Talk:Romani people/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Archives

For older discussion, see Talk:Roma people/Archive index

Ancient Gyptian City... Which?

צוענים Is isad to be the Hebrew word for Roma... But... Why? 'Cause, so it claims, it correspodns to a verb (whcih is shown there) and an Ancient Egyptian City... But which city? Gaza City? It aint even in Egypt, but who knows, it might have been within the Gyptian Empire...Undead Herle King (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC) {{Unanswered}}

Request for move

I see that this page was blocked for moving after it was changed from Romani people to Roma people, without discussing first, only with a fallacious reason. Hereby, I create this place for discussion, as a preliminary step for requesting the restoring of the Romani people entry name.

I have to say that I find unacceptable the way this move was supported by the Wikipedia community for some months, while the very first phrase of the entry says that:

The Roma (as a noun, singular Rom, plural Roma; sometimes Rrom, Rroma, Rromany people, Romany people, Romani people or Romanies) belong to many ethnic groups that appear in literature and folklore, and are often referred to as Gypsies or Gipsies.

This makes clear that it is either Roma (as a noun, plural) or Romani people (as an adjective). Plus, more important, this article is about all the Romanies, not only the Roma. Some sources attesting that only a part of the Romanies describe themselves as Roma:

• Hancock, Ian, 2001, Ame sam e rromane džene / We are the Romani People, The Open Society Institute, New York

Citing from page 2:

Thus the Sinti, for example, or the Romanichals or the Manush use the word Rom only with this narrower meaning of husband, and not as a self-description of the entire group. On the other hand, all groups use the adjective Romani to describe themselves. A Sinto or a Romanichal will readily admit to being a Romani person, to speaking a Romani language, and maintaining a Romani culture.

• Matras, Yaron, Romani: A linguistic introduction, Cambridge University Press, 2002, page 5:

There are several types of group names in Romani. A number of groups simply refer to themselves as rom, or use other specific ethnic designations like romaničel, kale, manuš, sinte.

• Fraser, Angus, 1995, The Gypsies, Blackwell, Oxford, on page 292:

A Sinto may use Roma to refer to any Gypsies of east European extraction, or, indeed, any Gypsies who are not Roma, while the Roma, on their turn, may just expansively refer to all western European Gypsies as Sinti.

• [www.ceeol.com/aspx/getdocument.aspx?logid=5&id=c413cec2-b415-422a-ab5e-6c8bdd6da001 Note on terminology]

Question: If the move from "Romani people" to "Roma people" was done without any discussion, why the move from "Roma people" to "Romani people" needs a discussion? AKoan (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Because those involved blocked in the meantime the article for moving. Now only an admin can move it. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The move from "Romani people" to "Roma people" was done with a discussion (See here). The English designation "Roma poeple" is more often used than "Romani people". Desiphral, regarding the self-designation ... it's a little bit complicated. Some of them also designate themselves "Gipsies" and you know it vey good. Also good for you to know: This is not the Romany-language-Wikipedia, but the English-language one. We use here the most common English denomination (and if you doubt it, than let's move the article Germans to "Deutsche" just because the Germans desigante themselves "Deutsche") (same for the Albanians to Shqiptarët, Greeks to Ellines, Georgians to Kartvelebi, Basque people to Euskaldunak and so on. Well, how about it? --Feierabend (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Se here (Requesting potentially controversial moves):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_potentially_controversial_moves

Step 1 — Add move template to talk page

Step 2 — Create a place for discussion

Step 3 — Add the request to the "Other proposals" list on this page

bogdan din nothing of that. He simply informed us that he is going to make the move. That wasn't a discussion! AKoan (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In Germany, the Roma use officialy and on the self-desigation the term "Roma" not "Romani". See here, the official page of the best known organization of German Sinti and Roma (the Central Council of German Sinti and Roma). --Feierabend (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

See also the information from the page of the German Federal Government: The word "Roma" is internationally recognized as covering all the affected groups. --Feierabend (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What's that?... Sinti and Roma??? Who are the Sinti and who are the Roma? AKoan (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Feierabend, when that article says "all the affected groups" it's in reference to all the groups affected by the Nazi regime. My understanding is that your opponents here think that "Roma" only applies to groups in Europe. To my knowledge, no Roma/Romanies outside Europe were affected by the Nazis. Although this reference doesn't negate your argument, it doesn't support it either. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, TheMightyQuill, they are saying that "Roma" only applies to Eastern European Romanies. --Kuaichik (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but unfortunately, using the term Eastern Europe is not very helpful, as it means many different things. I guess you're using the definition from Roma (Romani subgroup), which includes Central Europe and the Balkans. I suppose Romani people from France killed during the Porajmos would have been Gitanos, and those from Germany, Sinti? In that case, I'm was wrong. Sorry Feierabend. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, that was the definition I was hinting at. --Kuaichik (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion of when writing in the English language writing "Roms" instead of Roma? English Romanichals use the word 'Roms' when speaking English so it would seem sensible to use their example. As has been discussed above the word Roma is with the Romani grammar and means '"Roms". If we write it with English grammar it will not seem so silly when being read by someone who speaks the Romani language and instantly reads it as being incorrect. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.254.123 (talk • contribs) 29 July 2008

Yes, I think this is a good suggestion. It would spear us of a lot of confusions. There is a RFC on this here: [1]. You can add your suggestion, but please create an account before:) AKoan (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

From the article: "Since Roma is a noun, it is technically incorrect to be used as an adjective as in 'Roma language' or 'Roma diplomacy'". The word being a noun does not make it technically incorrect to use it as an adjective. That's not the way English grammar works. It is perfectly acceptable, good grammar, and commonplace, to use a noun as an attributive adjective, as in the example. Using a noun as a predicate adjective is problematical, but using a noun as an attributive adjective is perfectly good grammar. Technically, it's known as an "adjunct noun" or "attributive noun" in this usage. The whole discussion of which adjective(s) and/or noun(s) should be used to describe the Roma still continues, but this grammatical point is without merit and will be deleted. 139.68.134.1 (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship

{{Unanswered}} Moved from main page. Originally posed by IP User:80.15.243.10

Heh! Thanks for doing something I considered doing but didn't do, either out of laziness or busyness! :) Huh, so "busyness" actually is a word...! --Kuaichik (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think they hold citizenship other than the country in which they're living? There was the whole Czech/Slovak controversy after the Dissolution of Czechoslovakia but that has been solved, AFAIK. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, a lot of European countries seem to have somewhat stringent citizenship policies, and from what I understand, it is often easier for Romanies to become Indian citizens than citizens of a European country. (If so, presumably, there are some Romanies in Europe who are Indian citizens, or at least there may be :-P). This is (apparently) because India officially considers Romanies to be Persons of Indian Origin. I wonder whether there is a source for this information, though. Anyway, the point is, it may not be quite as simple as that. --Kuaichik (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Roma population in Turkey

I really doubt Turkey has 3-5 million Roma population. In the reference this is only stated briefly and I don't trust it. Can anyone look into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.136.33 (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"According to a 2008 report prepared for the National Security Council of Turkey by academics of three Turkish universities in eastern Anatolia, there were approximately 50 to 55 million ethnic Turks, 12,5 million Kurds (including 3 million Zazas), 2,5 million Circassians (Adige), 2 million Bosniaks, 1,3 million Albanians, 1 million Georgians, 870,000 Arabs, 700,000 Roma, 600,000 Pomaks, 80,000 Laz, 60,000 Armenians, 20,000 Jews, 15,000 Greeks and 13,000 Hemshins living in Turkey."

This is more realistic, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.136.33 (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

They are only estimations. The estimations about the Roma population are extremely diverse and those estimations rank between 300,000 and 5,000,000. A similar situation can be seen in the case of Hungary (450,000-1,000,000 Roma) or in Romania (700,000-2,500,000 Roma). Concerning Hungary and Romania they are at least also census data available (200,000 in Hungary and 500,000 in Romania). --80.132.215.50 (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia blindly accept whatever is written in internet? I say the reference for Turkish Roma population is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.136.33 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me be sure I understand. You are disputing the validity of "whatever is written on the internet" and suggesting we adopt the opinion espoused on a wikipedia talk page by an anonymousIP editor? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No, obviously you did not understand. Check this out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_turkey

I know Wikipedia cannot refer to itself. I want you to check the references in that article. They are ten times more credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.181.134 (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I consider the Christian Science Monitor to be quite credible, as are official Turkish statistics, which is why they've both been included. I don't see anything in Demographics of Turkey which criticizes the credibility of Christian Science Monitor, so the criticism you have raised must be your own. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's very briefly mentioned in Christian Science Monitor. They must have taken that number from Turkish sources. In the Turkish sources, 700,000 is the realistic estimation whereas 5 million is considered a baseless rumour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.181.134 (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that you believe that, but unless you have a source specifically commenting that the Turkish estimate is "realistic" and CSM estimate is "a baseless rumour," we'd simply be publishing your opinion. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, there is no CSM estimate. Both numbers are from Turkish sources, the only difference is that 700,000 is shown as a realistic estimate, 3-5 million is shown as a rumour.

Can you show me the Turkish source for 3-5million? TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Or at least, a source that says the CSM number was taken from Turkish sources, yes? --Kuaichik (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned very briefly and they didn't refer to anything. Combine that with the fact that there is no international study about demographics of Turkey, we can only assume that they took it from Turkish sources.

Maybe you don't understand... "we can only assume" = original research. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There you go...

http://webarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/2005/05/08/639714.asp

Do you know Turkish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.173.244 (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't. Can you quote the original turkish and translate it please? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Turkish: "Türkiye’deki Çingene nüfusu tam bilinmiyor. 2, hatta 5 milyon gibi rakamlar dolaşıyor Çingenelerin arasında."

English: "The number of Gypsies in Turkey is unknown. According to rumours among Gypsies, it's 2, sometimes even 5 million."

Can you translate a little more? Specifically, who it is that said it's just a rumour (and I don't mean just a name)? And do you have any evidence that CSA got their estimate from this article? By the way, this may enough to be included (to show the 2-5million estimate is disputed, but not enough to change the main estimate. Thanks - TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Can you translate a little more? Specifically, who it is that said it's just a rumour (and I don't mean just a name)?"

Sorry, but I couldn't understand you. Could you rephrase your sentences please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.173.244 (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like more context. Please translate more than one sentence... the rest of the paragraph at least. Please tell me who is being interviewed (ideally, not just their name, but an explanation of who they are, why they are a reliable source).

Secondly, if it is a reliable source disputing the 2-5million estimate, the 2-5million estimate shouldn't be removed, but the commentary from your source should be included in the footnote. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, they are not disputing anything. They are merely presenting 2-5 million figure as a rumour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.173.244 (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So now we have two seperate sources estimating 2-5 million? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No. As I said before, they present it as a rumour, not estimate. 700,000 is shown as a realistic estimate in the very same article however. Please don't distort it any further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.173.244 (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No one's being interviewed in that article. I'd gladly try to translate that article for you myself, or at least that paragraph, but my Turkish is pretty rusty :( --Kuaichik (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Weird... I'm not sure why I thought it was an interview. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably because you saw these lines, where the author is actually saying something like "Question/Contradiction/whatever 'Tartışma' means: Should they be called Gypsies or Romanies?" followed by the next paragraph, which lists the different groups in Turkey who are called "Gypsies."

TARTIŞMA: ÇİNGENE Mİ DEMELİ ROMAN MI?

Türkiye’deki Çingenelere şu adlar takılıyor: Çingene, Kıpti, Poşa (veya Boşa), Mırtip (veya Murtip), Koçer, Arabacı (at arabası, fayton kullananlar), Sepetçi, esmer vatandaş. --Kuaichik (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I just moved the above to the bottom of the page instead of the middle. Lihaas (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lihaas. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just something before the comment: why is the order of comments all around? shouldn't we follow it straight down. Anyway, in response to '85.106.173.244' (why don't you get a username?). You said " 700,000 is shown as a realistic estimate in the very same article however. Please don't distort it any further. " There 3 sources on this:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0609/p20s01-woeu.html?page=2 "There are an estimated 3 million to 5 million Roma in Turkey"

http://www.ihf-hr.org/viewbinary/viewdocument.php?doc_id=7081 "According to official records, there are over 500,000 Roma people living throughout Turkey" From the IHF, a documentable source.

While it's a good think you came to discussion, it would be nicer to wait for some pseudo-consensus at least. Lihaas (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There is NO such thing as "official estimation" in turkey, as people aren't allowed to declare their ethnic group on official census.Honesty4ever (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC) PS: There is also a lot of other ethnic groups that aren't even mentioned to be a part of population, such as Crimean Tatars, even though the number of them is not less then 1 million, so there's at least 5,000,000 Romani people; remember - at least.Honesty4ever (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is there nothing about the enormous crime rate among Romas in relation to the people they live among??

This is a unique problem for this people that deserves to be mentioned rather than tried to be covered up. WikiPedia should reflect reality and have some material on the controversy over the high crime rate among this population. And please don't delete this comment again just because it is not politically correct(I don't go around vandalising/deleting other peoples comments). This is a legitimate technical issue related to this article. In order to cover all aspects of the Roma people, their undeniable predisposition for petty crime should be covered. 87.59.78.95 (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any study about it? Any statistics or such? I'm no big fan of political correctness either, but that sounds like a simple stereotype.

Why don't you create an account and show us some reliable source (not some Nazi site) about "their undeniable predisposition for petty crime". And by the way, there ain't such thing as "Romas", get comfortable with the matter before you try to "improve" the article. AKoan (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Black people doesn't have a "Black people and Violence" section, and Montenegrins doesn't have a "Montenegrins and laziness" section. White people are undoubtedly responsible for the majority of crime in Europe, but White people doesn't feature a crime section. I sincerely doubt that you can find a source suggesting Romani people are biologically or culturally prone to crime - ie. there's no way to show an individual person is criminal because he is Roma, rather than just because he is poor. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that might be worth a mention in the article is the widespread popular perception of the Roma as criminals, as that perception (whether right or wrong) has certainly colored the experience of the Roma and their portrayal in culture, etc...

