Talk:Romani people/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3

Contents

Economic and crime discussion

I think the discussion of crime and economic factors should be expanded, as it's a rather complex issue. The article makes it sound like it's simply a discriminatory myth that "gypsies" are thieves, but it's actually a fact that in many areas, especially tourist-filled areas, Roma women and even (or perhaps especially) children make up a large proportion of the pickpockets, as well as engaging in somewhat deceptive and aggressive "marketing practices" like thrusting items into peoples' hands and then demanding payment. This is partly due to the fact that there are few economic opportunities in modern European society for nomadic peoples, and fewer still for people who aren't of the majority ethnicity (many Spaniards would prefer not to hire Roma, for example). People being surrounded by groups of "gypsy children", some of whom distract the tourist while the others steal a wallet, are fairly common in Rome, Seville, and even some cities in Greece. --Delirium 09:26, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

This article has been sacrificed at the altar of gypsy PC. Gypsies are not just nomadic, they often absolutely refuse to work a steady job as it's "against their religion".

I can see American tourists reading this article and going to Europe and thinking "aaahhh what beautiful little roma children gathering around me, they are harmless I hear, just discriminated against....hey, where's my wallet!"

I agree--it's a well-attested fact that gypsies/Roma/whatever are often thieves. This shouldn't be glossed over.

It is a well-attested fact that many non-Gypsies are also often thieves. I would suggest that any reference to crime is treated sympathetically and not as if it's a racial characteristic. Also, please note that Gypsies do work and many are actually very well off - a lot of them are land-owners.

There are, of course, Gypsies who work. But it is undeniable that many Gypsies in Europe steal for a living. This is not a theory but a phenomenon, well established by the findings of police forces throughout Europe. A culture has to be scrutinized in its entirety -- including the unsavory parts. A similar article about American Settlers that did not mention cheating the American Natives would be just stupid. -- ATC
Stop the press! People who live in poverty/diaspora/deracination have a crime problem! Surely it would be better to say that someone or a group of people has suffered from affects associated with these? Rather than "Gypsies are often thieves". One says that crime often follows being a (so-called, rather inspecific term) gypsy, the other says that crime follows a particular set of circumstances.

Circumstances that are independent of race. There are as many poor white criminals as there are gypsy criminals, and race is no more a cause of crime for white criminals than it is (so-called) gypsy criminals.

Because a criminal is a criminal, not a white-criminal or a black-criminal or a Hispanic-criminal. The acts that make them criminals are not related to their race and (in theory at least) are treated equally in law.

So instead you should say something like 'Many gypsies live in bad areas, and suffer from the associated problems, such as crime, poverty and substance abuse'. Not 'Many gypsies are criminals', which is a useless, generalised statement which tars people with the same brush and pisses them off in large numbers.

Even then referring to such a large group of disparate people with the collective term gypsies is just plain lazy (this comment included). No better than saying Jews, Muslims or Christians. Which Jews? Which Christians? Which Muslims? Which gypsies? Get specific if you're going to call people something.

