than factual, like black nationalists claiming Zulu descent or whatever. I am not trying to denegrate them , don;t take it that way, but some things just don't fit at all. I also read of in quite a few articles (for however much this counts) a mannerism of Romani, the "head bobble" or something, where some shakes their heads from a sort of side-to-side to indicate "yes," and I immediately knew what they were talking about, this is a distinct Hindi-speaker trait that I see often; Punjabi speakers don't do this at all (I think the drastically different diction and tone don't allow for it, honestly.)

Here are some more examples of distinctly Hindi or Punjabi words with Romani. They match a lot more with Hindi most of the time. (eng-rom-hnd-pun)

our amaro hamara saadda

boy raklo larka munda

girl rakli larki kuri

hungry bocklo bhuka pukka

good lacho acha changa

five pansh paanch punj

young tarni tarun tardi?

he ov vo o

near pashe pashe nere

children chavorale bache nianne

"-pen" words (very rare in Punjabi, usually in Hindi loanwords)

endings with -o as opposed to -a is a Rajasthani linguistic trait

Only these have more of a resemblance to Punjabi.

brother phral bhai pra

sister phen bhen pen

there adoi yaha othe

BANJARA (per HANCOCK) call outsiders "gujse/gujze" like "Gadje," with no cognate in Punjabi to my knowledge.

Banjara also have stories corroborating their own ranks leaving India 1000 years ago.

Didn't mean to ramble, I have just been learning a lot about Romani as of late, some of which I wanted to share. I'm cool with the new body section, the one thing I would change is the subheading to "Speculative" as there are sharply conflicting studies, at least until more detailed studies come out regarding the mutation's prevalence in subcontinental populations, as I'm sure they will. I just don't think two lines mentioning a Jatt mutation really cuts it with no detail, more should be divulged. Like actual population studies for one. I also think my study and the mention of R1awhich is a quandary which cannot be counted out (R1a is the most common male lineage in northern India, not just Jatts, of which Romani populations have literally none; this is unreconcilable to me) and should be incorporated back in, which was really the most head-on direct study of Jatt/Roma comparison I have come across. Also, the presence of Hindi words kind of contradicts the "origin" in Punjab, unless they dipped back down to Rajasthan before their sojourn. The presence of a few distinct Punjabi (and Dardic, Persian, Slavic, etc) loanwords simply indicates their migration to me.

Notwithstanding, this is a fascinating topic. PS This may warrant a "duh" from you, but are you a Romani? And have you seen the PBS Romani documentary film with Johnny Depp in it? Interesting stuff. Anyway, I will do the heading, fell free to reply.3swordz (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I also have a few images regarding Haplotype H's prevalence, in addition to "Haplogroup H is frequently found among populations of India (approximately 27%[8]), Sri Lanka (approx. 25%[8]), Nepal (approx. 12% in Kathmandu and 6% in Newars[6]), and Pakistan (haplogroup H1-M52 in 4.1% Burusho, 20.5% Kalash, 4.2% Pashtun, 2.5% other Pakistani)[7]." and 47% of Roma lineages is H, with no R1a. PU/PUN=Punjab, GU=Gujarat, etc. here here. In a nutshell: H is extremely scarce in Punjab, R1a is scarce in Romani, no detail of Jatt PCG prevalence (not unduly present, and extremely brief mention with no explained basis for naming), the discovery in only a single Pakistani family (sample size?), cultural/linguistic/genetic affinities farther south, etc. This is my basis for using "speculative," and calling the source under question. (Keep in mind that the new study doesn't necessarily trump the old one; one dealt with common haplogroups and the other with a gene.3swordz (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

3swordz, the methodology of the research id not clear from the article. "one of four" doesn't necessarily mean that they studied four subjects and one was found with that particular mutation. It could be that they studied any number of subjects, and they found the mutation in 25% of them. It also doesn't say how they were chosen, what were they looking and other details. And I think that for us (as we are not even researchers, ourselves) to discuss the methodology is... too much.

The wording seemed ambiguous to me too for a bit, but I eventually chose to interpret it as the tiny 4-family sample. I think that the source of the info was too polished to let a grammar mistake that large pass by. No other sample sixe was indicated, at any rate.