As for whether or not they are predisposed to criminality, well, I have yet to see convincing evidence that they are somehow a "criminal race." If there is a high rate of incidences of things like petty theft, it could very well be largely due to their impoverished, underclass status throughout much of Europe--doing what they can to survive, etc. Could warrant some serious (and nonpartisan, please) research. K. Lásztocska^talk 17:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose something can come into the "Fictional representations of Roma" section. There are plenty of movies/books, etc to cite. Lihaas (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are vague references to it on the antiziganism page. For another comparison, widespread "perceptions" about Jews have not made it on the Jew article. I really don't think it's worth including here. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The perception of Gypsies as criminals is so fundamental to their existance that I don't see how it could not be touched upon. It's not a movie-phenomena like "evil albinos", there's an actual perception and stereotype out there that seems to transcend the group itself. It surely can't be hard to find a Gypsy-rights group to link that highlights these perceptions. 68.166.66.23 (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

May I point out that this is already dealt with in the article (see third paragraph of Romani_people#Central_and_Eastern_Europe)? --Kuaichik (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not dealt with, I just checked and there is not mentioned crime or anything about gypsies that could be perceived negativily. This article is far from neutral in its present state. Please stop censoring me and try to behave in a more civilized manner... If you don't agree with me, use words not cowardly deletion or "you're a nazi" insults. This is a valid discussion about what should be in the article and what should not. The arguments I presented are about the article, not the gypsies. If you want to delete something, delete the whole discussion not just what I write. Obviously you left the pro-gypsy posts be while you deleted me. This is not in the spirit of WikiPedia. If WikiPedia is reduced to such a sorry state that you cannot even discuss what should be in an article, it will lose its reason to exist. It will not help the gypsies nor WikiPedia to try and supress a phenomenon such as gypsy crime that is so widespread and well known across Europe. Unlike any other culture or people, the gypsies are uniquily associated with crime all over the world. Do you think this is merely a stereotype? Another thing, please don't insult me affiliating me with 'white power'. This is not about race but about culture, a culture where stealing is considered 'Okay' as Berlusconi so rightly said. There is no such thing as a race of gypsies/roma so racism is simply not an issue here. It is not what they are but what they do. Now to restate what I said...

Your comments were removed because they ceased to discuss the article. This is not a general forum for your opinions on Romani people. Please confine your comments to the article. I left your original post because it was on topic. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(1)Wikipedia should reflect reality, not political correctness. Everyone that has been to a major EU city has seen the gypsies. I ask again, do the same, take a walk in the city and see for yourself. Should WikiPedia not reflect what people see with their own eyes every day? Yes or no?

Wikipedia reflects what can be backed up with statistics. I've been to and have lived in several EU cities. My opinion matters as little as yours. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(2)The reasons I don't give you any statistics is because they are not commonly availiable. It is not legal in EU to record gypsy related crime. They can only be registered as 'Romanians' in EU criminal statistics. This is a fact you can check for yourself. If you want proof from a third party, contact your local police station.

If statistics are not available, we can't include your guess as to what those statistics might be. Romani people are not registered as "Romanians" unless they are Romanian citizens. If you dispute this, you should provide a valid reference instead of telling me to check for myself.TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(3)May I point out that this HAS NOT already been dealt with. There is no particular mention of gypsy crime in the article. There is only something about unployment rates(which are obviously skyhigh since gypsies don't want to work) and learning problems among schoolchildren.

Personally, I am quite willing to believe than in many countries, Romani people are convicted of crimes at a higher rate than non-Romani people. But as stated, unless you can provide evidence that the crime levels are cultural, rather than a result of poverty, please provide them here. For this reason, high crime rates among black in the United States, or indigenous people in Canada have not been included in those articles either. Check Irish people and look for references to alcoholism. Scan Italians for references to the mafia or organized crime. You may believe that Romani people are more associated with crime than another other ethnic group, but thus far, you've failed to demonstrate that it's anyone's opinion but your own. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So this is what I propose to make the article less biased(in terms of political correctness and displaying gypsies as victims) and more neutral. Make a section about relations between gypsies and the people of the countries they live in. Mention the extremely high unemployment and crime rates among gypsies. Mention the way gypsies are perceived among the general population. Mention the typical gypsy schemes such as stealing, selling polished brass as gold, giving people flowers while they pickpocket them and so on. I have included some links below describing how they work:

• http://www.reidsguides.com/t_sc/t_sc_gypsies.html
• http://www.romebuddy.com/givesadvice/crime.html
• http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Europe/Russia/Gorod_Sankt_Peterburg/Saint_Petersburg-564323/Warnings_or_Dangers-Saint_Petersburg-Street_Crime-BR-1.html
• http://www.luc.edu/romecenter/rinaldos_thief.shtml
• http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/244977/Italy_Boots_Murderous_Gypsies

Mention the special gypsy problem in Italy, including the recent plans to expel them because of the crime wave they have propagated. Mayor Walter Veltron recently said that gypsies are responsible for 75% of all of Romes heinous crime and that from june to october '07, gypsies commited 76 murders(that's +15 a month!). Finally, please don't be a vandal/coward and delete what I have written. I don't go around and delete what other people write just because I don't agree with them. Censorship(and don't use pseudoreasons such as irrelevance or out of scope as an excuse to delete me) benefits noone. So please let it stand, thank you :) 87.59.100.136 (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The high unemployment rate is already mentioned in the article in the section on Central and Eastern Europe, as is their lack of integration into mainstream society. The article Roma in Central and Eastern Europe mentions their heavy reliance on social security and a general negative image of Romani people. All of this without references, I might add. This latter article also mentions the poor education record in Hungary.

If you have some reputable sources (romebuddy? an article by "666divine" on digital journal? please!), feel free to post them. Comments made by other Italian politicians have already been included on this article and others. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, "Why don't you create an account and show us some reliable source"?

Then, you haven't read the article, or else you would have come across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_people#Central_and_Eastern_Europe You cant have an agenda that demands they be perceived negatively. If you don't have citation then it is original research. you are free to write what you want on a weblog, but wikipedia doesn't accept this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR)

How do you make this comment? "gypsies are uniquily associated with crime all over the world" you just said take a walk in any european city. Firstly, you have to show that you've been through at least a majority of european cities with Roma populations and secondly, you then have to show how your study to connect the majority with crime went. The onus of fact is not with the reader, it is with the editor to show what he has put in. No one has accused you of racism either. If you can't find a source, do a study and get it published outside the EU.

Of the list of sources only http://www.luc.edu/romecenter/rinaldos_thief.shtml looks reliable in the elast. Furthermore, the Italy section talks about persucution of the Roma. And if you a cited source on the italian plans to expel them, by all means, go ahead and add it. Lihaas (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Mayor Walter Veltron recently said..." - Are you suggesting that Walter Veltroni is a reliable source?:) Please bring some reliable statistics, and then we will discuss. Good luck. AKoan (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh look, I found a reference from the Guardian: "Meanwhile, centre-left politicians such as Walter Veltroni, the former mayor of Rome, pandered to, rather than challenged, the xenophobic agenda of the rightwing parties - tearing down Gypsy camps himself and absurdly claiming last year that 75% of all crime was committed by Romanians (often confused with Roma in Italy)." "This persecution of Gypsies is now the shame of Europe". The Guardian. July 10 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

As for crime stats of Gypsies in former Czechoslovakia, they are available on http://www.epolis.cz/download/pdf/materials_31_1.pdf

Overall Romany criminality was five times higher in 1984 than the rest of the population (in the CR?, CSSR?). In the long term it rises and starts in the younger age groups (Nečas, 1991). In the beginning of the 1990´s, when the data on Romany criminality became available, the share of Romany people in the overall crime rate of the CR was about 16%, while in Slovakia it was up to 28%, meaning that at the time of the split between the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, approximately each fifth accused was Romany. An especially large share was burglaries (22% of the total) and in so-called plain thieveries (19%). In Slovakia these numbers were 40% and 36%. There was also a considerable share of immoral offences, especially in the crime of sexual abuse (20% in the CR, 40% in Slovakia). The share of Romany people in violent criminality was in the CR 13% (SR 23%). (Socioklub, 1999). “…we estimate that 20-30% of the economically active Romany population makes their living illegally – by prostitution, peddling or other crimes against property. The adult prisons are by more than 60% Romany. (Říčan, 1998).8 In the beginning of the 1990´s, according to police statistics, in the territory of the former CSFR, 2% of those prosecuted were foreign, 82% were Romany people, and 16% natives; Romany people averaged half of the prosecuted and accused habitual offenders (Matoušek 1998). :::But I guess the data concerning the police stats from early 90's are incorrect. The Czech version of this article states that 16% Gypsies and 82% natives were prosecuted. As for the alleged "poverty" of Gypsy communities, you should realize that what we perceive as "poverty" is their normal living standard. Even when they are placed into new settlements, they soon demolish them completely and fill them with heaps of garbage. See http://tmp.aktualne.centrum.sk/soumar/img/1021/24/10212433-lunik-ix.jpg

I also have quite fresh crime stats of Gypsies from Slovakia, but they are no longer available in the internet.

Gypsy Fan

Population Map

Can someone please provide a source for that map? Specifically the unofficial estimates? Like I said before, I find it very hard to believe that in countries like Slovakia, Hungary, Serbia and Bosnia, that there could possibly be 7-10% of Roma in the population. I believe these stats were made up, because the last time I saw this map, only a few countries were colored in that deep red, signifying 7-10%. If a source isn't provided, I'm going to go ahead and delete it. --Buffer v2 (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The map is a bit dodgy, Ill admit. On the one hand its coloured to say 7-10%, but on the other it has numbers like 2+% (Romania) or the max. on that list 4.6% for Bulgaria. I think it would be best if someone can create a map based on the cited numbers in the toolbox of the article. Or is that hows its done already?

ALso then you can cinl. Arg, usa, India, etc. Lihaas (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The colors are unofficial projections. The numbers inside the countries are official stats that come from the countries' censuses. While I think that unofficial projections are useful, I would like to see some sources for these... because there is no way that those countries could possibly be 7-10% Roma peoples. And the fact that that map changed recently, is a huge hint that these stats have probably been made up. I've already fact tagged the map. If no sources are provided, I will delete it. --Buffer v2 (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Olahus is currently blocked so he cannot answer you for the moment. The numbers in that picture correspond perfectly with the references from the infobox of this page, have you checked them ? Rezistenta (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Whether or not Kosovo is included, according to the stats provided, Serbia would not fall in the 7-10% category. I don't see stats for Bosnia and Herzegovina there. Any sources for them? The Hungarian and Slovak estimates click though. Thanks. And shouldn't Olahus still be able to edit Discussion pages even though he is blocked? --Buffer v2 (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Due to the lack of sources (for Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina) and incorrect unofficial estimates (according to the stats provided; for Italy and Serbia), I've removed this map. Until someone can show me where they got the estimates from (with sources), and can fix the unofficial estimates for Italy and Serbia, then this map will remain questionable. Please do not revert my edit and add the map back in. I've had the citation tag up there for a week and nothing has been done. And I do hope that someone can fix this ASAP (preferably whoever made the map), as it IS definitely useful information but because the information is both unsourced and incorrect, it has to stay out. --Buffer v2 (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this had been dealt with. This page includes a list of many national populations and a link to Roma people by country which lists other national populations. Does that page provide the stats you're looking for? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply.. okay 3 of them click but Serbia's unofficial estimates aren't... Serbia should be colored in the 3-7% category... Can whoever made the map fix it?--Buffer v2 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The estimations of Serbian Roma are even higher than the datas mentioned in this article. Read this article from ERRC. --Feierabend (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Try his talkpage: User_talk:Olahus. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that for most countries the estimations vary quite a lot, I think it would be better not to have such population map. AKoan (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking AKoan might be right. Is there any source that gives estimates for Romani populations in all european countries? It might be worth creating a map that relies entirely on one source so we can say "XXX's estimate of European Romani populations" rather than presenting anything as solid fact, when it's all so disputed. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree as well. The whole map lacks consistency.... And I'm not sure if I trust the link that Feierabend has provided... Considering how it makes mention of the number of Roma in Serbia in the early 80s, and for the other mentions, it isn't solely for Serbia but for Serbia and Montenegro, when they were one country. Unreliable source. That 7-10% becomes based on assumptions which is against Wikipedia policies. I'm not satisfied Feierabend. I'm removing the map. Please don't add it back in until it's fixed. -Buffer v2 (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it is possible to "fix" that map. (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what exactly is the problem with this map?--Olahus (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The stats for Serbia are incorrect. According to the sources listed here, and the Roma people by country page, Serbia should fall under the 3-7% category. But I don't like the map at all... someone should try to find one source, listing all the estimates of Roma people in Europe.. and then making a map out of that; not dozens of sources, some of which may not even be reliable. Results in data inconsistency. --Buffer v2 (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on, the estimations concerning Serbia are by far even higher than 7%. The estimations of the Roma in Europe are very different and they strongly vary from source to source. That's why we need a map that notes as many sources as possible in order to avoid the disagreements between the various opinions of the users. Besides, the map includes also the official data, so why are you so embarrased because of the estimated and unofficial data? Or, do you persevere to present for Serbia a Roma population that is as small as possible? I hope you don't, because in this case it might be a proove of antiziganism. --Olahus (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Before I make any further comments, let me ask you this Olahus: are you capable of engaging in any discussions without attacking other people? Doesn't seem like it. What is your issue exactly? --Buffer v2 (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"So, what exactly is the problem with this map?" - As you put it, Olahus: "The estimations of the Roma in Europe are very different and they strongly vary from source to source." AKoan (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And to answer your question Olahus, no I don't care about Serbia or the estimates of the Roma people there. Can you see I asked for sources for Italy, Moldova, and Bosnia as well? Those sources clicked. Serbia's didn't. I didn't believe the map; found it highly questionable. If you want to add the map back in (although, I think the map should stay off as it has its problems - and a few others here seem to agree with me), fix two things: 1) Serbia should be light red, in the 3-7% category. Based on all the sources listed on this page and the Roma people by country page, Serbia does not fall into the 7-10% category. Think differently? Show me a source. Otherwise it's original research and POV 2) Based on the estimates about Romania, Romania should fall into a 10%+ category. The highest estimate is 2.5mil, as per this page, which puts the unofficial estimates for Romania to well over 11%. I'm pretty sure you were the one who made this map - which doesn't surprise me - always trying to glorify Romania everywhere (nice try, but your nationalistic agenda on Wikipedia has already been exposed). I personally don't trust your edits anywhere, and this map is another example of your agenda... The thing that struck me most about this map is that Romania has the most Roma people in Europe, and I found it very strange that it could be grouped in the same category as any other country in Europe in terms of number of Roma living there. You upgraded a country like Serbia to 7-10% when it doesn't belong there, and downgraded Romania to the 7-10%, when based on the sources listed here, it has more. It wouldn't surprise me if you specifically went searching for sources to match your nationalistic goals - resulting in a search bias. I'm sure there are more numbers out there on Roma estimates, and I will check it out when I have time. You're obviously trying to push that agenda of yours. Nice try. And that is one reason why I would prefer map(s) which are linked to a SINGLE source, not one map which includes dozens of different sources - some which could be seen as unreliable, and with the huge variability in the unofficial estimates, don't give a clear, precise picture of all the estimates out there. --Buffer v2 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Romani people and supposedly related ethnic groups

This article is about Romani people, not about Domari people, Banjara or any other ethnic group. We should not mix things. I think that the best thing to do is to create a section in which mention the various ethnic groups that were thought by some authors to be related to Romani people. If there are no objections, I shall do that. AKoan (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I have a different opinion about this. I think talking about Romany, Domari, Banjara etc. togheter isn`t a mistake, just like talking about Romany, Sinti, Manush, Kale, Gitanos as the same subject isn`t as well.