This is my first post in this section. Let me start by acknowledging that I'm very far from saying that all Roma are thieves, or lazy, or criminals, or anything. But I will say that one gets the feeling that, while the first visible layer is indeed irrelevant when talking about ethnicity (many Roma are thieves), looking one layer below the one you just dissected (many poor people are thieves), there seems to be something "wrong" there, as seen by a non-Roma (WHY are many Roma poor?). In my opinion and experience, many Roma are poor because many Roma won't work, as opposed to "many Roma can't work" (due to disabilities) or "many Roma can't find work" (due to discrimination). I'll take the issues one at a time.
Discrimination -- there certainly is discrimination against Roma in many of the Eastern European countries where they live. But, believe me, there is also strong discrimination by Roma against non-Roma in the same areas. While that certainly doesn't make it right, it also doesn't make it easy to stop the whole damned thing. Nevertheless, I think there is not enough discrimination to actually stop a well-prepared Gipsy from getting a job -- and I live in a country where Roma are percieved as a "problem". I honestly agree they don't have an equal chance with non-Roma (and that is unfortunate, but I'm talking about facts now); however, I also think they do have a good chance at getting a job, if they're well-trained and responsible (or whatever other criteria potential employees are subject to in the institution that hires).
Disability -- I'm addressing this issue because many people see disabled Gypsies begging. I'm quite certain that, if most Roma had the same level of hygiene and medical care as most non-Roma, they'd be one of the healthiest ethnic groups in the world -- I truly believe that. The reason is exactly that many of them don't follow the same norms of hygiene and medical care as most of the other guys -- so natural selection was, and probably still is working to their advantage. True, they have high mortality rates (especially infantile), but that's how natural selection works -- give a 5 year-old Gypsy the same bowl of cereal the dog ate from 5 minutes ago, and he'll be quite all right, while your son would probably miss a week's sleep to diarheea in the same conditions. Not to mention giving birth, which is a joke for many Roma women, while quite a lot of non-Roma would literally die when giving birth if not attended by a full medical staff. Hitler and the other guys only got half of the truth: while genes are important, theirs are better, not worse than ours, when push comes to shove. Many of the disabilities you find in the streets are inflicted. Yes, sad but true, they're either self-inflicted (rarely), or inflicted by the parents (or their agents), specifically for begging, typically when the child is very young.
Work -- I said they're better fit than non-Roma when push comes to shove. The problem is that in this century, push rarely comes to shove when speaking about survival in the strictest sense, at least in Central/Eastern Europe, where most Roma live. And under these conditions, many Roma fail miserably. "Fail" being a relative term, as always -- they "fail miserably" by non-Roma standards; by their standards, most of them live quite a full, happy life (and who's to judge after all? but then again, that's philosophy, we started from criminality, so back to the point). The real problem is that most Roma simply do not want to work, in the responsible, long-term way most non-Roma think "work" -- and many don't want to work at all. "You racist bastard!", you'll all scream. Hang on, I didn't place this information in the article -- this is the talk page, I welcome a discussion. However, I have many personal and very close people's first hand "testimonies" which support this. I'll only give you one example, there was a Roma community study on TV, made in Romania by a foreigner (Western European, I can't remember their exact nationality). I personally saw this, and I'm honestly not making it up. Imagine yourself being filmed, with the whole camera crew, sound engineer, reporter, translator, camera -- the whole "officially on TV" feeling: you'd surely be on best behavior, right? Well, within this setting, the reporter notices that it's early spring and the land surrounding the house the Gipsy woman he was talking to was sharing with some 10 other people (family and friends) was barren of any kind of vegetables. Her answer: "well, we hope the Romanians will have a good crop, so we can steal from them -- we're not very keen at agriculture ourselves, you know...". I've seen or heard several other similar lines from Roma ("Work? ME?! What, am I mad or something?!"; "Give me some money, give me something to drink!" -- "Ok, come on in, you can help out cleaning in the yard and I'll be happy to pay you" -- "Umm... no, thanks, see you!")
Why? -- there are several theories. Most have to do with the Roma "free spirit" -- i.e. nomadic life. Here's the one I find most reasonable. Do you know how you feel free when you're on vacation and you're visiting another city within your own country? That feeling that the rules can be bent, and no harm's done? Think about it, feel that "vacation" feeling before saying I'm wrong. Now think about when you're going abroad, especially in a country where they don't speak your language -- doesn't that make rules even more flexible? I don't mean you spit people's faces on the street, I'm talking about the feeling. Now imagine that you had lived like that your entire life. Moreover, imagine that your ancestry is made of people who lived like that. And that all of your traditions and culture are in perfect accord with that way of living. And finally, that you are, and feel you are, ethnically different from the people who inhabit those countries. That would grant most individuals a huge degree of freedom in breaking "the rules" -- just think about the British hooligans, those guys would be a lot worse than the Roma if they were nomadic indeed! Now, with this kind of feeling of freedom running deep through your veins, you migrate to another country, at a time when borders aren't very definite, and, most importantly, when the society's norms are a lot stricter than today. You don't want to do any harm, you just migrate, like you and your kin always have. The society being judgemental as it used to be, they draw a line between "you" and "them". At first it's probably funny, but then you realize you don't really have the same rights as they have. Moreover, your kind is taken into slavery (Gypsies in Europe were not "imported", like the blacks in US and the Indians in UK -- they migrated here --, but they were taken into slavery nevertheless). The separation between "you" and "them" grows quite a lot wider now. "They" teach their children to despise your kind. What do you learn your children? F*ck them, that's what! It's only natural, what would you do in their shoes? (Of course, I'm not talking about you personally, whoever you are, with your current education and level of understanding -- I'm talking about "you" as the average XVII-XVIII century, uneducated Gypsy, who's reacting to the uneducated non-Gypsies living at the same time, and who took you into slavery). After some generations live like that, and pass on that oppressed feeling so much that you need to invent a word for non-Roma (Gadje) -- freedom again! Nomadic people, taken into slavery, and then free again -- what do you do? Do you get an education, make a life insurance, settle down and start a family business, now that slavery's over? Hell, no! Not only that you're nomadic by nature, but you've just been released! You'll obviously move on with a vengeance! And not only that you have that "freedom spirit" you've always had, which allows bending and breaking the rules, not only there's an ethnic barrier between you and the "other guys", but now you also hate their guts for what they did to you, and your brothers, and your sisters. Of course you'll steal from them if you can. Of course you'll trick them when you can. And most importantly, you'll certainly avoid working for them -- haven't you for so long, and for free?
So yes, I honestly believe that many Roma are the incarnation of freeloading. Yes, I believe that many Roma are criminals (in the broadest sense -- mostly beggars, prostitutes, pimps, pickpockets, thieves -- that is, mostly not involved in organized, or horrible criminal activity; the Mafia in America in the 30's, made of the Italians we respect as a nation, was quite a few levels worse than the average Roma level of criminality). I know that many are uneducated to the point of illiteracy, and that it's mostly because of their parents and the way they're educated at home to disregard rules made by Gadji. But that's a result of their (a) history, (b) home education, (c) current discrimination, and last but not at all least, (d) ethnic philosophy. By "ethnic philosophy" I mean that in my opinion, the Roma still bear the nomadic "gene" (metaphorically speaking) in their blood. They still have the truly intrinsic survivalist philosophy us Gadje have lost somewhere along the way: attack Germany today, and all will stand up as one -- if you're strong enough, you'll kill them all; try to attack the Gypsies today -- regardless of how strong you are, they'll not only survive, but they'll also steal your weapons. And back to the "ethnic philosophy": most non-Roma Westerners would consider the Roma a primitive people, judging by most aspects of their life (lack of personal hygiene, lack of education, lack of stability and/or reliability, level of poverty). In my opinion, that's a false conclusion. The Roma did not stagnate as a culture. They just chose a different path than we did -- but their culture evolved on that distinct path, just as well as ours has evolved on the path we chose. I believe that most Roma are intrinsically happier than non-Roma Westerners. Would you rather have your right arm cut down that live the shame of having your son in prison? For a Roma, that's no big deal, because it's not their people's prison, or judgement which led to prison -- it's the Gadje prison, it's the Gadje judgement -- so it's not a moral issue for them, it's just something to learn from -- at best. In my opinion, the Gypsies live their lives a lot more intently, on both the pleasurable and the painful sides, than non-Roma do. Isn't that a more fortunate way to live your life, rather than being pampered about the pain, and not letting go enough to feel the pleasures of being alive? Who are we to judge?
Now, back on topic -- I agree with the previous contributor who said that the criminality is a direct result of poverty. Moreover, as explained extensively above, I truly, most honestly sympathize with the Roma's poverty -- but, again, as explained above, I believe their poverty is a direct result of their unwillingness to get a proper education, and to work in a stable, responsible way (of course, I'm not talking about all Roma, quite a lot are pretty wealthy -- I'm talking about the many poor ones). While philosophically I don't think that's a tragedy or a shameful thing for Roma, it still is a fact. So it still needs to be addressed in the article.
Anyway, I'd welcome comments on my opinions shown above, especially from our anonymous Roma contributor(s). --Gutza 23:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