Through history, the Romanis were called dark because they were/are darker then the European population, even if they are not as dark as the "native" Indians. If a group of Jatts (who are at least 50% Indian) would come to Europe today, they would also be considered dark (compared with the Europeans). As far as I saw the Jatts of today are a little bit darker than the Romanis.

Besides, the "dark" aspect of the Romanis was/is exaggerated to enforce the anti-Romani feelings.

On the other hand, as far as I saw, the Rajastan nomads are really to dark as compared with the Romanis.

I don't know about the Romani being only "relatively" darker...Roma congregation very varied looks They now live in a very cloudy region like Europe, but still end up being really quite dark, a fair bit darker than Western raised Jatts. I can tell you some identifying features of Jatts (like surnames) if you think I'm exaggerating. If they're too light to be Rajasthani, remember that we are talking about before they mixed considerably.

When I say that Roma are "50% European," I mean that they literally have 50% recent European genetic contribution according to geneticists(didn't save the link, sorry). I didn't pull the quantity "50%" out of the air, if your usage implied that. As for 50% Indian, Jatts have overwhelmingly R1a lineage on the male side and possibly as much as 60% mtDNA not indigenous to India, but to West Asia. If you can identify Jatts, you might see that they look quite divergent from the "Indian" look. Nothing is hard-and-fast, and Indian ancestry definitely figures in a big way with Jatts, but I might have to see some proof for "50% Indian" (I will try to retrieve my source in that case).

I also said the 2 studies don't necessarily trump each other. But in genetics a "match" is stronger than an "un-match". If you and me have a rare mutation, then a past connection between us is highly probable. And the "un-match" can be easily explained. For example the haplogroup discrepancy. If you look at the Romani lineages history, you will see that some lineage have been much more "successful" than other ant this could highly affect the present day Romani haplotype composition. For example, one single male is the fore-father of almost one third of the today Romani population. If that guy happened to belong to the H haplogroup, that would highly raise the general percentage of this haplogroup in Romani populations. So the present day Romani haplogroup composition could be significant different from that of the proto-Romanis. See also Genetic drift.

I am aware that that scenario is possible. But with the stark lack of Haplogroup H lineages in Punjab, the probability would have been infinitesimal for that scenario. I believe that the leaving population was about 1000 people if I am correct. And the chances of all the males belonging to R1a dying off, with the preservation of only H (amongst R1a, J, M, all the rest of Punjab's haplogroups according to the charts, which all show at greater rates; SOuth India as you may have seen contains the bulk of this H lineage.), would have been tiny as well, if the group descended from Punjab especially, or descendants of southern Punjabi migrants as you suggest:

I also know that the Romani language is closer to the Central Indian languages than to the N-Indian languages, but who can say that in the more than 2000 years of Jatt presence in the subcontinent, before the supposed exodus there hasn't been any movement of Jatts further south. There are nomadic Jatt clans even today, aren't they?

I don't mean to be blunt, but there are no nomadic Jatts. If you are referring to the group in Afghanistan also called Jats, the "peripatetic" Jats are unrelated (again from 1994 Collier's Encyclopedia 24-set article). Really, Punjab has some of the world's most productive soil, there would really be little pressure for itinerancy. And Jatts are found almost exclusively in the Punjab and number few in Rajasthan, mostly on the upper fringes, they never migrated that far south; settlement in Punjab was the aim of many migratory groups over the millenia. The Thar Desert takes up most of Rajasthan exclusively; such uninviting conditions would likely have been a deterrent for such migration.

There are many un-answered question and probably there'll always be. I also feel that an exclusive Jatt ancestry doesn't explain all, but a rare mutation match is to strong evidence of a connection for me to be ignored even if you have you doubts.

It is worth note, to be sure. But I believe that the layout of the situation should also be shown, to show all angles. My last few edits have been drastically minimized, all I ask is a note of rates of R1a in Punjab. And as different studies exist, I thought my title was better suited, but whatever.

I'm not Romani, myself, but I have been very interested in the last years.

That makes two of us!