"Gypsies, also called Romany, are believed to have originated in India before migrating to the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, Russia and the United States. Today, more than 20 million remain in India, known as Banjara."

(http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2960&Itemid=132)

According to data issued by the Pontifical Council in the world there are 36 million gypsies, including 18 million in India, between 9 and 12 million in Europe, and about 1 million in the United States of America.

(http://www.fides.org/aree/news/newsdet.php?idnews=8553&lan=eng)

If all these groups (Romany, Sinti, Banjara etc.) have the same origins, same language, same culture (with regional differences of course), then we should say they are the same ethnic group, Gypsy or Romany, with different denominations in the areas they live.

We could make a comparison with Jews that, although they live on different continents, and many don`t speak Hebrew or Yiddish, call themselves and are considered Jews. (Daniel1918 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

Romani, Dombari, Banjara are distinct ethnic groups, even though some religions site puts them under the same "Gypsy" umbrella. There ain't no similarity with the Jews here. AKoan (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The two sources are reliable, those who wrote them must have chekhed the ethnographic data. Like I said before if Romany are a different group from Domari and Banjara (who are in the Indian subcontinent) they must also be considered different from Sinti, Kale and the other (in Europe).

All the European groups have different names, they live in different areas, and many have been living separately for centuries, just like they are separate from the Indian groups.

The Sinti, for example, don't call themselves Romany, but they are considered by scolars to be Gypsy or Romany. Each of these groups can be traced to the same ancestry. In the article here discussed, this statement appears ,,The Banjara people, (...) are Gypsies.(Daniel1918 (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Those are not reliable source for this claim. Romani, Domari and Banjara are distinct ethnic groups. The Domaris were sought for the time to be the sister ethnic group of the Romanis, but today the mainstream idea is that they formed from different migration waves. And about Banjara, this is out of nowhere. Romani, Domari and Banjara are not a single ethnic group who just use different names for themselves. They don't have a common language and culture (there are similarities because they are all of Indian origin, but just as well you could say that they are all Indians and they should be put in the Indians article!!!), the only common "cultural feature" is the one that they have a history of nomadic services providers. The Sinti don't call themselves Roma, but they do call themselves Romani (it's not the same thing). All Romanies (and nobody else) use this term. It's useless to push this one. AKoan (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Agenzia Fides" belongs to the Vatican, this source has prestige, the information there, especially one regarding an ethnic group is irrefutable.

I find youre statement about Sinti verry puzzling and contradictory. Why should "Romany" and "Roma" be different, ethnically? Why is this difference in pronunciation so important?

(Daniel1918 (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Let me try to explain (I intended to do so earlier but didn't manage until now). The Romani people are the larger group described in this article, including Roma, Sinti, Romanichals, etc. Roma is a plural noun, and only one subgroup of the Romani people uses that term to refer to themselves.

The Romani people are no more similar to the Banjara than they are to North Indians in general. And the Dom people? Well, how closely related they are to the Romani people is a matter of dispute, but they're definitely not Romani. They do not speak Romani; they speak Domari, which is another language altogether. --Kuaichik (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know what is the relation between Romani and Roma, Sinti, Kale, etc, than I don't think that you know enough to have this conversation. "Agenzia Fides" might be a reliable source on "messianic" things but not on Romanis. For them the "gypsies" are just potentially converts and nothing more. There ain't no scholar to consider Romani, Domari and Banjara a single ethnic group, and what's more important NOR DO THEY. If there was a connection in the past, that indeed is a possible thing, and that should be mentioned in the article (though even here I'm not sure about Banjara).

The Romanians and Aromanians could be much more considered a single ethnic group than those, but you don't see the articles about Romanians and Aromanians being mixed up. If you want, Olahus, we can ask for mediation, but you know that it would be useless - they are distinct ethnic groups and they shall be treated as such. AKoan (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I see AKoan has called me "Olahus", I don`t know why. Surely, I`m a new user here on Wikipedia. Please don`t confuse me with someone else. Regarding Kuaichiks answer, the terms "roma" and "romani"(romany) shouldn`t be refering to distinct groups (large group vs. one small group). They refer to the same ethnic group. "Roma" is the noun, and "romani" (romany) is the adjective. This fact can be understood from the article.(Daniel1918 (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Oh, boy, here we go again. You may think it is implied in the article (as of the time of this post), but you know, you can't assume that something is true just because a Wikipedia article seems to say so. I challenge anyone to find a single source that says that Romanies whose ancestors left Romania before the period of slavery call themselves "Roma."

In fact, as I have pointed out before, and as I have said in this discussion, only one subgroup of the Romani people call themselves Roma. The Romanichals, for example, would certainly consider themselves Romani, but they would not call themselves or their own people "Roma." So "Romani" is not simply the adjectival form of "Roma."

Besides, although "Romani" is exclusively an adjective in Romani, it is also used as a noun in English (both for the people and for their language). Just like German, Romanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian, etc. --Kuaichik (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than arguing this back and forth, Kuaichik, could you please create a section in this article (near the top) entitled "Name" or something similar, and give an account of various opinions on this, with references. Because it's disputed, you should probably:

1. Acknowledge that "Roma" is often used by non-Romani people two describe all Romani people around the world; and,
2. Present arguments as "Scholar X says such-and-such" rather than presenting it as undisputed fact in plain narrative style.

Thanks, TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well, although this may take some time. Sorry for giving the impression that "Roma and Romani are not synonyms" was an "undisputed fact." True, the word "Roma" is often used by non-Romanies in this way. I'll stop arguing. --Kuaichik (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Daniel1918, Romani is used both as a adjective as well as an noun.

TheMightyQuill, a paragraph on terminology is exactly what I'm working on right now. AKoan (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Roma is used just for the Eastern Europe branch, as well as umbrella term to for all Romanies, that will also be in that paragraph... I hope this days. AKoan (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Returning to the original problem, Romani, Domari and Banjara are still distinct ethnic groups, no matter what terminology we will use for the Romanies. AKoan (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that issue was resolved! AKoan and TheMightyQuill, thanks for your help! --Kuaichik (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with supposedly related ethnic groups is resolved, do we make that section? AKoan (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I must say that this problem is far from beeing resolved, actualy it`s been made more confusing.The only ones who agreed are you two not the others, the rest of the people have different opinions. At the disscussion page at "Romani language" there are those who dessagree with youre interpretation of terminology. Jmabel states that "Roma" is used as an adjective in the Decade of Roma Inclusion (http://www.romadecade.org/). And here is an example where the Guardian refers to a "Roma politician." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/04/eu.politics)

(Daniel1918 (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

Sorry you feel that way. --Kuaichik (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

We do not talk Romani vs Roma here! And on the talk page of Romani people, there is no disagree, just discussion. The use of Roma as an adjective in the media is not denied by anybody, just as nobody denies that is grammatically incorrect. If you have more to say about that, please post it there. AKoan (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To let you guys know, ideally this case should be taken to WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM, since the dispute seems to be pretty big and in need of a mediator. I'm closing the RfC as well since that didn't seem to garner interest. Wizardman 23:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Where and how many? Cont'd

First, I would like to repeat a suggestion I had made recently concerning where the Romani people are: instead of "This widely dispersed ethnic group lives across the world, not only in Eurasia, but also in the Americas and the Middle East," I most recently suggested that one of the following alternatives be used:

• "...not only in Eurasia, but also in the Americas, Africa, and Australia," or
• something more like "...not only in Europe, but also in the Americas, and, to a lesser extent, elsewhere."

Either alternative could be attributed to p. xx of We Are the Romani People.

Also, I want to make sure about something: since (as I previously noted) there are possibly more Romanies in the world than are accounted for in this article, is it now OK to replace the current "15 million" estimate of Romanies worldwide with "15 million or more" (which was how it originally read until recently anyway)? --Kuaichik (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"...not only in Europe, but also in the Americas, and, to a lesser extent, elsewhere." - I think this the best formulation I've heard so far. AKoan (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don`t think replacing "Eurasia" with "Europe" is corect when refering to Roma population worldwide, as there are Gypsy groups in India, Turkey, and other regions in Asia as well. About those living in Asia, the lambani group must be taken into consideration (http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/people/lambani.htm)

(Daniel1918 (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

OK, I don't quite agree with your reasoning, but yes, there are Romanies in Asia as well (as I said before). The reason why I proposed replacing "Eurasia" with "Europe" is simply that the majority of the Romani people live in Europe (not Asia) and the Americas, with smaller numbers living elsewhere (hence the reference to "...a lesser extent, elsewhere").

By the way, no one has answered my other question yet, so I'll repeat it: is it now OK to replace the current "15 million" estimate with "15 million or more"? --Kuaichik (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You used the discussion and went through the legitimate process. i think after 1 week, since its not answered, you should have a legitimate reason to change this. Lihaas (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Great! I think I'll be bold and replace "15 million" with "15 million or more," then. But I still need some advice from other users about how I should change that sentence about where the Romanies live. Should I mention pretty much all the continents ("not only in Eurasia, but also in the Americas, Africa, and Australia") or emphasize just the two continents where most Romanies are ("not only in Europe, but also in the Americas and, to a lesser extent, elsewhere")? --Kuaichik (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should mention what we have the source for. Saying most/lesser extent are not really objective words. If we have sources for all 7 continents or whathaveyou, then that should be the mention.

Also, not to be pedantic, but there was a source to say 15million+? Lihaas (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I meant by "to a lesser extent" was that the number of Romanies in Europe and the Americas is much greater than the number of Romanies elsewhere. Perhaps that claim should be reworded, but it can be attributed to the same source that says that there are Romanies on most of the continents.

And yes, as I mentioned before, the "15 million or more" figure is based on the numbers presented on the article Romani people by country. Also, that article lacks estimates for certain countries where there are Romanies, such as China. (Again, see also this discussion) :) --Kuaichik (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But lesser extent could also be regarded as proportional. So say, a country had significantly less in number the total population may be less by a bigger number, thus the proportion could still be similiar, or even larger.

I was sure I read that somewhere but it wasn't in this thread so I queried it. That's cool then, there is a link in the same section to that page. Lihaas (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest that we could reword the claim. That is, we could still emphasize Europe and the Americas without being ambiguous. For example, we could say: "This widely dispersed ethnic group lives across the world, but the largest Romani populations are in Europe and the Americas." Or something like that.

Yes, I mentioned the source for the estimate on the previous discussion before the last archiving of this page :) --Kuaichik (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's my version (basically the one you just wrote): "The Romani people are a widely dispersed ethnic group, with the largest populations in (Eastern?) Europe and the Americas." I think this sounds good. From my end, go ahead with it. Lihaas (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think I'm ready to be bold and change it now. --Kuaichik (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Kuaichik (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I just though of adding the word 'concentrated' in there as it gives more focus to the claim of Europe and America while leaving the rest still open. It no reads, "Romani people are a widely dispersed ethnic group, with the largest concentrated populations in Europe and the Americas." Hope that's okay? Lihaas (talk) 08:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that :) --Kuaichik (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

ROMA PEOPLE

In hindi, Hindu loard RAMA pronounce as RAM, but Rama is pronounce as ROM in Rajsthani spoken language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.163.135.5 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder whether Grierson says anything about this...I could believe that Rajasthani language(s) used word-final -o where Hindi uses -aa (there are other languages in that general region of India that do), but I've never seen a case like that word-medially! --Kuaichik (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Luba Kalaydjieva" :
  • {{Citation | title = Genetic studies of the Roma (Gypsies): a review | url = http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2350/2/5 | accessdate = 2008-06-16 | doi = 10.1186/1471-2350-2-5 | year = 2001 | author = Kalaydjieva, Luba | journal = BMC Medical Genetics | volume = 2 | pages = 5}}
  • {{Citation | title = Genetic studies of the Roma (Gypsies): a review | url = http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2350/2/5 | accessdate = 2008-06-16}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to fix the references in this edit. I hope it looks OK (see edit summary :)). --Kuaichik (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Roma in Brazil

The table in the beginning claims there are up to 900,000 romas in Brazil (which I find very hard to believe), while the text on end of the page mention only 60,000. I couldn't find any reference for either one of these numbers. Any idea what to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.118.88.98 (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The higher figure was originally 1,000,000, actually. Here's the source for it: http://www.web4desi.com/Articles/36-ArticlesbyJorgeMFernandezBernal/52-the-rom-in-the-americas?start=2. It was reduced to 900,000 in this edit without explanation. I think that it should be changed back to 1,000,000 (the other changes made in that edit have been reverted by now), but I don't want to be too hasty.