Note about Roma and ability to find work (in Czech Republic): for decades many of them worked as construction workers or similar type of work. When Ukraine got into economic troubles about 100-200,00 of Ukrainians come to work into the Czech Republic and they displaced the Roma because being more reliable and cheaper (and easier to abuse, as cca half of them works there illegally). This had jumped unemplyment rate of Roma very high (I saw estimates between 50-90% but no exact statistics are gathered).

One reason for powerty is not mentioned: one can hear often in media about situation of people who borrow money on short term for /extremely/ high rates (even thousands of percents per year!) and get indebted forever. These people are typically already poor and then become literally slaves. In theory such usurious rates are crime in the Czech Republic but police is unable/unwilling to investigate within Roma communities (both victimes and lenders are Roma). Pavel Vozenilek 01:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


From Morgan: Let's not forget the welfare culture. Many Roms and Sintis, for reasons of both lifestyle and poverty, were maintained on the dole, and the results are similar to that of the welfare systems in the US and other countries. Poverty itself does not necessarily breed crime. Free handouts, on the other hand, produce two precursors to crime: the victim attitude and entitlement. I agree with the disputant above that poverty and crime are not racial issues, but situational issues. Nevertheless they are difficult issues, which produce deep dislike and mistrust on both sides. I believe that the solution lies in time-limiting welfare, as was done in the US, and in creating jobs. And there's the rub. Many eastern block countries have depleted treasuries, and who in the private industry is willing to take a chance on a group of people who have been labeled idlers and thieves? And yet I hope my former countrymen will do just that, because it's the only way we can begin to mend fences and become one people, if not culturally then politically. [Morgan the Czech in US] 01:44, 20 August 2005 (CT)

Enlightened Spanish King?

Article mentions "an enlightened Spanish king" who tried to forcibly integrate Roma into the mainstream. Can we have a name, or maybe a reference? adoarns 19:28, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

here is google's top hit for Carlos III gitanos'. — Miguel 17:39, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
This link is a brief history of the persecution of the Gypsies in Spain. I'll turn it into a section of the article later, unless someone else beats me to it. — Miguel 17:47, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Furthermore, if true this is not "full integration", it's "forced assimilation", and I am editing accordingly. No citation on what king, I have no idea if it's true, I just don't want to see the word integration abused. -- Jmabel 07:17, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you. Although I did not write that paragraph I think i can offer an explanation.
"Enlightened" refers to the historical period known as The Enlightenment. I would guess that the article refers to Charles III of Spain, but I am not sure. These kings were also called "enlightened despots", something like the more modern phrase "benevolent dictator".
The Enlightened Kings and their ministers were generally forward-thinking and well-meaning, but absolutely socially and culturally insensitive. They thought they could solve social problems with a stroke of the legislative pen, but more often than not their reforms created new problems in place of the old ones. It is entirely possible that they could not see the difference between social integration and cultural assimilation and would not have understood it if it had been explained to them. In fact, before the 20th century very few people, including anthropologists, understood that difference, and even today Western European countries with large immigrant populations have trouble achieving integration without assimilation.
Miguel 17:28, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

POV

Romanians are especially embarrased by Romas traveling abroad, leading parasitic lives and recommending themselves as Romanians. For example in the early 90s numerous Romas used to travel to Western European cities and pose as victims of the Romanian communist regime and heroes of the Revolution - in fact just a ploy for begging.

This needs POV, at least. Rmhermen 03:29, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

--- It needs to be made clear that the Roma are nothing to do with Romania or Romanians. There are Roma in Romania, true, just as there are Roma all over Europe, as there has been for the last thousand years (e.g. British Gypsies, Romanichals, have been in Britain for the last five hundred years and have loaned several words to the English language - e.g. pal (meaning "brother"), and chav (originally meaning "child" in SE British dialect, but now having an altogether different meaning).

Ziehende Gäuner

The German name Zigeuner is believed to be derived from Ziehende Gäuner, which means 'travelling thief'.

I think that's wrong. Zigeuner probably is derived from tzigane, a term which is also used by Slavs, Romanians, etc. Most likely the term borrowed by Germans from the east, as the Balkan people met them before the Germans. Bogdan | Talk 19:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Yes, the word is derived from tzigane. -random German

Gypsy = Pejorative

I disagree with AndyL's comment, "it's either pejorative or it's not. "known to them pejoratively" is a nonsensical statement" and with the respective edit. The original statement was quite accurate.

The term "Gypsy" (in Romanian: "ţigan") is the common/traditional word used to name the Rroma in Romania. In itself the word does not have a pejorative meaning. It may be used in a pejorative manner by people who believe that gypsies are a primitive, inferior people, but the name of ANY people can be used in this manner; the word "ţigan" is mostly used bona fide to identify members of the Rroma community.