Do you mean "When the road bends"? I saw it and I liked it, but I liked even better "Latcho drom". Best regards! Kenshin (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I will look into it. Very intriguing topic!.3swordz (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are the darkest Romanis that you can get. And the tan adds, too. A more common look is this one: [5], [6], [7], [8]. These are members of the Cioaba clan, one of the most important Kalderash clans. I chose them because they are very strict about endogamy. The Domaris for example are more Indian looking than the Romanis, although they migrated hundreds of years earlier.

I know how Romanis look and I know how Jatts look. Both people are a mixture of Indian and European blood (that varies from person to person and group to group), but I find the Romanis a little bit lighter than the Jatts. I think that the Jatts are at least 50% Indian because, as far as I know, the migrations into the subcontinent were mostly on the male side. So I assume that right from the second generation they were basically half Indians. This is an assumption as I haven't found any reliable sources on Jatt genetics. Do you have some articles/studies about Jatt genetics?

A lot of groups around the world that stress endogamy (really, I believe most groups do) are already quite mixed genetically. I believe that most Romani groups put emphasis on it, (don't they?), what with the mistrust of outsiders, the refusal to conform to surrounding cultures, the insistence that their group is superior to the outsiders and even that each group believes that they have the most unadulterated culture among the rest, that general assurance and clannishness about themselves, you know. Still, they ended up quite mixed. And the darkest Romani may be considered the most like the original stock (They could only have picked up lighter skin traits, the route they headed.) Again, I'm talking about what they likely looked like originally, not how they look now, we know thay are substantially mixed now. They do get pretty dark even in a cloudy region like Europe, even more than the typical sunburned Jatt. (I'm not sure how much a tan can add a darkening factor to that degree in Europe, especially compared to what Jatts get in India's hot season. But this looks debate can go on all day.)

As for Jatt genetics, the closest I come to that is studies of Punjab state, where Jatts are often the most "European" looking and form a majority there. Non-indiginous mtHaplogroups like Haplogroup U and others spike there, and no where else in India. (I'm thinking that many of the spikes in Punjab state have been created by other factors like the "rearranging" of demographics in the Partition, but it's just a thought.) I'll try to refind the study soon (I ought to bookmark these things). At any rate, if male invaders uniformly took indigenous wives and had half-indians for kids and subsequently bred deeper and deeper into Indian genes, then the current look and genetics for Jatts would be hard to explain; their features are quite unique in the subcontinent. But again, that debate.

Even if R1a is the most frequent haplogroup among Jatts it doesn't mean that all Jatt clans have the same haplogroups ratio. Some might have more, some less, and maybe some none. Even if it is a low probability it is not impossible.

Sure, absolutely. But for the Romani to carry a haplogroup among half their male ranks that is scarce in Punjab (maybe 2% tops?) with no presence of R1a makes it a awfully infinitesimal chance. It's not like they sorted themselves by haplogroup, especially with a commonly-believed party size to be a good 1000 people. R1a ought to register at least a little bit, I'm thinking.

By the way, as far as I red, most of the Indian R1a lineages are probably very old (more than 10.000 years), while only a small amount of lineages are from about 3000-4000 years ago. Probably in the future the R1a haplogroup will be split into 2 distinct haplogroups, one for Northern India and one for Eastern Europe (Slavic mixed populations).

That's another interesting thing I thought about commenting about earlier. The Roma still have no R1a lineage having settled in the one of the few regions (Slavic territories) that exceeds even Punjab in R1a (I believe Ukraine has about 64% of males falling under that haplogroup, for example). If they did, there might have been another debate about which area they picked that up. Pretty interesting how the Romani traveled to only R1a "hotspots," lol.

As for the big split, that will be interesting to see, (well not us personally) although the increased interconnectedness of the world may halt evolution as we know it, and populations are getting very large. (Small populations and isolation make mutations take root, and drives evolution. In an anthropology class I've taken, it's been hinted that the pop. boom may prevent this.) But this is a digression, I apologize.

But I do not understand why do you completely ignore a multi-caste origin for Romanis. Probably the warriors + camp followers theory is the most probable. I didn't heard prof Hanckok saying that 'gujze' means stranger in Lambani, I read in an article by him that it means 'prisoner' in some northern (Rajput) dialects.