I'm not sure what the basis for "at least 60,000" is, though (it was originally added here). Where did "60,000" come from? That's why it has a "citation needed" tag. --Kuaichik (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Is "web4desi" a reliable source? Wouldn't it be more desi-centric? Lihaas (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an article by Jorge M. Fernández Bernal, the founder of the Council of the Organisations and Kumpanias of the Americas. Apparently, it was originally published in Geneva (see here). The full text of the paper is available on web4desi.com, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is nothing more than a post on that website. --Kuaichik (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Abolition of Enslavement of Roma in Wallachia and Moldavia

The "slavery in Romania" article suggests that the enslavement of the Roma was abolised in these two provinces by 1856, not by 1864 as had been originally written here. An expert should double-check the dates on this, but it seems to me that the "slavery in Romania" article looks pretty reliable - it has footnotes citing most of its sources. So, I have changed the date here from 1864 to 1856. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IonNerd (talk • contribs) 05:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A quote from We Are the Romani People, p. 25: "To its great credit the [Moldavian General] Assembly voted unanimously for abolition and the bill was passed on 23 December 1855. The Wallachian Assembly did the same on 8 February the following year. However, complete legal freedom did not come until 1864, two years after the creation of Romania as a single country, when Prince Ioan Couza restored the Romanies to the estates on which they had formerly worked, this time not as slaves but as free people, and Mihail Kogălniceanu, now leader of the new nation, passed a law that abolished serfdom and redistributed the land to the peasantry." --Kuaichik (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary issues POV

What about dissloving the section "Contemporary issues" section in the rest of the article to present more NPOV?--Kozuch (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that section should be made more NPOV. However, I don't see why we should get rid of that section, if that's what you mean. --Kuaichik (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

By dissloving I meant splitting its text in the rest of the article, not deleting it.--Kozuch (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I don't particularly disagree to your suggestion now :) At least you're not removing referenced content :-D --Kuaichik (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing well sourced content

Please do not remove well sourced content, like User:Lihaas did here.--Kozuch (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean that BusinessWeek article? Well-sourced it may be, but may I ask how it is relevant? So what if BusinessWeek wrote an article? Lots of publications have written articles; in fact, I would venture to guess that many of them are more notable than an American business magazine. --Kuaichik (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for removing it all together. I was copy-editing multiple stuff. It may be a valid edit, however, it is not in the right place. Central and Eastern Europe doesn't seem the right place, nor does it follow on from where the passage left off. Perhaps a Roma in contemporary culture or something to that effect would be better suited. Lihaas (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The article features Central and Eastern Europe Roma problems. I will reword it to make the statement more relevant to the section where it it now, because it is the correct one.--Kozuch (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor note

I believe that this edit was justified. It is not removal of sourced content; it is simply rewording the sentence to make it sound less awkward. The sentence originally read (and currently reads):

"Today, however, 'Romani' is used by most organizations (except a couple in Britain), as well as the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the US Library of Congress; however, 'Roma' is used by a number of organizations to refer to Romani people around the world."

"However" is repeated twice, so there is no harm in removing the first "however." There is also no need for the parenthetical note "(except a couple in Britain)," because the same sentence goes on to say "'Roma' is used by a number of organizations to refer to Romani people around the world." --Kuaichik (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed for slavery?

In this edit, Lihaas added a "citation needed" tag to the sentence:

"Roma were enslaved for five centuries in Wallachia and Moldavia until abolition in 1856."

In fact, there is an entire article about this here. So, could we please remove the tag? If not, I'm pretty sure I can add a source for this. For that matter, I still think the need for a reference for bohémien(ne) is a bit strange. Apparently, though, many people have a hard time believing it, so...:-D --Kuaichik (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone had this debate on another article that despite having a link on the separate article at least 1 link for citation here was needed. I was on the view you are advocating here. Lihaas (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How can anyone have an argument to support the use for "Roma People"???!!

So what if some people have used the word incorrectly, this does not make it right as it is used INCORRECTLY.

Even if the famous and respected proffessor Ian Hancock accidentally mis-uses it in one of his books, he still calls his book "we are the Romani People" - Correct?. I'm sure he if asked would prefer the correct term 'Romani People' like his book title. I'm sure if he was writing in the Romani language he would have said it correctly. It is when he tried to put it across into English that he made the mistake. So what if he did. This does not mean we can quote it as evidence for the real meaning of the word as we know the real meaning of the word - It is a Romani word with Romani grammar and translates as Roms. The word Roma is a modern misused word as most English speaking people have only just come in contact with the word by people recently writing research about the Romani people globally and historically. Should we now start calling Hungarians as Magyar? Perhaps we should start writing books about Hungary and quote Hungarians on the internet who call themselves Magyar. Look on sites such as Youtube and you will notice they often call themselves as Magyar and not Hungarians. Infact if we did change all English books to Magyar instead of Hungarians this would at least we more correct as it is more inline with the word "Gypsy". Gypsies is wrong to discribe the Romani people as the word now means so much more than just a mis-used word for the Romani people. Gypsy if added to Wikipedia should have a complete section in itself stating how it is short for "Egyptian" and it means many different things and can refer to various peoples.

The word 'Roma' is a Romani word and translates as "Roms" in English. Seems as we are writing in English it makes sense to use the English word "Romani" as it has been around for years within the English language and has been around even longer as Romany / Rommany. With other recognised words coming into the English language such as Punjabi, Gujaratti, Bengali etc etc it is obvious how the newer spelling of Romani makes more sense. Do we change Punjabi to "Punjabiya" to use thier grammar? No! we write the English word Punjabi. Like the English word Romani. Is the article on Wikipedia on Spain called Espania or Espania people? Not is is Spanish People or Spaniards. As we are writing in English it should be Romani People (and Romani language).

In addition to support this the Roms (Roma in their own language) call themselve the Romani (Romane) people. Plus not all Romani people are Roma (Roms) as this is just a section of the Romani people. Romanichel of the UK are not Roma (Roms) but do call themselves as Romani. Interestingly Romanichel in the UK refer to their overseas cousins as "Roms" and not as Roma. Kale / Kaale who are recorded as being in Spain, Portugal, Wales and (I think) Scandinavia are never recorded to have called themselves Roma but amongst some Kale they definetely call themselve Romani. English / Welsh Romani such as Manfri Frederick Wood never mentioned the word "Roma". He recognises the word 'Rom' meaning 'Husband' or the word 'Ramada / Rommered' meaning 'marriage' and funny enough he does recognise the word Romani / Romany.

Can we please adjust this imediately as it is most incorrect?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.254.123 (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is already under discussion, but most people involved in this discussion (including me) are quite busy and the discussion is taking long to complete. AKoan (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Bohemianism cf. bohémien?

The sentence "This [the word bohémiens] would later be adapted to describe the impoverished artistic lifestyle of Bohemianism" is followed by a "citation needed" tag.

I found a link on the Online Etymology Dictionary [2], which includes the following quote from the "Westminster Review":

"The term 'Bohemian' has come to be very commonly accepted in our day as the description of a certain kind of literary gipsey, no matter in what language he speaks, or what city he inhabits .... A Bohemian is simply an artist or littérateur who, consciously or unconsciously, secedes from conventionality in life and in art."

Could this be somehow included as a citation for the unreferenced sentence in this article? Is it a sufficiently reliable source? --Kuaichik (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the big question. What does wikipedia say on reliable sources? I know i've read it many times but often have to check it many more.

"Tertiary sources...may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources)

Seems fine ordinarily. But what is the website's editorial policy. Resaerch by university scholars or something of the sort? Seems to be written by http://www.etymonline.com/columns/bio.htm

Further, here are a list of sources for the website: http://www.etymonline.com/sources.php Lihaas (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not take the etymology for "Bohemian" from OED (2nd ed., 1989) instead?

[f. prec. + -AN. The transferred senses are taken from French, in which bohême, bohémien, have been applied to the gipsies, since their first appearance in the 15th c., because they were thought to come from Bohemia, or perhaps actually entered the West through that country. Thence, in modern French, the word has been transferred to 'vagabond, adventurer, person of irregular life or habits', a sense introduced into Eng. by Thackeray.]

also definition 2 of the word:

2. A gipsy. [F. bohême, bohémien.]

and finally definition 3:

3. A gipsy of society; one who either cuts himself off, or is by his habits cut off, from society for which he is otherwise fitted; especially an artist, literary man, or actor, who leads a free, vagabond, or irregular life, not being particular as to the society he frequents, and despising conventionalities generally. (Used with considerable latitude, with or without reference to morals.)
1848 THACKERAY Van. Fair lxiv, She was of a wild, roving nature, inherited from father and mother, who were both Bohemians, by taste and circumstances. 1862 Westm. Rev. July & Oct. 32-33 The term ‘Bohemian’ has come to be very commonly accepted in our day as the description of a certain kind of literary gipsey, no matter in what language he speaks, or what city he inhabits..A Bohemian is simply an artist or littérateur who, consciously or unconsciously, secedes from conventionality in life and in art. 1865 Cornh. Mag. Feb. 241 There are many blackguards who are Bohemians, but it does not at all follow that every Bohemian is a blackguard. 1875 EMERSON Lett. & Soc. Aims x. 256 In persons open to the suspicion of irregular and immoral living,{em}in Bohemians.

Notice that OED also cites the usage in Westminster Review. OED meets the criteria for WP:RS, even though some editors question its value as an authority on Romani-related terminology in the English language, due to its listing "Romany" as the primary form of the word "Romani". The following link to OED online entry will function for the next couple of days: [3] —Zalktis (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Citing the OED is fine, but here is what I am wondering: Is there some way we can cite the Westminster Review, which seems to be the primary source in any case? Is the primary source reliable? Is the necessary citation information available? --Kuaichik (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want the first usage, then OED says it is Thackeray in Vanity Fair who introduced this particular meaning of the word "Bohemian" in English. In French it may have occurred somewhat earlier. As for the WR, if you can give a precise enough citation to the original article, then I think it should pass as WP:RS. —Zalktis (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so far I have not found the original article. However, I have at least found the following citation info: "Westminster Review, July and Oct. 1862, 32-3." What do you think? --Kuaichik (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If the WR is credibly enough it should qualify. Lihaas (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Zalktis just said that it would probably pass as a reliable source (and it seems to be a fairly well-known journal), so I don't think that's an issue. I'm only asking whether the citation is precise enough. --Kuaichik (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I wasn't querying it. Just made a statement as to why its a-ok. As for the precision bit, using MLA or some such style meets Wikipedia's guidelines/requirements. Lihaas (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

in Colombia there are not 79.000 gypsies, there are only 8.000

I´colombian, and I read the datas about the etnic origin of our population, and the number of gypsies in our country are 8.000 not 79.000—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.221.166.132 (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I just added the signature to the end of the preceding comment. I'm not quite sure how to respond to this; as far as I can tell, sources have been provided in this article for the 79,000 estimate but not for this (newly proposed?) 8,000 estimate. --Kuaichik (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Fixed errors I made in signature :) --Kuaichik (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't have a citation. Saying I "read the data" doesn't qualify for much without a citation. While he may well have read the info, it could also be uncredible. Certainly after review we can put 8,000-79,000 on the page. Lihaas (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Couple of issues

The section "Roma people by geographic area >> Central and Eastern Europe" has had an uncited tag for awhile now (couple of weeks for sure). If there are no citations coming it should go.

Also, should the Holocaust section be called 'Porajmos? After all the main article links goes to Porajmos. Lihaas (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

external links

Just saw the list of external links here. It violated the wikipedia guidelines for a number of reason. But first and foremost: "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." and "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."

With that in mind: The "News media sources" links to outside organization and private bodies. Those links ought to be on the webpage. And the links should be "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject" Likewise on musuems and other organizations. As mentioned above, not all wikisites even need to have links.

Furthermore, "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." Lihaas (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Lebanese women

The photo [[Image:Lebanese women.jpg]] was added to the section on Roma people#The Middle East, with the caption "Lebanese Gypsy women". According to the image description, it seems that the term "Gypsy" refers to their nomadic lifestyle, and not to the fact that they are Romanies. Indeed, the women are described as being Bedouins. Full description, verbatim:

Gypsy Women in Beirut, Lebanon. These Bedouin women travel from Syria to Lebanon, especially in the summer months. Their main source of income is telling people's fortune on the seaside promenade, Corniche Beirut.

As the article in question is about "Roma people" (i.e. Romanies), and not all peripatetic people labelled 'gypsies', this image has been removed from the article as being irrelevant. —Zalktis (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I looked at the actual Flickr page, and there is no description at all. The section the image was added to was actually about non-Roma Gypsys, so if the image does indeed depict such, it would be appropriate. Maybe ask the uploader. FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If what it depicts is actually unclear, does including this image in the article actually add anything positive? Furthermore, even if the section mentions Domari, it does not detract from the fact that that article as a whole is about Romanies, not 'gypsies'. —Zalktis (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as for now, it seems unclear what they are, so until we find out, it should be removed. If it's important, someone could ask the person who uploaded the image what they are. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Roma in India?

What would it mean by Roma in India? The Roma experience was created by the migration out of India, was it not? If by Roma in India, you mean certain groups in Rajasthan who are nomads and circus performers then there are similar non-Roma groups who would be thus Roma as well, would it not be?Domsta333 (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• +1. I know that there are some Luli in India, but MOST Europeans and Indians call 'Gypsies' non-Romani tribes of India that are just poor or nomadic. RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

2 edits in question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roma_people#Roma_population_in_Turkey

There already was a consensus or at least a discussion, not its been undone without comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roma_people&diff=236292963&oldid=236291947

Also not too sure about this. again no debate?