However the Rroma themselves strongly dislike being called "ţigani". They use the word themselves as an insult to other Gypsies, or sometimes as a self-deprecating way to address their own people. In a way the word is similar to nigger, which is safely used by African Americans in reference to themselves but is seen as an insult if used by non-blacks - another example of word which has a pejorative meaning only in some contexts. FlorinI 22:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you are making sweeping generalisations as to how Roma people address one another. To introduce the African American/nigger terminology in this argument is frankly unhelpful at best. In my experience in Slovak and Czech Roma ghettoes, Roma refer to themselves both as Roma and Cigani quite interchangeably. Fieldworkers in these hamlets would also use both terms, since they were living amongst a people using both terms. In no way was this detrimental, necessarily. As far as regards the use of the two 'r's in the word 'Rroma', this has not caught on yet as widely as many believe. I would have to say that its importance strikes me highly academic and would little interest many of the Roma I have met. Having said that, it would certainly help research in the Roma field, since internet searches on Roma are likely to bring up a lot of irrelevant material relating to the city in Italy.

Sweeping generalisations? I clearly speak about gypsies in Romania.

And the two R's are important, also in Romania. There is confusion between the name of the country ([actually comes from Rome]) and the Roma people. Romanians prefer the 'Rroma' spelling which lowers the risk of confusion. FlorinI 22:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sinhalese

I removed this line pending verification: "(although a recent study published in nature suggests romany is related to Sinhalese)"

A search of the Nature website did not get any hits for Sinhalese or Sinhala. I didn't find anything on Google either. Rmhermen 17:14, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC).

I'added the link ,paper shows romani nearest neighbour is Sinhalese (shares a common root),of course it is still related to Indic languages.

Population

  • "Estimates suggest that there are between approximately 5 and 10 million Roma worldwide. As many as 6 to 8 million Roma live in Europe."

I need not point out what's wrong with the above, but does anyone have a source for the correct numbers or a source with an explination of the contradiction? Hyacinth 02:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just saw it too. I'm going to reword it to be more logical, but I don't have a source either. --zandperl 00:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Those figures may be true for 1 century ago... Only in Europe there are 10 million - consider that Romania alone has more than 2 million, and one of the major "problems" when Romania enters the EU is the Gypsy overpopulation. Other countries having between 600,000 and 1 million are Hungary, former Czechoslovakia, Russia, former Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Spain. In the Americas, Argentina has about 400,000, Brazil more or less the same, Mexico about 300,000, the USA may have about 500,000. These figures don't consider the Domari (Roma of the Arab countries), that amount to about 6 million, which makes worldwide Romany population over 20 million. Including the Luri of Iran and Uzbekistan (though they cannot be considered fully Roma), the number is even larger. Notice: there are not Roma in India nor Pakistan...

Yet, even though I corrected the figures, the "boss" editor goes on replacing the correct information with the prehistoric data!

In Roma and Egyptians in Albania : From Social Exclusion to Social Inclusion by Hermine de Soto, published by the World Bank in 2005. The number of Roma living in Europe and the former Soviet states it estimates to be 7 to 9 million based on data collected in 2003. L Hamm 04:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

In addition, the book Roma & the Transition in Central & Eastern Europe World Bank 2000 by Dena Ringold says this:
The most frequently cited numbers are those of Jean-Pierre Liegeois, which are based upon the estimates of local experts, such as Roma community leaders and local government officials. From 7 to 9 million Roma are thought to live throughout the countries of Europe, with over two-thirds of the group living in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. pg. 13
In addition, the next page has an example of different population estimates in different countries by different entities.L Hamm 00:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"Romania alone has more than 2 million" -- the latest Romanian census states that there are little more than 500,000 Roma ("Rromi" in Romanian in the PDF). I'm not sure how that affects the rest of your argument, but it certainly isn't something to support your objectivity overall. Where did you get the information that Romania has over 2 million Roma? --Gutza 01:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Coudn't it be difference between official census and estimate? E.g. in the Czech Republic only about ~17,000 of people claimed to be Roma while the estimate is 200-300 thousands. Pavel Vozenilek 01:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
There is conflicting data on the Roma population in Romania, the figure 2 million appears Roma & Transition . . . on page 3, the source for this was Wheeler, 1999, from Liegeois, J-P., Roma, Gypsies, Travellers Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 1994. p. 34. The figure 2,150,000 is the midpoint of the range, but I have no idea what the standard deviation is for these data. L Hamm 01:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Porrajmos

Why is there no section on the fate of the Roma during the Nazi Final Solution?

There is one paragraph in the middle of the Rejection section. Rmhermen 02:55, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
And a full article at Porajmos. Trilobite (Talk) 21:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Origin of "Gypsy"

What is the etymological source of the word? In the text, there is the idea that it was "derived from Egypt" and some paragraphs later it is said to be derived "of the term gyp, meaning cheat". If it is not sure, which one is correct, maybe they should be mentioned at the same position. But I don't know. Someone got an etymological encyclopedia by the hand?

I think it's clear that "Gypsy" drived from "Egypt" to describe the people and, subsequently, "Gyp" dervied from "Gypsy" as slang for "cheat". AHands 00:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rom(a)/Rrom(a) mention

I've removed the following sentence from the article:

However, some countries, such as Romania, use the official name rom or rrom to refer to these people.

Not only did it not belong there, but it was also inaccurate. some countries, like all their citizens, or what? I agree the "official" name is "Rroma", but it was my understanding all Rroma were asking for a move to that.