It's not so much that I oppose it just so much that I question the evidence for the Jatt connection, and to a lesser extent the motive. I probably won't be satisfied until the details of the study come out (they're bound to soon I hope), the method of study is what interests me, and the clearing up of the "sample" issue. I have a natural aversion to South Asian academics, because much of their work is somewhat shoddy; often, even subject matter aside, opinion is injected often. I'm not saying that this was, I'm not one to accuse, but details are everything to me...

Personally, I do find the multilevel army/party to be very feasible. Just the Jatt angle confuses me. Aside from the fact that I don't think Jatts went on campaigns on quite the scale that Rajputs did, and Jatts operated outside the caste system (they are now placed as high-caste as a practicality (censuses and stuff)) and did not travel as much in such campaigns, makes me doubt their clout to draw such accompanying bands. (Jatts have always been powerful in their own right, especially with the Sikh empire and whatnot, but Rajputs are the "quintissential" Indian warrior group, if you will. The Mughals drew from them almost exclusively among Indian warrior groups when they assembled armies; the British drew from Jatts heavily as well, this of course happening later on without regard to "roles" and such, and just based on martiality. There have been a few Jatt kings ruling over small local kingdoms (in the Punjab always, over the centuries.) I've never heard of "major" Jatt marches being accompanied at any rate; Rajputs have a more decorated history in that regard, with campaigns in general.

I believe the reference was in his book. If I got it wrong I apologize, but I think it's correct.

And the fact that, in Europe, Romanis were mostly services providers doesn't mean that they couldn't have been warriors in the subcontinent. Today their most prevalent occupation is small trading, but that doesn't mean that they are from the Maheshwari caste, for example.

They may well have been, I personally think it's unknowable. But the evidence put forth by Ian Hancock, prominent among those who espouse the theory, is awfully flimsy. His main selling point is that Romani language has its own words indicating settlement and possible martiality like the words for house, horse, weapons, etc., and the terms for manual labor like metal work are loanwords. There could have been several explanations, like "houses and horses and settlements are everywhere and we need to keep this word for them," and their persecution could have kept weapon names a current concept. The fact that the Romani have kept these terms while being itinerant for generations kind of undermines his own theory. Besides the linguistics and the supposed concurrent raids of the Turko-Afghan conqueror Mahmud of Ghazni coinciding with the time of Romani departure, he doesn't have much. Were the Romani POWs? Were they simply taken as slaves? Did they move of their own accord? I don't think we can ever come close to knowing now, and choosing "warriors" just seems like empowerment to me, as much as the Romani may need that.

I am very open to any possibly, I have no preferences. Some weeks ago when we spoke, I told you that I also believe in a Central Indian, low caste origin for the Romanis, but now that this discovery (the "Jatt mutation") came out, I have to include it in the equation. Very intriguing topic, indeed!:)

I agree, it is definitely worthy of note, I don't deny that at all. But to me, that is what it should be -- a note. The article from which the theory came from was itself brief on the matter (barely a sentence or two) and I'm seeing Connection h2's everywhere. I just think that it should be given as much weight as the source article would let it (not much yet) and if a subheading is absolutely necessary and it can't fit with the general paragraph, the reality on the ground/other viewpoints should be introduced alongside it, that's all.

By the way, are you a Jatt? From your signature I suppose that you are a Sikh. Kenshin (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I suppose my pre-emptive "duh" was unwarranted after all since you aren't Romani, lol.3swordz (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't know actually how mixed are the Romanis with the Europeans and when exactly this mixage happened. And coming back to probabilities, is hard to believe that the Romanis mixed with Europeans in some hundreds of years more than the Jatts mixed with the "native" Indians in 3500 years, especially considering that the cultural distance between Romanis and Europeans is greater than the one between Jatts and other Indian groups.

Considering the general Jatt look, they maybe whiter than "pure" Indians, but for me, as European, they are still brownish on the average. And, if a group of Jatts would come to Romania today and, for some reason, they would have some conflict with Romanians, you can be sure that they would receive the "fucking crows" tag.