I undid 2 other reverts (before i realized 3rr) with full mention why. The first is obvious as we had a long discussion to come through this. And the 2nd is a little dodgy. I understand its been here awhile, but I just saw the talk page wikiprojects for this article and that itself proves its beyond India. Lihaas (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For the unrelated Latin ethnic group

Why is this mention present:"For the unrelated Latin ethnic group, see Romanians"? Why are the Romanians being individualized from all the Romanic groups ? There is no reason for such a mention. It would make more sense to mention something like :For unrelated groups,see Roma,capital of Italy,Romans or Romansch. There is no similarity between Roma people and Romanians. Some similarity of writing or sounding that might create confusion might be between Roma people and Romansch people or Romand or Romanesco. Romansch,Romand,Romanic,Rome,Romanesco etc bears greater resemblence to Roma. Mentioning unrelated Romanians at the beginning of this article is discriminatory and can be interpreted only as someone idea of an insult. If you want to keep such a mention about unrelated groups,the mention could be about Romanic groups,something like:for the unrelated groups,see link to Romance languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.206.132 (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I don't think it's because people want to discriminate or make insults against Romanians, but because people often confuse Romani people with Romanian people because of the similar name. The mention is there to emphasize that they are actually two unrelated groups. Other Romanic groups (Spanish, French, Italian) are not mentioned because there is no similar name confusion. Hope that clears things up? 147.96.226.124 (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand 86.124's reaction. I also think it's more correctly to reffer to the disambiguation page, instead of only some ethnic groups (you even could reffer to the Istro-Romanians, Megleno-Romanians and even the inhabitants of Rome. It would become a bit silly). Sarmizegetusa (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This dispute was long settled, if it's something unclear for you search in the archives Rezistenta (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

IF something else comes up doesn't mean it has to be accepted. Maybe a valid point wasn't there before. Lihaas (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English dictionary lists 'Romany¹ as an archaic English word meaning Roman. So there should be no confusion between Romany and of Roman origin or of the inhabitants of Romania (or the Swiss Romansh). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

EU Roma Poverty Summit

ref[4] might be worthy of inclusion if (<1% chance) anything substantive becomes of it (Perhaps they should have held it in Evian, not Brussels). But noteworthy are the subtle swipe at Berlusconi, the quote by George Soros, and mostly that such a conference is being held at all. István (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Origins of Romani (Blackerer) people

The foreroom (Porstua) to the entrance into the Corridor to Eternality of Power in this rare describtion of Statue of Light and the spring of the Wisdom of Salomon has been borrowed from Cut - Cuthumi after the language of Khaldea, as mentioned in the Holy Book of Talmudi and who are thereafter been called with such a name with laugh and deride, because they taught at first in their tempelom (temple) of Cutha and later in Samaritani, the tribe of the Cuthins, who teached the Holy Kaballah of Sumerians, their book of The Holy Kings (The Doctrine of Descenders) and higher spiritual Welhousi (witchdom). Their selected Archbishops Caspari, Melchiori, and Balthazar, the shining lights of their priest teachers, the glorious Eastern Knowledgers. They were also in meantime the first of the Kings and Teachers who kept the Deliver of Sermon. From them - the springs of lights - descenders the Nergali, as called after Talmudi, - the Blackerers who lost in later years as punishment due their (bad) style of living, - The Wandering that their spiritual eternal power gived to them by nature of birth. They lived in the land of Kish (Kush).

The first Romani entering to the New Land of Promise Promised Land stepped their first steps there in 1638 after arrived in Kalmar Nyckel and Fogel Gripen the mouth of the River de la Uiare (Delaware), among the Swedes, Finns and Duits being the first Romani in America in historical times. The Finnish Romani under their King Hagerthi, the direct descender of Haagar (Hagar) of Egyptland, the slave woman of Saarah (Sarah), the wife of Abraham, the half brother of Izmail (Ismail), the son of Abrahami of Haagar´s later marriage in the land of Egypti.

The text taken from transliteration of Holy Book of Black Bible published by Romiani Michigani in Mischigan (USA), in Finnish language in 1902 from the old transliteration of collected texts dating MDCCXXVI (1726) from the text written by Sabbatai Zevi in Smyrna in 1666. The year of SixSixSix (SexSexSex) 1-666 the warning of the Beast Year.88.112.95.118 (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Roma"ni" people

Maybe it's already been discussed, I don't know, but I still would like to ask WHY everywhere the name "Roma people" (even the title) is used, except for the first sentence of this page. Sarmizegetusa (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I mean, wouldn't it be better to change it into: "The Roma people" ([...] also known as Romanies and Romani people), to avoid confusion ? Sarmizegetusa (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This information may help settle the debate: The Oxford English Dictionary states under "Romany³, n. and a."

[Etymology] [Gipsy Romani, fem. and pl. of Romano adj., f. Rom gipsy: see ROM.]

1. A gipsy; also collect., the gipsies.

2. The language of the gipsies.

3. attrib. or as adj.= GIPSY 4 and 5.

b. Special Combs., as Romany chal, Romanichal' [CHAL], a (male) gypsy; Romany chi (t*a*) [Romany chai girl], a gypsy girl; Romany rye [RYE n.3], a man, not a gypsy, who associates with gypsies.

The Oxford English Dictionary states under "Rom"

[Etymology] [Gipsy (Romany) rom man, husband; pl. romá.]

a. A (male) gipsy, a Romany.

b. attrib.

The Oxford English Dictionary states under "Roma" redirects to "Rom"

[Etymology] [Also pl. Roma(s), Rom. [Gipsy (Romany) rom man, husband; pl. romá.]

a. A (male) gipsy, a Romany.

b. attrib.

From my reading of the OED we need two articles: Romany people and Romany language in line with English people and English language. Why Romany and not Roma or Romani? Because the main usage is Romany and both Roma and Romani are described in relation to that spelling. Romany is described via gipsy not via another version of the same word. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Something that should also be considered is that not all Romani call themselves "Roma". It is only a branch of Romani people from Eastern Europe that use the word "Roma". Why is it taking too long for the article to be corrected/

This subject is not about a vote but the site is supposed to be a online encyclopedia. Therefore the facts are supposed to be correct and not up for opinion. The facts are that Roma is the plural of Rom using Romani grammar. In other words it is Roms when using English grammar. Not all Romani people use Rom(a) but in all groups Rom means 'husband'. The only Romani people that refer to themselves as Roma are from Eastern Europe. Most groups recognise the word "Romani". Including the English Romani people which in older English also gave us the spelling and word Romany / Rommany.

The other word that is universal used amongst most Romani people is the word Tsigan(i/o/e) with various spellings. Even the Iberian Romani people (Gitano) transfered the word into Portuguese as "Cigano". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.213.52 (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

A source that says something similar to 92.236.213.52 is The Struggle for the control of identity by Ian Hancock, see the paragraph that start "The discussion gradually turned..." and "Note 1". --PBS (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move to Romany people

See the sections above #Request for move, How can anyone ..., #Roma"ni" people

Having read the comments on this page, I propose to move this article from Roma people to Romany people as Romany is the spelling used in the OED and we need "people" in the name as the word can also mean the language spoken by the people. Google books confirms that Romany is far more common than Roma or Romani:

• Google books returns 307,600 on Romany
• Google books returns 42,000 on Roma
• Google books returns 13,300 on Romani.

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Has no one else an opinion on this? --PBS (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

The Romany language and Romani music were banned from public performance in Bulgaria.

First, this claim is unsourced. Second, I'm a Bulgarian living in a partly Romani neighbourhood, and while I'm too young to remember such stuff clearly, older people from the neighbourhood are telling me that the language was spoken and the music was played publically, on the street, just as they are now. Certainly there could never have been an official "ban" of the language, because it would have contradicted the ideology too much, and it would have been impossible to implement anyway. As for the music, the Roma have made their wedding marches with music on the street for as long as anyone here can remember, and while it's definitely fun, it's not exactly the sort of sound that any Militsiya-man (or resident, for that matter) in the vicinity could choose to ignore - even if they wanted to.:) --91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It may not have been a blanket ban but others mention it. See [5] for one example: "Many young Gypsies do not speak their native language, Romany, banned for years in schools and public places and today widely ridiculed." Rmhermen (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd like to see a better source than a photo-essay (at least an actual journalistic publication in a reputable newspaper). It still wouldn't convince me, but it would be good enough for Wikipedia. That said, I have no doubt that Romani wasn't, and still isn't, used in the classroom with Bulgarian teachers who don't understand it anyway - which is different from being "banned at schools" à la Kill the Indian, Save the Man. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone read the discussion page on the Sinte?

Interestingly Sinte are coming on the site also saying it is not Roma but "Romani People".

Will the Gaje (including those with a drop of Romani blood and think they are Romani) who are so called experts on the Romani identity please listen to Romani people* (*Romani does not include many English travellers who are mostly not of Romani origin but some other travelling background - the surname will instantly prove this. It does however include Sinte, Gitanos / Cigano, Kale & Romanical etc. It also does not include Luri, Domari, Ghorbati, Zott, Banjara or any other nomadic people not descended from the Romani speaking group arriving into Europe via Greek Asia Minor)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.213.52 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 1 November 2008

Romani group breaking from main group and travelling into Europe via Africa?

There has not to this day been any actual proof that any Romani people split from the main group and travelled via North Africa.

Can anyone actually find a single piece of solid evidence other than some persons quote of opinion to support any claim.

If they did travel via North Africa then how come the only Romani groups there today came much later from Europe and not the other way around? Spanish Gitano call also themselves Kale (Cale) which is also the name of Romani found in Wales and Finland. Study such as that on the Linguistics etc support that the Spanish Romani came via Europe and not via North Africa as some so called experts have tried to claim.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.213.52 (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Steviemitlo (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC) In "The Romani Trail, Part One: Gypsy Music into Africa" (from the Beats of the Heart series) there is a strong assertion accompanied by a map that holds "Romani people split from the main group and travelled via North Africa" into Spain, influencing music and dance traditions there that survive with the Gitanos. Particular emphasis is placed on the relationship between the Ghawazee musicians and dancers of Egypt and Gitanos of Spain. The notorious Ouled Nail dancer-prostitutes of the Atlas Mountain oases fall somewhere in between on this Romany North African migration hypothesis. Several authorities on the Romany peoples, including Dr. Ian Hancock, are interviewed in "The Romani Trail" Parts One and Two, and do not contest this North African migration route hypothesis. This implies perhaps an endorsement of the hypothesis.

Etymology - origin of the word Chavo / chavoro

Just to add a simple piece of info.

If anyone does a search online for a Rajasthani - English translator then they will see the words Choro for boy and chav for 'like'. If they then do a search for a Sanskrit - English translator they will find the word Sva / sava meaning 'offspring (kinsmen of likeness etc)'. As all modern Hindustani language such as Rajastani come from Sanskrit and considerring that through Rajasthani the end 'a' which makes the word male becomes an 'o' this would make the Sanskrit word word 'Savo'. Corrupting the 's' into a 'ch' would give 'chavo' and also would explain the source of Rajasthani 'Chav' & 'Choro'. In Romani they also have the word 'Chavoro'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.213.52 (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Dablink

Is the introductory dablink constructive. A similar 'differentiation' has recently been removed from the Romanians article. I think the rationale that applied there equally applies here. This is what I refer to :

This article is about the Indo-Aryan ethnic group. For the unrelated Latin ethnic groups, see Ancient Romans, Romanians or Romansh people.

RashersTierney (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it for the time being. I can see no reason that "roma people" would be an ambiguous term for an English speaker. -- Molotron 08:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Steviemitlo (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC) "I can see no reason that 'Roma people' would be an ambiguous term for an English speaker." ... Really. Then go Google up "people of Roma" (images) and you will discover buku ambiguity. This encyclopedia entry for every logical reason and to avoid ambiguity should be "Romanies (Gypsies)" period. Those who continue to post here and argue that "Roma people" = "Romany people" either do no know the relevant literature or are activist ideologues and full of righteous indignation who ignore the relevant literature and have their hard heads deep, deep, into the sand. In sum: "Roma people" are either 1)a sub-group of Romanies or 2) the people of Roma (meaning Rome).

Hi Stevi, and welcome! As this appears to be your first second edit on Wikipedia, you might benefit from reading the following Wikipedia:Etiquette. RashersTierney (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Steviemitlo (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks. I apologize to anyone that I may have offended due to the combination of my provocative language and my ignorance of Wiki posting etiquette. I am new to post here, but have followed the development of this now-lengthy "Roma people" entry with growing fascination for years. I thought, given time, the quality and integrity of the entry would improve. However, it has developed so many absurd, unresolved internal contradictions owing to the error of its title that I have decided to finally chime in.

Broken external link

The external link to the Roma Rights Network is incorrect. It should link to http://www.romarights.net/. I can't seem to be able to fix it.

24.85.207.5 (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks for heads up. RashersTierney (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article

The entry should be titled "Romanies (Gypsies)" and "Roma people" should be a sub-section within its contents. I will cite two academic works here in support of my argument:

1) "'Roma' is a political term used as an umbrella name for all members of the Romani ethnic community ... [F]rom an ethnographic point of view, the Romani community is extremely diverse and all Romani groups, subgroups and metagroups have their own ethnic and cultural features .. so far, the homogeneous Romani identity is a political project rather than a reality." (p. 13 in Illona Klimova-Alexander's The Romani Voice in World Politics: The United Nations and Non-State Actors (2005, Burlington, VT.: Ashgate);

2) "Before the changes in 1989-90, the name 'Roma' was used most commonly as an endonyme (an internal community self-appelation) in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (except for former Yugoslavia) when the Gypsies spoke Romanes (the Gypsy language). This name was not widely popular and did not have an official status. In order to be faithful to the historical principle we use the word Roma only for the period after 1989. In all other instances we use the term 'Gypsies'. We think that 'Gypsies' is wider in scope than 'Roma' and we also use it to include the Gypsy communities who are not Roma or who are considered to be 'Gypsies' by the surrounding population but do not wish to be considered as such." (p. 52 in Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov's "Historical and ethnographic background; Gypsies, Roma, Sinti" in Will Guy [ed.] Between Past and Future: The Roma of Central and Eastern Europe [with a Foreword by Dr. Ian Hancock], 2001, UK: University of Hertfordshire Press).