Roma/Rroma

The page should be moved back to Roma (people). No matter how correct or politicaly correct the Rrname may be, per Wikipedia naming policy we should use the common name. --Wikimol 10:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Roma (people) are not Romanian (people)

hi all, i think this confusion between Roma (people) and Romanians should be addressed in this article. I mean, in Romania it is a well known that unfortunate episode with Petite Robert (dictionary), who made this confusion between Romanian and Romany and published a picture of a group of Tsigany (aka Gypsies, aka Roma (people)) to illustrate the Romanian language article ; it is also well known the damage for the image of Romania that the gypsy immigrants in UK caused since 1990, owed to this confusion "Romania - country of the Roma (people)" ; as a matter of fact, you can witness right here on Wikipedia, on Romania and Romanians articles talk pages that there are people that were sincerely in error about this Roma vs. Romanians thing -- Criztu 15:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article already says "There is no relationship between the names Roma, Rroma and Romany/Rromany, and the country of Romania or the city of Rome (Roma in Italian and Latin)." Rmhermen 15:49, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have personally met a lot of Romanian Gypsies in several European cities and now think of Romania as a country full of outstanding musicians. If I ever made a trip to Romania it would be for that reason. Yannis

Do you think that Romanian immigrates have abetter behaviour than Roma immigrates? Just read the news in any EU paper!

What about them? How often do you read news saying "A group of Romanians (Roma) have done this and that" or "A group of Romanians (ethnic Romanians) have done this and that" -- or for that matter "A group of Romanians (ethnic Hungarians)" or "(ethnic Germans)"? The great majority of news sources in the EU is way too politically correct to write anything like that, they only state the nationality. Have you seen the ethnic breakdown of the deportees from Western countries back to Romania? It's hugely favorable to Roma (I've experienced it, and several friends confirmed from their own first-hand experiences). The high criminality rate among Roma (at least in Romania) is a fact. I won't attribute that intrinsically to race or anything, it may well be our fault as ethnic Romanians -- but it still holds true, and it really is a nuisance that we need all sorts of visas and get into embarrassing situations internationally because of this minority, no matter how politically correct you want us to be. Please don't call me racist on this paragraph alone -- if you want to clarify something, drop me a line and I'll be happy to discuss, I'm not as radical as I might be percieved from this post alone -- but I was replying to this particular point. --Gutza 23:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

New additions

I removed the new additions from the article so that they can be cleaned up, verified and integrated into the article:

In 1322 a monk on Crete makes note of this people, with their nomadic nature and large tents, and records shows them on Cyprosten years later. In the 1340's the Black Death comes to Europe and Roma in Serbia was blamed for the plauge. 1418 the Roma arrives in Colmar, France, where their large numbers causes some wondering. 1505 they are reportet in both Scotland and Scandinavia. 1525, Charles V Holland demands that all "egyptians" shall leave the land within two days and Gustav Vasa, King of Sweden demands that all Roma is driven from the land. 1560 bishop Laurentius Petri demands that no preist shall baptize their childern or bury their dead. The arrival of the Roma in England is not reported, but in 1530 Henry VIII forbids transport of Roma to the county, under the punishment of death.
In 1544 the english Roma is evicted from England and left in boats that ran aground on the coast of Norway. In 1594 the Roma were declared to have no rights and prosecution started to spread. In 1596, 106 men and women are sentenced to death in York on the fact that they are Roma, but only 9 are executed as the rest could prove that they were born in England. 1619, Philip III orders that Roma should leave Spain within 6 months, both clothing and language are forbidden under the penalty of death. Sweden passes laws against the Roma in Sweden in 1637, stating that "all shall leave within a year, and any found after that shall hang", while women and children will be expelled. 1646 in Berne it becomes legal to kill or slay Roma. 1650, Suffolk, England the last execution for being a Roma is carried out, afterwards they are transported to the Americas. Between 1660-1800 the tribe of Romanichal (Charlie Chaplin was Romanichal) establishes in England, they survive by working for locals that know them. In the 1660's the Swedes try to populate the Karelen with Roma, an area that the Finns have left because it was not possible for them to substain themselves. In Norway there are regular hunts after 1710, where armed mobs are led by officals looking for Roma. In one case, noble court members in Rheindalen,after a failed boar hunt, found a Roma woman with childen which they then hunted instead, with the local landlord adding the woman and a child as hunting kills in his book.
The Roma was procuted by the Nazi's by the same extent as the Jews, being labeled as sub-human. In Norway, it was still common to sterilize Roma children and take them from their parents well into the 1950's.

Rmhermen 15:46, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

---

Yes, Charlie Chaplin's grandmother was a Romanichal:

Charlie Chaplin, "My Autobiography", page 19: "Grandma was half gypsy [Roma]. This fact was the skeleton in our family cupboard. Nevertheless, Grandma bragged that her family always paid ground rent. Her maiden name was Smith."

Charles Chaplin, Jr. "My Father, Charlie Chaplin", Random House: New York, NY (1960), pages 7-8: "My father has always been inordinately proud of that wild Romany blood."