The skin color comparisons I've made were between "dressed" Romanis and "dressed" Jatts, I haven't seen farmer Jatts. And my general impression is that on the average Romanis are a little lighter than Jatts.

Yes, I have also thought about this aspect of the Romani haplogroups, the absence of R1a, even if they traveled almost exclusively in R1a areas. This would rather support a reduce mixage with other peoples. Even if they would assimilate more women than men, it is still very improbable that they wouldn't have acquired some R1a lineages. So, the Romani genetics puzzle is even more complicated :)

Indeed, small human groups evolute faster because the new genes/mutations spread faster the smaller the group is. (That was my digression :) )

About the reliability of the study, I don't know about South Asian academics, but the study was done at the University of Leeds which is a very respected university. But I also hope to hear some more details to clarify things.

The Romanis were not that itinerant. There have been only a couple of important migration in their history, triggered by some events (usually violent events). Other than that, the Romanis of Romania have been here for hundreds of years, the Romanis of Germany (the Sinti) or the Romanis of Spain (Iberian Kalos), just the same. I thing that their nomadism is exaggerated just like their darkness.

I do agree that the other genetic findings should be put into it, I trimmed the paragraph not to undermine those other aspects, but because I think that details aren't needed. I think it's enough to say that the Romani haplogroups don't match the Jatt ones, but I don't think that supplemental details about those haplogroups help. Especially since the article is already to large.

It has been a nice discussion:) Kenshin (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Gipsy entertainment music

Just send it to WP:RFD; there are instructions there for listing redirects. I'm thinking of taking a wikibreak (back to university soon) so I don't have time to nurse it through myself. Ironholds (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Kenshin (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

removal of merge tag

Hello. You removed a merge tag [9] without discussion. It would be better to take it to the talk page so that other editors can discuss it. —Sandahl (♀) 02:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking you are right, but I am an old editor on Romani issues and I know that in this particularly case the chances for somebody to respond are virtually zero. Kenshin (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised to see the merge proposal. I think the subject is of sufficient importance/interest to merit its own article. I would very much like to see it expanded (and though not intimately informed on the subject); I do have some texts that may be of use as sources. RashersTierney (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree! Kenshin (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the chances are slim that the discussion will draw much attention especially here. Suggest we move the discussion there. —Sandahl (♀) 14:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pann

Atunci, te rog, nu ezita sa adaugi asta ca sursa suplimentara si sa reformulezi portiunea din text dupa cum crezi necesar. Personal, as tinde catre o abordare de genul aleia din sursa Antohi: "origine disputata, plauzibil roma". Cu atat mai mult de vreme ce, oricat de mult am cadea de acord ca acele surse traditionale care omit sau exclud originea roma a lui Pann sunt de rea credinta, ele exista si sunt in general considerate la fel de respectabile. Pastrez aceeasi rezerva si in ce priveste schimbarea categoriei: Pann este foarte relevant pentru istoria romilor romani (fie si doar ca folclorist al culturii romanes), si exista un temei mai mult sau mai putin solid pentru revendicarea lui ca membru al etniei, dar nu putem sa driblam celelalte perspective asupra originii lui.

Stiu si ca argumentul asta al meu are o aparenta doza de filistinism, dar mi-e teama ca nu putem lucra decat cu asemenea certitudini in asemenea dispute... Dahn (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Florin Niculescu

The article Florin Niculescu has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Doina article: word "degenerated"

I have just cleaned up the English in the article on the doina. One thing I changed was the content contributed by you which says the new popular music has "degenerated" the peasant styles. I have substituted "diluted" but I'm not sure I have captured your meaning. Did you mean that the peasant styles have degenerated or that knowledge of the peasant styles has degenerated, or both?

Kemp231252 (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Bernard Kemp (kemp231252)

Source of data for this picture

Hello,

where did you take the data for this picture - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Romanis-historical-distribution.png ? I am trying to verify it, and I think verifying the picture will add to the verifiability of other Romani-related pages, since I could use the same source for more wikipedia articles...

--- Ɍưɳŋınɢ 21:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ionică Minune

The article Ionică Minune has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Melmann 22:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Ionică Minune for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ionică Minune is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ionică Minune until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Cupper52 (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)