It seems most accurate therefore from both historical and ethnographic points of view to title this Wiki entry "Romanies (Gypsies)" -- unless those who post here continue to agree that a social constructionist title like "Roma people" to represent ethnic Romanies worldwide, now and in the past, is preferable to "Romanies (Gypsies)" just because it seems politically correct to do so. To continue to do so would serve to delude those many students from around the world who consult Wiki and trust the quality of its knowledge bank. Steviemitlo (talk)

I've moved this edit from its former location as it seems to merit its own heading. I hope nobody minds. What the proposal involves are two separate issues:

• What the group about which this article is should be called, (outside of Wikipedia) and
• What this Article should be called. This latter issue is addressed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions

Before this kicks off, from my own experience, debates about name changes can be extremely consuming of time better directed at improving the article itself. RashersTierney (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Steviemitlo (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you for moving my proposal to rename this article to a front burner. My recommendation in response to the first issue is to increase accessibility and accuracy, and minimize ambiguity, by calling the subject of this article -- based on the identity of the ethnic group introduced in broad strokes in its contents -- "Romanies (Gypsies)". My recommendation in response to the second issue is to outright call this article "Romanies (Gypsies)". The argument to call the article "Roma people" was aggressively and relentlessly pursued (see archives) but never strongly rooted in citation of scholarly authority and validity. The present title was never arrived at via a demonstrably informed consensus of Wiki contributors. Meanwhile the article has endured several years of contested revisions. At the same time the title "Roma people" was repeatedly contested and as recently as August 12 of this year, there appeared this statement:

“The word Roma is a modern misused word as most English speaking people have only just come in contact with the word by people recently writing research about the Romani people globally and historically.”

The statement seems correct to the extent it is validated by my two recent and authoritative citations above. Moreover, the informed consensus of the historical and ethnographic literature for the entire 20th century is that "Romanies (Gypsies)" should be assigned as the most accurate and least ambiguous English-language title for this article -- until argued otherwise with knowledge-based authority and validation by the proponents of "Roma people". I propose that the title of this article be immediately changed without further debate to "Romanies (Gypsies)" and that the proponents of "Roma people" finally assume the burden of proof they need to argue their case convincingly. Insisting on weak evidence that "Roma people" is more truthful and less ambiguous than "Romanies (Gypsies)" as a title for this article poorly serves those who choose Wikipedia as a reliable source of knowledge. I will be the first to congratulate those ardent proponents of the "Roma people" title, and respectfully change my mind about "Romanies (Gypsies)" as the more accurate and less ambiguous alternative, if those who support the "Roma people" title can ever mashal enough scholarly evidence to present their case successfully.

In order for there to be a change to an article of this magnitude, there must first be consensus (for the need for change; what alternatives are better than the present one from a Wikipedia perspective). This can only be done successfully if the procedures and guidelines outlined at Wikipedia:Naming conventions are adhered to. Wikipedia:Naming conflict may also be useful to read before getting involved in this discussion. From previous disagreements on this site the acceptability of the term Gypsies is highly disputed and I imagine would be particularly contested as part of the article name. The name Roma may be widely recognised only in the last number of years, but here in Ireland it certainly now has wide recognition. The term Traveller for an ethnic group here is also quite recent, but older terms by which that group were formally known, (while widely recognised), are rarely used and would certainly be considered unacceptable as the name for an encyclopaedic article. In fact the use of such names as Itinerants and Tinkers would immediately date the article as 'historic' (and would generally be seen as provocative). Could I ask any posters to use one more colon : at the start of their contrib. in order to progressively indent, and to sign at the end with four tildes. RashersTierney (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

From a Wikipedia perspective, "Romanies (Gypsies)" is a better name than "Roma people" for this article because "Romanies (Gypsies)" is more easily recognizable to English speakers. It is also less ambiguous and simplifies linking to the article. Major search engines including Google and Yahoo give a much more ambiguous response to "Roma" searches than to "Romanies" searches (or to "Gypsies" searches) because they do not easily recognize "Roma" to mean in the first instance ethnic "Romanies". Self-ascribing "Romanies" who are also presently considered to be international leading authorities on the identity of Romani peoples currently avoid using "Roma people" as a synonym because they know the significant ethnographic and historical differences between "Romanies" and "Roma people". There is no better source to cite on this distinction and its currency than Dr. Ian Hancock, Professor at the University of Texas, whose informative press release "What's in a Name" specifically addresses this naming issue and can be found here: http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2003/romani.html Note that Dr. Hancock asserts repeatedly "I am a Romani" in this report (most recently updated on October 9, 2008) and nowhere does he mention "Roma" or "Roma people". Dr. Hancock is also cited repeatedly as a highly regarded scholarly authority on the Romanies naming issue by the consensus of contributors to the "Roma people" article, most frequently by reference to his quite famous book titled "We Are the Romani People" (first published in 2002). Dr. Hancock does not approve of the name "Gypsies" however. From a Wikipedia perspective his strong bias against the name "Gypsies" and his preference for the name "Romanies" (and avoidance of the name "Roma") as the umbrella ethnonym inadvertently emphasizes that "Gypsies" is still in 2008 too easily recognizable as a name for a distintive people(s) by English speakers. This continuing strong recognition of the name "Gypsies" as ethnic "Romanies" among speakers and readers of English around the world is perpetuated by solid scholarship; in particular the scholarly non-fiction standard "The Gypsies" by Sir Angus Fraser (1992) published by Blackwell in its erudite "Peoples of Europe" book series. More recently (2004) the N. Saul and S. Tebbutt (ed.) book "The Role of the Romanies" was sub-titled "Images and Counter-Images of 'Gypsies'/Romanies in European Cultures'. I cite these quality, contemporary scholarly researches to demonstrate that "Romanies (Gypsies)" has more merit than "Roma people" for the title of this Wiki article that in its lengthy contents constantly misrepresents the name "Romanies" by using the name "Roma" and thus the article suffers terribly from unnecessary ambiguity. Just change the name of the article to "Romanies (Gypsies)" and then subject the contents of the article to the minor editing that results from that change and the result will be a higher quality article, and one most appropriately titled from a Wikipedia perspective. Steviemitlo (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I might be totally out of my head here but I thought "Roma" was the noun and "Romani" was the adjective, making the term "Romanies" ungrammatical and vaguely nonsensical. K. Lásztocska^talk 23:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The term 'Roma' is widely used in English, 'correctly or otherwise', for both the noun and the adjective in reference to this ethnic group. RashersTierney (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

“Romanies,” “Roma” and “Gypsies” are all plural nouns that are today used in English to reference this ethnic group (“Romanies” and “Gypsies” for the group in its ethnic entirety) or “Roma” for a sub-populations of this ethnic group. All are correct, but one “Gypsies” has been contested as not politically-correct. The most widely used of these three are “Gypsies” then “Romanies” then “Roma”. From a Wikipedia perspective the name of the article should be the correct name(s) most easily recognizable by English-speakers and readers. Of these three plural nouns “Romanies” is the most easily recognizable and politically-correct choice. However, users of Wikipedia seeking authoritative and valid knowledge of “Romanies” and “Gypsies” should not be directed to “Roma” because “Roma” is the incorrect name to reference the entire ethnic group. No scholarly authorities, including those I have mentioned in previous posts, can be accurately cited to dispute the incorrectness of the name “Roma” to reference the entire ethnic group. Instead, they use “Romanies” because it is the correct and most widely used name for this inclusive purpose. “Roma people” is not only incorrect and much less widely used by English speakers and readers as an umbrella term for the ethnic group than “Romanies” and “Gypsies,” but by not capitalizing “people” it implies that some “Roma” are not ethnic! The present name of the article should read “Roma People.” But even that would be unnecessarily redundant because “Roma” by itself is the correct name of the ethnic sub-group of “Romanies (Gypsies)” it represents. I refer Wiki editors again to the authoritative works I have cited in my previous recent posts in order to support my proposal for a name change (from "Roma people" to "Romanies (Gypsies)" to this article. When a curious schoolchild seeks reliable knowledge from Wikipedia about “Romanies” and “Gypsies” it seems indefensible from a Wikipedia perspective to redirect them to an article titled “Roma people.” In the marketplace of goods and services, as well as in the marketplace of ideas, any redirect from “Romanies” and “Gypsies” to “Roma people” can be fairly critiqued as an indefensible “bait and switch” tactic that serves the political interests of a few activists while doing a disservice to a vast majority of learners throughout the English-speaking-and-reading world in search of authoritative and valid value-neutral knowledge. Steviemitlo (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see a case for this article to be titled 'Romani people', with a redirect from 'Roma people' (instead of the other way round as it is now). It would be more consistent with the intro. ;'Roma' might become 'Roma (disambiguation)'. 'Romani' as the adjective in searches is much less ambiguous than 'Roma' and gets better results in Google. Just my tuppence worth.RashersTierney (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that there may be a case from a Wikipedia perspective to rename this article. I have proposed “Romanies (Gypsies)” as the most appropriate alternative name from a Wikipedia perspective. You offer to consider instead the alternative name “Romani people” in place of “Roma people.” This seems a compromise worth considering. However, “Romani people” like “Roma people” implies by the use of a small “p” that the inclusive ethnic group that is the subject of the article is not in the first instance that ethnic group more widely known ethnographically and historically among English-language-speakers-and-readers as “Romanies.” The substitution of the small “p” with a capital “P” (thus “Romani People”) mitigates this error but results in an unnecessarily redundancy that can be avoided by simply naming the article "Romanies".Also, since “Romanies” are well-known as a widely dispersed and variegated ethnic group, with many distinct sub-groups that self-ascribe to different identities (for example, the Roma sub-group of Romanies as contrasted to the Sinti subgroup of Romanies) any unnecessary naming of this article that implies otherwise should be avoided. Although I have proposed “Romanies (Gypsies)” at the best replacement name for “Roma people” from a Wikipedia perspective, This said, there remains a case for this article to be named “Romanies” in place of “Romanies (Gypsies)”. However, if it is renamed “Romanies” it would be incorrect and imprudent from a Wikipedia perspective to redirect to “Roma people” (because ethnic Roma are a sub-population of ethnic Romanies and should be introduced clearly as such in the article). You have mentioned an awareness of the name “Roma” in Ireland among Travellers there. By coincidence I recently turned to page 36 in the splendid photo book “Irish Travellers: Tinkers No More” (2007) by Alen MacWeeney to discover vivid evidence that the name Roma is contested there, while there is no confusion about who ethnic Romanies are in relation to ethnic Travellers. I agree with you: 'Romani' as the adjective in searches is much less ambiguous than 'Roma' and gets better results in Google.” The same holds true in all other search engines. More to the point: “Romanies” as the noun plural in web searches is much less ambiguous than “Roma” and gets the best results with the least ambiguity. Finally, “Romani” as a noun is more widely known as the language of the Romanies than as an adjective that modifies “people” and other nouns. This is clear in the titles of many recent scholarly books in Romani studies; for example W. Weyrauch (ed.) “Gypsy Law: Romani Legal Traditions and Culture” (2001). But even the carefully-chosen title of this highly-regarded book demonstrate that the name “Romanies (Gypsies)” is the best among alternatives proposed for renaming the “Roma people” article (from a Wikipedia perspective). Steviemitlo (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The use of the small 'p' in 'X people' seems to follow a well established Wikipedia convention in this context. See Irish people, Welsh people, Polish people as some random examples. I'm a bit surprised that this proposal hasn't prompted more editors to share their views. RashersTierney (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The use of the small 'p' in 'X people' seems to follow a well established Wikipedia convention in this context. See Irish people, Welsh people, Polish people as some random examples. I'm a bit surprised that this proposal hasn't prompted more editors to share their views. RashersTierney (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you have thought through my proposal and its merits and implications at length. Your long experience with the Widipedia and its protocols is also demonstrated here. I agree now that there is a stronger case to rename this article "Romani people" than there is to rename it "Romanies (Gypsies)". The case for retaining the name "Roma people" for the article is revealed not only as weak, but as indefensible from a Wikipedia perspective. More significantly, any case (weak or otherwise) to retain the name “Roma people” for this article has not been made by even one Wiki editor during our week-long, in-depth discussion! This demonstrates that the evidence provided in favor of renaming this article must be overwhelming. So. Have we reached a consensus about this proposed name change? No one has contested even my original proposal to rename as "Romanies (Gypsies)". But I now fully agree with you that renaming this article "Romani people" is less provocative and better fits Wikipedia precedent. Shall we now rename this article "Romani people"? Steviemitlo (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't contributed because I don't really have time to go through all of the arguments being made in enough detail to give the issue the thought it deserves. However, I'll just note that "Roma people"(102,000) returns many more results on Google than "Romani people" (24,600). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. 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). RashersTierney (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, fair point. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeking a consensus to rename this article "Romani people"

The strong case in support of a proposal to rename this article "Romani people" has been made and opened up for discussion. I am now seeking an informal consensus among users and editors of Wikipedia in support of this proposal. Steviemitlo (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note at Wikipedia:Notice board for Romani-related topics to bring this proposal to the attention of editors who have expressed an interest in this topic. I hope my action is not misunderstood as lobbying for a particular outcome. RashersTierney (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! It should promote reaching a richer consensus regarding this proposed name change. It seems that from a Wikipedia perspective there are no grounds left to dispute the proposal. It would be polite but probably pointless to also contact those fourteen listed members of the “Wikipedia:WikiProject Romani people” regarding this proposed name change; pointless because their own project name is “Romani people” and not “Roma people”. Nevertheless, I will do so. But in fact there seems to be no active disputes to this proposed name change at this time. Perhaps it is already near time to request a Wiki administrator to implement what appears now to be an undisputed name change for this article? Steviemitlo (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "Romani people" is better title for the article than the current one; furthermore, it fits better with the title of the related article Romani language. —Zalktis (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It also coincides with the useage promoted by WP:WikiProject Romani people. —Zalktis (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