How about a section on famous Roma? Rita Hayworth, Yul Brynner...

commonly known as Gypsies

The Roma people [...] are commonly known as Gypsies in English.

ok, the overwhelming majority of Gypsies live in Europe, more exactly in Central and South-East Europe, where they are commonly and collectively known as Tsigany. Gypsy refers more exactly to "nomads", not to the people commonly known as Tsigany, and this term is specific to and "common" only in Britain.

what formulation contains more information  :

  • "The Roma people are commonly known as Gypsies" ? which aplies for Britain and other english speaking countries, but where there are very few Rroma people, or
  • "The Roma people are commonly known as Tsigany" ? which aplies for Central-South-East Europe where the overwhelming majority of the Rroma people live
It should definitely be the first one. For an English language encyclopedia, gypsy is by for the most common name. I've never heard of Tsigany. It's true that "gypsy" can sometimes mean anybody with a wandering lifestyle, but I think most educated people are aware that it's an ethnic group. - Nat Krause 08:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


what term is most "commonly known ..." ? the Tsigany, or the Gypsy ? -- Criztu 17:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Rroma people are not commonly known as Tsigany *in English*, which is presumably what's meant. That word is pretty much unknown to English speakers and it's doubtful whether it could be called an English word. The word Roma (one R) is now quite often used by people worried that gypsy' migt be offensive or politically incorrect, but not Tsigany. Yes, there are very few Rroma in Britain, but when they're referred to (for example arriving as asylum seekers) they're lumped together in people's minds with all other kinds of "gypsy". Flapdragon 15:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

tracing back the word Roma

  • The word "Roma" may be traced to an older word describing a specific caste of nomadic singers in India (due to their caste their equivalents in India are generally not well accepted either).

pls provide evidence/reference to that older word from which the word Roma evolved. i could say The word "Roma" may be traced to an older word designating the citizens of the Roman Empire. After the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire the gypsies adopted the word Roma to associate themselves with the glory that was the Eastern Roman EMpire (Byzantine Empire). see what I mean ? -- Criztu 12:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rroma Society

It's odd that such a long article has practically nothing to say about Rroma lifestyle, such as social and economic behavior, considering that this, along with their mysterious history, is generally regarded as by far the most interesting aspect of the subject. - Nat Krause 08:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's obvious, since most editors pretend to know something about Roma, but indeed they don't; they limit themselves to quote essays of so-called scholars that have elaborated their own theories according to their own conjectures.

picture with "Roma people in Transylvania" weird

i have an awkward feeling when i look at that picture in the beginning of the Roma article. instead of having a contemporary picture of a real Roma representative, i see a "salad" of things misleading:

  • what is the relevance of Transylvania in that picture ?
  • how accurate are the costumes of the people depicted in that drawing ? cuz the clothes in this picture looks like romanian traditional costumes, not like the tsiganes costumes.
  • there is a guy in that drawing that could easily be Jesus, and i seen tsiganes and this is not their characteristic physical appearance.
  • who is the author of that drawing, cuz i couldn't find any reference to him.

I propose to remove this picture and put a contemporary, or at least an accurate picture of the tsiganes/gypsy/roma people when it comes to their costumes and physical appearance. -- Criztu 12:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The detailsof the picture can be found on its Wikicommons image page:
"Illustration from the book "TRANSYLVANIA", by Charles Boner, published by LONGMANS, GREEN, READER, AND DYER, in London, 1865. Scanned by University of Washington. Woodcuts engraved by Mr. G. Pearson."
If the image is inaccurate, romanticised or whatever, it might be interesting to point that out and retain it in a less prominent position. It might shed some light on (say) 19th-century conseptions/portayals of Rroma people. The again it might be that this is in fact a reasonably accurate portrayal of people in that time and place. We would need an authoritative opinion (which you may have) before making any drastic decisions. Flapdragon 15:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Roma Genetics

Since I seem to be the only one of (two) who is adding to this section ,a have to say any errors due to the interpretation of the genetic sources are my own eg translating M numbers to modern YCC notation.I removed some and added some. My interpretation of these research papers seems to be wrong,I could not find hardly any R1a1 in the data.However when I searched Yhrd R1a1 was present in a number of Roma populations.

Would someone who knows about this please interpret the genetics entry into layman's terms. I, for one, did not understand it at all. I would change it but I don't know enough about it. hdstubbs

  • Basically ,half of Roma genes are from South Asia,the rest from Middle East/Europe.

Compare the graphs [1]

You will find that the only population of South Asian origin that has matches with Roma is Indo-Pak London.There are very few matches with populations of NW India/Pakistan,and if there are, these are on Euroasian R1a(16...25...) not the Indian specific H (15...22-10-11...).The Indian specfic H in Roma has matches with Indo-Pak poulation of London ,because this sample contain South Indian and Bengalis ,where haplogroup H is common.

dubious edits by 62.94.91.238 and 217.222.166.25

These two people suggest Roma people do not come from India but from Mezopotamia and are Semitic, not Indoeuropeans. They do not provide sources, only vague sentence as "Today such theories [about origin from India, from 2001] are discredited".

I have certain doubt of reliability of these edits, especially when 62.94.91.238 added in sentence "There is another Roma representant at the European parliament for the Czech Republic". which is wrong.

Could someone more knowledgeable take a look? Pavel Vozenilek 20:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you still believe in the Indian origin, you are not updated with the latest scholarly research...

Sorry, you have to cite your sources - "latest scholarly research" is a weasel word. It doesn't prove anything unless you give us specific research.

The question on origins

Concerning the conventional theory that Roma are originated in India, it is based exclusively on language. It's important to notice that language is not a good parameter; for example, Jews have spoken either Yiddish, Ladino or Aramaic for centuries, and on linguistic basis, one must assume that they were three different peoples of Germanic, Spanish or Babylonian origin, which is undoubtedly false. Today most Roma do not speak Romany, but other languages. Instead of language, the psychologic features, traditions and culture are by far more relevant, and it is clearly evident that there is not any Indian cultural factor among Roma. If they were actually of Indian origin, some remnants of Indian beliefs and philosophies must be traceable, but as a matter of fact, not the slightest trace of Indian psychology, culture or belief exists among Roma. There is not any trace of belief in reincarnation among Roma. If they were of Indian origin, they would have at least attempted to return back to their alleged homeland, but they did not. Roma do not feel attracted by Indian culture. On the contrary, they feel quite identified with Semitic cultures. They have many characteristics that attest their Mesopotamian origin before they settled (or were exiled) in India. To assert that Roma are of Indian origin is offensive towards Roma! (not because of racial prejudices against Indians, but simply because Roma feel rejection towards Indian customs).

The problem cannot be understood by "Gadje", since they cannot know Romany spirit...

DON'T REMOVE OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS! Thank you. ;-) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 20:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see, the only one that can remove everything is Mr. Pavel Vozenilek...

Tu san Rom? Anda savi rig san? Le gažengi?

This is an encyclopedia, we're not supposed to take any sides, but only present the facts using a NPOV (Neutral Point of View) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 21:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But you are taking the side of somebody, instead of being neutral.

I'm just asking for a reference, i.e. a scholarly published work that writes about it, because Wikipedia also has a No original research policy. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 21:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've given scholarly published references and were immediatley deleted, because they don't fit the mind of the "boss" holding this article. Actually, the article is based on a purely speculative theory that has not been tested or proven by historic records. Even the origin of the Indians is still under dispute!

If you don't know Romany culture and psychology, it's normal that you won't understand... And those Gadje that think they know everything about Roma, don't want Roma to express their own opinion...


Its not that he doesn’t want the roma to express opinions , he just wishes for the article to be factual and not have an unsupported maverick content. The author of the article express the widely accepted of the origins of the Roma i.e. they came from India. The evidence that you present, such as if they were of Indian origins they would want to return to India is not logical. Nor do explain how in your therory the roma learnt Indian if they did not originate from India. You also assume all Indians are Hindus which they may well not have been the case when the roma left India. The author's work appears to be unbiased and factual, your corrections just dont have any reasonable base.

Brinlarr


I am an ancient historian and as a matter of fact do not know very much about Roma culture or history. However, I do know something about methodology, i.e. the ways a historian can reconstruct the past, and I can tell you, Brinlarr, that it is wise to be careful with expressions like "factual", "maverick", "widely accepted" or "unbiased". Those expressions are highly rhetorical and, for that reason, historians recommend not to use them for an argument. Historical research is not a science. Strictly spoken the only science there is is mathematics. In cases where positive evidence is extremely rare like in the question of roma origins I would be careful to express final judgements. Also, I think, it is a question of polite and souvereign behaviour to respect other opinions, especially if they are presented on a discussion page.

gs

gs, I'm contemplating major edits based on Pavel's suggestions, and you indirectly attack them. However, while Brinlarr's discourse may contain loaded terms, please note that essentially he is correct: the anonymous user who contests the current/proposed form of the article doesn't really suggest any viable options to replace it with, his only argumentation is based on conspiracy theories. Is that better than documented sources? --Gutza 22:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Gutza, it might be a good way to open up a discussion on sources before presenting final results about the past. I have a strong feeling that those who argue for the Egyptian origin of Roma people accept different sources than those who argue for the Indian origin. For instance, there is a book out there written in German titled "Spartakus", 2 vols., Munich: Trikont, 1979-80 by Michael Genner (who is non-Roma) asserting all kinds of things about Roma origins and allegedly existing secret Roma history books and oral traditions. The problem for the reader of the book is that he/she has no access to the allegedly existing secret sources. For that reason the book rightly has never been accepted into mainstream academic discourse. However, the problem remains since secrecy obviously is an important part of Roma culture. A fact I do respect. However, it is simply not possible to work as a historian writing for the public as long as not all sources have been made accessible to the public (if secret sources indeed exist). If codes of secrecy make it impossible to publish sources it might be better not to write about history for a public forum like Wikipedia. Thus, if there will be a discussion on Roma sources it should maybe first of all center around the question of Roma secrecy. Otherwise, conspiracy theories, as you call them, will prevail. Secondly, I would suggest a discussion on the historical consequences of the results of linguistic research on Romanes. This, too, would first of all be a methodological discussion. These kind of discussions have long been fruitfully done on, for example, the historical consequences of the spread of Indoeuropean languages. Such discussions could serve as a methodological guideline since all kinds of historians, linguists, archaeologists, etc., be they "maverick" or "academic", have participated in them. The results continue to humiliate everybody who tends to be all too sure about European prehistory. Regarding Romanes, to my knowledge, this has never really been done. Research on the relationship between Romanes linguistics and Roma history is, compared to the standards of Indoeuropean studies, 200 years behind. So, also on this field, much remains to be done before one can present certain results on Roma past. gs

True, all true. But unfortunately what you're suggesting qualifies as original research -- Wikipedia welcomes any research and conclusions of any discussions to be included in the articles as long as they have been published by respectable sources, in a peer-reviewed environment. As long as we're talking about discussing secret sources and doing research on Romany on Wikipedia, whatever conclusions we might reach don't even begin to qualify as worthy of inclusion in the article. Remember, Wikipedia is not necessarily supposed to present the TRUTH, it's supposed to present an objective image of how things are currently viewed by the academic community -- in other words, the current KNOWLEDGE, as to avoid presenting probable opinions as the truth. --Gutza 07:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

About (mis)spelling

A frequent error is to write "Rroma" instead of the correct way Roma. Such spelling was invented by Mr. Marcel Courthiade, but never accepted by Roma. The official international alphabet, approved by Roma intellectuals, consists in diacritics added to the common alphabet, which can be seen at: http://www.sweb.cz/ls78/diacritics.htm under the title "Romany". Even though Mr. Courthiades is a supporter of the Indian origin theory (precisely, according to his idea, from Uttar Pradesh), he admits that there is not any single people in India related with Roma, and that those allegedly "Roma of India" are just nomadic peoples that during the British occupation were applied the same laws in force agaisnt Gypsies in England, assuming that nomadism is an exclusive feature of Roma. Indeed, it is proven that the Lambadi have nothing to do with Roma, nor any other Indian people.