See the sections above #Roma"ni" people and #Proposed move to Romany people, Romany is the main spelling given in the Oxford English Dictionary and is is by far the most common spelling returned by a search of Google Books, So as I had already proposed the move with no objections I have moved the article to Romany people. --PBS (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This move has NOT been discussed. If you wish to contribute constructively please discuss such fundamental changes first. RashersTierney (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Romany people

Amazing! Somebody suddenly waved a magic wand! Thanks! However, the proposal to rename the article as "Romany people" was not discussed above. The consensus reached was clearly to rename the article from "Roma people" to "Romani people". I am curious to know from whose hat this name "Romany people" emerged? Have I missed something about the Wikipedia renaming process? I wonder if other editors agree that "Romany people" is a more appropriate name from a Wikipedia perspective than "Romani people"? Or, should the name now be "Romani people" according to the consensus just reached and the case for Romany people" afterward be advanced and discussed -- if necessary? Steviemitlo (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted title until consensus is arrived at in the usual manner. RashersTierney (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am reminded RT by this new turn of events of some advice you gave me previously: "from my own experience, debates about name changes can be extremely consuming of time better directed at improving the article itself." I agree that under normal circumstance the time spent debating name change might be better spent at improving the contents of an article. I am, for one, extremely eager to begin to work to improve this article as soon as the name change permits. As it stands, however, the current name "Roma people" plunges a fatal internal contradiction into the heart of the article that precludes its improvement: "Roma people" refers to a sub-group of ethnic Romanies. The article is about the Romani people as an inclusive ethnic entity in its entirity. Significant editorial improvements in the article can begin immediately awaiting only a name change to "Romani people" -- or to "Romany people". The difference between "Romani people" and "Romany people" is trivial compared to the enormous substantive difference between "Romani people/Romany people" and "Roma people." Since the name change from "Roma people" is as yet uncontested, how long must we wait? Let's implement our accord to rename the article "Romani people" as soon as possible. Then we can finally begin apply our energies to improving the article and shaping its concise internal integrity. Steviemitlo (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

An admin. , no less, has attempted to unilaterally change this article title while the issue was under active consideration. It would be very disruptive if an interminable series of title changes was to be the outcome of this discussion. That is why any change should have the widest support possible. I Support a change to 'Romani people' and, particularly in light of recent events, would vigorously Oppose a change to 'Romany people'. But I would like to hear other opinions first. RashersTierney (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I also strongly support a name change to "Romani people" and oppose a name change to "Romany people". Steviemitlo (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Support "Romani people" This has been discussed ad nauseam for the past year or two, and Romani people consistently comes up as the best compromise. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I have some sympathy for the maintaining the spelling "Romany" in UK-related contexts, I have come around to the position that the OED is, indeed behind the times. Editors should practice source criticism and critical thinking, not just assume that quantity trumps quality. And not all WP:RS are created equal on all subjects—not even OED can keep entirely up-to-date with developments in English language usage. A perusal of the actual recent scholarship, rather than just looking at G-hits, reveals a trend towards "Romani" as the preferred spelling in a global context. Allow me to cite Donald Kenrick, Historical Dictionary of the Gypsies (Romanies), 2nd ed. (2007; ISBN 9780810854680), p. 219, s.v. "Romani": "(1) Originally a feminine adjective formed from Rom, the term most Gypsies use for themselves. It is replacing the old English spelling Romany." [Emphasis mine] As such, I reiterate my strong support for the renaming of the article to "Romani people". —Zalktis (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Copied from the previous section:

This move has NOT been discussed. If you wish to contribute constructively please discuss such fundamental changes first. RashersTierney (talk) 20:03, 29 November

In reply see the section #Proposed move to Romany people

See the sections above #Request for move, How can anyone ..., #Roma"ni" people

Having read the comments on this page, I propose to move this article from Roma people to Romany people as Romany is the spelling used in the OED and we need "people" in the name as the word can also mean the language spoken by the people. Google books confirms that Romany is far more common than Roma or Romani:

• Google books returns 307,600 on Romany
• Google books returns 42,000 on Roma
• Google books returns 13,300 on Romani.

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Has no one else an opinion on this? --PBS (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So yes the proposition has been on this page for just over a month and no one had objected to my move until I made it so I am sorry that you think that it had not been discussed have you not been reading the talk page for very long? I note User:RashersTierneythat your first contribution to this page was at 00:24, on 19 November 2008 so the answer is probably no. If not why have you not read the previous sections before making such an unwarranted accusation against me? --PBS (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the reason for wanting to move the page to Romani and not Romany?

• Romani is not the most common spelling according to a search of Google books. Do you have some other way of showing that Romani is the most common spelling (common usage is a major criteria for requesting a move of name see WP:Naming Conventions.
• Romani is not the correct spelling according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

--PBS (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

A proposition does not constitute a discussion, but I'm very glad to see you engaging in this issue here. I hope you can be convinced that 'Romani people' is a more appropriate title than the present one and also more encyclopaedic than the one that you favour. In answer to some of your criticism, I have followed this naming issue for some time and have given reasoned arguments for the current proposal. Finally, I would like to say that I hope this issue can be settled amicably and efforts redirected to the content. RashersTierney (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course a section "Proposed move" is an invitation to discuss a move. If not why did you create a section "Proposal to rename article" and add a comment ?[6] I note that instead of answering my questions I put to you about your assumption of bad you chose to ignore them. But no matter I'll assume good faith and take it that that the above posting was an apology.

On the question of Google book searches, you will find that if you restrict searches by date Romany will be shown to be archaic and Romani much more usual in contempory writing. RashersTierney (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

2,360 on romany date:1970-2008, 1,696 on romany date:1990-2008, 1,173 on romany date:2000-2008

3,287 on romani date:1970-2008, 2,601 on romani date:1990-2008, 2,438 on romani date:2000-2008

Good point. This is probably a question of national varieties of English:

3,030 English pages from gov.uk for romani

13,800 English pages from gov.uk for romany

--PBS (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this proposal arose from an edit by Steviemitlo. I took the liberty of presenting it as a new section, (a move with which that editor expressed agreement). The phrase referred to was not any addition on my part, but came from the initial edit. Its not even one I necessarily agree with! I'm glad to see you are assuming good faith and I would like to reciprocate. I am not pursuing any agenda other than an attempt to bring some internal consistency to the article. As you have highlighted, the article name and its opening statement, at the moment, are not in accord.RashersTierney (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines recommend that ‘an article title on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the variety of English appropriate for that nation’. The name “Romany” as related to ethnic Romanies has wider recognition in England than elsewhere. This is reflected in your survey of books published in England featuring “Romany” – and especially covering its usage in older publications. A large part of the popularity of the name “Romany” in England is a long-time local interest there in the life of George Borrow and his books, and especially in his book titled The Romany Rye. Also, "Romany" was the pseudonym of an immensely popular 20th century English broadcaster and prolific writer (of “Romany” descent on his mother’s side) named George Bramwell Evens (1884-1973). There is both an active George Borrow Society and an active Romany Society (that is, a “GBE society”) in England. I am not surprised that a search of Google Books (UK) brings up a lot of “Romany” hits and titles. However, the name “Romani” has much wider recognition these days than “Romany” by English speakers and readers worldwide. The major international journal that publishes scholarly studies of Romanies is titled Romani Studies, not Romany Studies. Thus, in addition to “Romany” being perhaps parochial in its English-language usage, I concur with PBS and RT that “Romany” seems archaic and that “Romani” is much more usual in current writing. Can we now agree to rename the article “Romani people” so we can get about revising and improving its contents? Steviemitlo (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be general consensus on the title change. The only editor who has dissented lately is PBS and his most recent contrib. suggests to me some reconsideration of initial position. There is no 'one-upmanship' behind that comment. On the technical aspects of the move I confess some lack of confidence and would welcome assistance particularly from PBS if he is inclined. RashersTierney (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's move forward. PBS, will you please help us out here? Thanks! Steviemitlo (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

<--outdent Romany is not archaic, the majority of gov.uk is "Romany" while the majority for .gov is Romani so this would seem to be a split within dialects of English. Further User:Steviemitlo you write Romani has recognition by "English speakers and readers worldwide". What is your evidence that that is true?

American government web pages.

• 563 English pages for romany site:gov
• 20,900 English pages for romani site:gov

British government web pages.

• 13,800 English pages from gov.uk for romany
• 3,030 English pages from gov.uk for romani

New Zealand government web pages.

• 184 English pages from govt.nz for romani
• 877 English pages from govt.nz for romany

• Australia government webpages, Using roman[iy] site:gov.au -site:nla.gov.au -battle (see Battle of Romani)
  • 2,060 English pages from gov.au OR nla.gov.au for romani -battle
  • 2,500 English pages from gov.au OR nla.gov.au for romany -battle

It seems that Romany is not archaic or "parochial in its English-language usage". --PBS (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No-one disputes that both forms "Romany" and "Romani" exist in parallel in the English language; even Kenrick states this in the The Historical Dictionary of the Gypsies (Romanies) entry I cited above. Nevertheless, it is the case that in specialised, academic literature in the field of Romani studies, the latter spelling is preferred in English. This dates back to as early as 1926, with John Sampson's The dialect of the Gypsies of Wales, being the older form of British Romani preserved in the speech of the clan of Abram Wood (Oxford: Clarendon Press; OCLC 1003470). Nowadays, for example, there is the Anglo-Romani Project at the University of Manchester. (Incidentally, the latter was incorrectly renamed "The Romany Project" through a mass search-and-replace type action in the article Angloromany language, where all incidents of "Romani" were unilaterally changed to "Romany" regardless of the sources.) "Romani" is also the spelling used by the Romani Studies section at University of Hertfordshire. Thus, even in the UK, there is a long established preference for the spelling "Romani" amongst scholars and other academic specialists. Being an academic myself, I admit a certain bias towards scholarly usage; however, I still think it is better for Wikipedia to use "Romani", which is both promoted by scholarly experts in the subject, and is widely preferred by the Romani people themselves in a broader global context (cf. International Romani Union, International Romani Writers' Union, etc.), and leave the more "popular"/traditional/vernacular/non-specialist spelling "Romany" as a secondary alternative. —Zalktis (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The Anglo-Romani Project project is a good example of this dichotomy because in the Independent newspaper, when Ian Herbert reported the Launch of Romany language website aims to save culture on 30 January 2006 he choose to use "Romany" throughout the article provides a link to the Manchester site (only the Telegraph out of the four major heavy weight London papers buck the trend of Romany being more popular spelling in the UK). --PBS (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is unfortunate that you have chosen to introduce your own dichotomy into this discussion. The issue under debate was the proposed move from 'Roma people' to 'Romani people', a proposition which has achieved general consensus. That discussion has now (temporarily, at least) been subverted by the reintroduction of a particular point of view that you previously expressed and which clearly had no support, viz. 'Romany people'. RashersTierney (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

...and the Telegraph style book also insists on "gipsy" rather than "gypsy" [7]... It is unfortunate that this dichotomy has been re-introduced to the discussion, where most agree that the current name is inadequate. The point remains: in the case of two established alternatives, which do we choose as the primary one for the article name? In this case we have "Romany", which has a long usage in literary contexts (hence the OED ranking), is favoured by many journalists, civil servants, and some members of the Romanichal community (in the UK and the diaspora); and we have "Romani" which is preferred by many scholarly experts and a broad consensus of Romanies from many different countries and backgrounds, as well as being employed by some members of other groups (journalists, etc.). Neither is a neologism. What are the generally accepted criteria for naming an article in such a case? Are G-hits the ultimate arbiter of common names? Or should we be taking a more directed look. For example, a Google Scholar search for "Romani" in the title (-Romani in the author field, and - "Abric Romani") yields 3,700 hits, while a similar search for "Romany" yields only 303 hits! Even taking into account that this search is still not entirely perfect in its criteria, it certainly shows the overwhelming preference for "Romani" in scholarship, i.e. in what should be the backbone of WP:RS in a Wikipedia article. —Zalktis (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The criteria for naming a page can be found at is Wikipedia:Naming Conventions#Use the most easily recognized name "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." --PBS (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." RashersTierney (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Government websites, the heavy weight newspapers and websites such as the BBC are also reliable sources. Even more so than research papers when determining the optimisation of spelling for a general audience over specialists. --PBS (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Many of the research papers, rather than just opting to use one or other adjective, give their reasons for doing so, and where this happens 'Romani' tends to be the usual form. This direct addressing of our dilemma must be given due weight. RashersTierney (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result of the proposal was consensus support for move to Romani people. Though I have read the whole discussion, including above, as a third party I greatly appreciate the effort to focus the sprawl to this section.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Roma people → Romani people the proposed name more accurately reflects preferred adjective with reference to this Ethnic group. --RashersTierney (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a notice of the proposal here: Wikipedia:Requested moves #Other proposals. Could I ask that further discussion on the proposed move from 'Roma people' to Romani people' be confined to this area. RashersTierney (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

There seems clear agreement on the need to change the article title and the remaining issue is whether 'Romani people' or 'Romany people' better fits Wikipedia's guidelines. Is that a fair reflection of the current situation? RashersTierney (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Among the few who have joined in the discussion on this page in the last few day yes, but others attracted by a WP:RM may have different opinions, they may think that Roma people is more appropriate. The last requested move back in March this year attracted a lot of traffic see Talk:Roma people/Archive 7#Requested move: Roma people -> Gypsies --PBS (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I accept your point, but if editors participate in good faith and focus on the issue in dispute rather than opening up every possible variant on the general theme, it will constructively move the article on. Unless there is clear and broadly-based consensus there is little point in adopting such fundamental change explicit in a Requested move. RashersTierney (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

PBS, a number of your concerns have already been addressed by various editors. It might be helpful if you could summarise, as succinctly as possible, what you think are the outstanding matters. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The entry regarding survey states - Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions. RashersTierney (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

---

• Move to Romany people As can be seen in the previous section, The Oxford English Dictionary uses Romany. That spelling spelling is more common in the major English speaking Commonwealth countries. It is also used in the USA for example A Google search of the NYT returns "950 English pages from nytimes.com for romany gypsy" and "957 English pages ... for romani gypsy" (I had to filter on the word gypsy because otherwise there were false positives from people with the name Romani). The spelling Romani is more common among scholars on both sides of the pond, but "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." and therefore I think Romany is more appropriate than Romani. --PBS (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have struck out my suggested move in the interests of consensus, but I expect that the article will include "(or Romany people)" in the first sentence as this is as much about National Variations on spelling as anything else. --PBS (talk)

There is no doubt that this would indeed be the case following a re-name of the article. —Zalktis (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that is reasonable, as a variation of spelling, given the valid arguments you have put forward. This should not be cited by others to justify every variant or possibility on the general theme, irrespective of merit. RashersTierney (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support proposal as it stands. "Romani people" is the the preferred term in the scholarly literature; it is also the preferred self-designation of most Romani groups (including Romanichal, Sinte, Scandinavian Travellers, &c.), whereas "Roma" properly refers more narrowly to the Romani groups of SE Europe (Vlax Romani, Lovara, &c.). Furthermore, "Romani" is the preferred form used in the Library of Congress catalogue authorities record. It is also the increasingly the preferred usage in UN and Council of Europe texts (cf. Hancock, We Are the Romani People, ISBN 1902806190, p. xxi). —Zalktis (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support move to "Romani people" as per arguments above, and the past year of arguments in favour of this move. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support move to "Romani people". Reject “Roma people” from an ethnographic and historical perspective as an incorrect group name for the more inclusive group of ethnic Romanies presented in the article. “Romani people” is also the prudent choice from a Wikipedia perspective because it is the name that the greatest numbers of contemporary English-language readers most easily recognize. “Romani people” compared to all alternatives is the least ambiguous, least archaic, and least parochial choice. “Romani people” is the choice that best fits the introduction to the article, and best facilitates seamless linking. These days most prominent specialist/scholars in UK and elsewhere, including those who are themselves Romanies, frequently publish their researches for English-language readers using “Romani” instead of “Romany”. The leading and oldest English-language scholarly journal specializing in studies of Romanies is today titled Romani Studies. Most authoritative books published in the English language advancing knowledge about Romanies use the term “Romani” instead of “Romany” in their titles (for example, Illona Klimova-Alexander's The Romani Voice in World Politics: The United Nations and Non-State Actors [2005, Burlington, VT.: Ashgate]. Steviemitlo (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support move to "Romani people" also as it is the preferred name that they give themselves. Propagating an inaccuracy under cover of "most common" is very unencyclopedic. --HighKing (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment "people" is a qualifier, not part of the name, so the article should be Romani or Romani (people), not Romani people. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic/National group naming seems to follow a well established though not all-encompassing Wikipedia convention of 'X people' e.g Irish people, Japanese people, Welsh people. This is particularly true where 'X' is an adjective or as a noun refers to the language. RashersTierney (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support move as proposed. The convention of 'X people' (eg 'Irish people') is appropriate for naming this article as no acceptable stand-alone 'X' form has yet been presented. The current 'X-' (that is 'Roma'), is widely deprecated as an adjective as can be seen from this and previous discussions. The remaining issue is what should X be. The choice lies between 'Romany' and 'Romani', essentially different spelling of the same word. Academically and now generally, 'Romani' is the more usual form. Authoritative dictionaries do not define meaning but reflect it. When, as in this case, the Oxford English Dictionary changes it's preference from Romany to Romani in its new edition,, that acknowledgement of changed common usage cannot be ignored by Wikipedia. Finally, this entire issue might have been resolved much earlier and with considerably less effort on the part of many editors had the initial name-change in March from 'Romani people' to 'Roma people' been presented as an RM. RashersTierney (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Move to Romany people. As can be seen in the previous section, The Oxford English Dictionary uses Romany. That spelling spelling is more common in the major English speaking Commonwealth countries. It is also used in the USA for example A Google search of the NYT returns "950 English pages from nytimes.com for romany gypsy" and "957 English pages ... for romani gypsy" (I had to filter on the word gypsy because otherwise there were false positives from people with the name Romani). The spelling Romani is more common among scholars on both sides of the pond, but "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." and therefore I think Romany is more appropriate than Romani. --PBS (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Specifically on the OED, a search 'Romany' came up with this result. Not so clear-cut after all. RashersTierney (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not quite that simple. There are three meanings given for Romany

• The first is --The Roman Empire. -- which is the meaning that Romani links to in the online version. and the text given is "Forms: 4 Romani(e, -ye, Romaine, 5 Romaynge, Romayne." First usage from the 14th century.
• The second meaning is "romany buge (also banes, skins), some kind of small fur used for lining garments." First usage from late 15th century.
• The third meaning is "1. A gipsy; also collect., the gipsies." and "2. The language of the gipsies." (both first usage from 1812).

Hope that clears that one up. --PBS (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The third entry in my OED (C Edition) has the following - Romany also Rommany, -anee, Romeny, -ani ...[Gipsy Romani fem. And plural of Romano adj. Rom gipsy see Rom]. (My bolding for clarity). Your editing could do with a little less 'selectivity'. RashersTierney (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah-ha! On the online version there are buttons for [pronunciation], [spellings], [etymology], [quotations], and [date charts]. I had all the buttons off (to make cut and past easier), so I did not pull out the spelling alternative (on the words), but let the search engine entry for Romani go where it would. On re-checking it, it also goes to "Anglo-Romani" (DRAFT ENTRY Sept. 2008) with the preferred spelling of Romani in the description eg "A. adj. Of or relating to Romani people native to English-speaking countries, esp. to the variety of the Romani language used by them". Not sure why the OED uses that spelling for this entry, but it may be to do with the quotes for each meaning. Before 1989 for each meaning they are all Romany, while all the quotes since then are Romani, and this is a new draft entry (so not based on 1989 2nd edition). Which of course supports your contention that the modern spelling is Romani. -- PBS (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. RashersTierney (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Trying to filter out false positives is a difficulty with Romani. Many sites are picked up with Romani-an or Romani (of the Romans) from Latin. However many advocate of Romani over Romany would avoid the word gypsy altogether ( Hancock particularly comes to mind), so this may also unintentionally filter out hits. RashersTierney (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This was a filter for a specific site the New York Times not for sites in general. --PBS (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If Hancock , for example, had contributed an article to the NYT, the same rationale applies. Our general difficulty with search-engines is further complicated by the fact that we hope to get hits on a compound term, 'Romani people' or 'Romany people' but without excluding other compound constructions such as 'Romany community' or 'Romani population' which would also support our respective claims. I'm just highlighting the crudeness of search-engines for what we are both trying to demonstrate rather than specifically criticising your methodology. RashersTierney (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Again the Hancock activists ? This is not an Hancock essay to quote only him in every single matter of this article . Here's the rule which doesn't allow you do to so . NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.11:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The only rule with Wikipedia is...there are no rules, only policies and guidelines! RashersTierney (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the argument that Wikipedia should be optimised for readers rather than specialists: the knock-on effect of naming this main article "Romany people" would be that the same nomenclature would have to be introduced in other, related articles to avoid confusion amongst readers. For example, the article on Scandoromani would have to be renamed Scandoromany, to avoid confusing inconsistency, even though there is no evidence of usage for this term, in specialised scholarship or otherwise. Source criticism tells us that some references are more significant than others: passing references in an NYT article, or a slew of them, would not weigh very heavily in a WP article about a medical breakthrough; instead, we would look for a good, conclusive reference from NEJM or The Lancet, wouldn't we? Why should it be any different with our source criticism regarding the subject at hand? Are we to dismiss Romani Studies scholars as WP:FRINGE, because NYT and OED prefer a different spelling? (By the way, PBS, as your text stands, it looks like Romani beats Romany 957:950 in NYT; is this really what you meant?) This is from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English):

The references for the article should themselves be reliable sources; if one name is clearly most commonly used in the English-language references for the article, use it. If (as will happen occasionally) something else is demonstrably more common in reliable sources for English as a whole, and this is not a question of national varieties of English, use that instead. [my emphasis]

In the case of an article that we expect will be based on WP:RS by Romani studies scholars—who, as is clear, lean towards "Romani"—this points to the fact that, sooner or later, the article will need to be renamed "Romani people", even if the consensus would be for "Romany people" just now. —Zalktis (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Page names are covered by WP:NC while the content of articles is covered by WP:MOS. Romany is not a foreign word so WP:UE is not applicable, nor is WP:MOS#Foreign terms. If it were, then you can see that WP:MOS#Foreign terms does not rule out the use of different foreign words in different articles for the same thing. So if Romany was a foreign word just because it is spelt one way in one article does not mean it as to be spelt the same way in another. --PBS (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The proposal at hand is “that Roma people be renamed and moved to Romani people.” Detailed discussion among editors thus far involving has resulted in a clear consensus to do so:Steviemitlo - strong support; RashersTierney - strong support; Zalktis - strong support; The Mighty Quill - support; PBS - pending? PBS has never commented directly on the strengths of the proposal itself as cited and documented above by those editors who long ago voiced consensus favoring "Romani people" over "Roma people". The issue whether 'Romani people' or 'Romany people' better fits Wikipedia's guidelines, however much provocative and worthy of exploring, is an off-topic discussion unrelated to this proposal. It functions instead as a “bait and switch” and “red herring” to prolong the consensus-building phase of the proposal until ... until ... until what? Again, I ask PBS in his responsible capacity as a value-neutral administrator to respect and implement the majoity consensus now reached, to please rename and move “Roma people” to “Romani people.” Doing so will allow us to finally begin to improve the article. I very much want to continue to discuss the merits of “Romani people” in contrast to the merits of “Romany people” from a Wikipedia perspective – after this strongly endorsed present proposal has been implemented. Steviemitlo (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that a formal WP:RM has been tabled and I am clearly not a disinterested administrator over this issue, I would not consider moving the page until the customary five days have passed. Also it would be better if another disinterested administrator was to make the decision (which is one of the functions of a WP:RM request). --PBS (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Romani language#Request for Comment: Romani, Romany, Roma also shows that there are other editors out there, previously the mainstays of WP:WikiProject Romani people, who strongly support "Romani" over "Roma" (or "Romany", for that matter). —Zalktis (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reformatted the section slightly by adding "survey" and "discussion" subsections. It is unreasonable to expect an administrator to wade through acres of text and work out what everyone's opinions are. So I suggest that whatever opinion you have that you express it as a bullet point in the Survey section above "*Support move to Romani people because of abc ~~~~" or "*Oppose move because of xyz ~~~~", or as I did "*Move to some other name because of hij ~~~~". Although Steviemitlo may be right in his summary of other editors opinions, it is better that those who are interested contribute directly to the WP:RM process. --PBS (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

An invitation to 'Move to some other name' is a direct subversion of the collaborative progress made by us to date , and formed no part of this proposal. RashersTierney (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with RT. Although I respect PBS’ arguments in support of his position, they are off-topic and irrelevant to the proposal at hand: “that Roma people be renamed and moved to Romani people.” PBS’ actions as an empowered Wiki administrator and supposedly value-neutral on this issue are indeed subversive to the Spirit and Letter of Wikipedia guidelines for consensus-building. PBS’ obvious obstructive manipulations of this proposal discussion are bellicose, insulting and invite censure. PBS’ latest desperate administrative maneuvers to reformat the proposal discussion in order to rewrite the proposal at hand for his personal advantage as an editor go beyond the pale. All of us who have contributed to the proposal discussion in search of consensus for the past ten days should not be forced to repeat and document again our detailed cases for renaming this article “Romani people.” The formal “Proposal to Rename Article” (a.k.a. Requested move) section heading formally presented on November 21st by RT was subsequently discussed in detail by numerous active editors. A consensus was reached by them more than five days ago. Please, everyone, urge PBS to respect this consensus; a consensus that follows the ethical spirit of Wiki guidelines -- so that we can turn our productive energies toward the improvement of the “Romani people” article. Steviemitlo (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My way or no way, is not how reqested moves work, any one can suggest other alternatives to an initial move, the reason for this is that the process is meant to be used to develop a consensus and the initial suggestion may not be the one that is in the end agreed upon. Although there is no need to directly express an opinion in a survey section it makes it much easier for the closing administrator -- who may look to close half a dozen or more moves in a session -- and if opinions are not clearly expressed may misunderstand editors points of view or misjudge what the consensus is. -- the format I have put in place is a standard one for WP:RM see the template {{RMtalk}}. --PBS (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Does the clarification on the OED definition settle our remaining bone of contention? RashersTierney (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Let the WP:RM work its way through (five days) and lets see what comes of it. There is still plenty of time for this discussion to develop. --PBS (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This link to The Bible in Spain by George Borrow quotes from the Wikipedia page on Borrow. Consistently and throughout the intro., the spelling 'Romani' is used despite Borrow's association with the older spelling in his own writing. For this Article (currently 'Roma people') the adjective 'Romany' would introduce a glaring inconsistency within Wikipedia itself and necessitate changing the terminology in other articles starting with that on Borrow (not to mention giving the lie to the Borrow book's introduction). If that's what we intend, so be it, but we must be aware of the wider implications. It is significant that the use of 'Romani' has already been adopted from Wikipedia in at least one significant publication. Whats clearly needed is a dedicated Wikipedia:Manual of Style, but one step at a time.RashersTierney (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.