Mr. Pavel Vozenilek

Are you the owner of truth? As far as I know, you are not the only person having right to edit in Wikipedia. In this subject, Roma must have the right to express themselves, or must just accept what the Gadje say about them? I'm a ROM. So san tu? des tu duma Romanes? žanes vare so pala o trayo romanó, pala amaró zakono thay amaró halyarimós? Te sanas Rom, say das duma sar phral, the či san, či halyares so phenav.

Mr. Pavel Vozenilek (2)

Sostar řandes le linkurya ke thodem? Why do you delete the links to websites about Romany culture and history? So you consider that people are stupid that they cannot judge by themselves after reading the different positions. If you disagree with the scholars that have done accurate research just because they say something different from you, you are quite dishonest. If this encyclopaedia has to be neutral, you cannot hinder others to write, and much less delete the external links.

The Communist countries issue

There is another (of the many) errors published and re-published in this article, asserting that Roma underwent pressure and discrimination in the USSR, and that "Romany language was forbidden", which is utterly false. As every ethnic group, Roma had their culture and language recognized by the State (or perhaps I've been living in a dreamworld for years??) and there was no such prohibition. Perhaps the author has some political bias, what causes the addition of crimes not committed to the hatred subject. This is not a pro-Soviet claim, it's simply an expression of what really happened. Perhaps the editors must pay a visit to the Romen Theatre of Moscow to learn that the Communist Russia instituted it as well as other Romany cultural centres. Roma in Western Europe had surely not a better life than in the Communist bloc!

You are probably right in what you say about USSR. I can witness the situation in Czechoslovakia in the 60s and 70s: Romany children were physically punished at schools for using their language. When I was a child, at elementary school, our teacher told the children that Romany language was not any real language, she said it was just a nonsensical blah-blah. She strictly forbade the romany pupils to use their mother tongue. The Romen Theater ... it was just like an unreal beautiful dream for us. We heard yout it, but we did not believe it might ever exist. Bobby

A plea for the warring factions to abide by Wikipedia rules- yes, both of you!

With monotonous regularity, particular passages are added, removed, added back, removed again, and so on... I see the factions even agreed on removing an earlier (admittedly wrongly-placed) passage which said "Whatever the accuracy or otherwise of material on this page at any moment in time, no reader coming to this page in search of information or education can be confident that he or she will be successful. It is a matter of chance whether the 'correct' views of one faction, or the 'incorrect' views or another, will be on this page. For further 'points of view', or 'facts', see the history. Now, can I suggest to the 'edit warriors', in all humility and respect, that they leave this warning or something like it at the top of the page until it's moderated? If you don't, readers are just as likely to see the 'incorrect' view as the 'correct' one, aren't they?" I see there have been no less than thirty-six edits today (26 June 2005), and what have they done for the sum of human knowledge?

I hold no brief for the accuracy of any of the disputed passages/figures/links, but can’t the two sets of campaigners reach some sort of accord to allow a version of the disputed passages with comments stating that they are matters of opinion? Some have gone in and out more times than is decent. Would the factions be willing to agree a NPOV version of them, with citations? No? Oh well! And the in-out external links: everyone reading this now understands you have different views on their merits. I haven't the faintest idea if they're any good; can't they just be allowed with a caveat? I don't see any effort by either faction to reword rather than than chop.

I appreciate this hack, hack, hack at each other is good clean fun, and it's better than a fight in a dark alley. But it makes a nonsense of what could otherwise be an informative article- whoever is in the right. And it isn't very persuasive! Ariwara

I would recommend to protect the page. Raid of someone with crank theory is unstoppable as such people have all the time in the world. Equivalent situation had happened over Time Zone and novel "cubic time" theory: it burned down several editors and dragged for months. Pavel Vozenilek 00:56, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Pavel Vozenilek qualifies as "crank theory" something that is true and undeniable: the Romany culture, the rules and laws regulating Romany society, etc. because he supports a theory elaborated exclusively on linguistic parametres and ignoring Romany culture and psychology. Romany history HAS NEVER BEEN WRITTEN and existing documents are too scarce to be used as proofs for a THEORY (actually, the only accounts that may be considered directly related with Roma are European decrees and letters, AFTER Roma entered Europe, but NOTHING regarding their previous history); there are no archaeologic finds that may prove what many GADJE scholars SUPPOSE, therefore, the origin of Roma is only possible to be known by examining the Romany culture and feelings, and comparing them with other peoples. Well, there's nothing in Romany culture related with Indian culture, nothing at all, and this is a FACT that no serious scholar would deny (openly fanaticized ones would). If Mr. Pavel Vozenilek knew only a little of Romany culture, he would not be so dogmatic in supporting HIS theory...

comment by Sumnakay, unsigned (sign by Wikimol 29 June 2005 09:25 (UTC))



It is not just his theory it is the generally accepted view. It while culture can contribute towards the origins of a people, the absence of such a culture especially from 1000 years ago does not disprove they the roma origins do lie in India. It seems far more likely that the roma drifted west to east rather than east to west lose their language and then reverse and then drift back over their original home land, not re acquire their language, and keep drifting east to west. What sematic cultural attributes do you claim the roma to have? I have notice many and indeed not all roma do have characteristics that are similar to Indians. Once again the writer of the article appears to have stated things from a neutral point of view , backed by what archaeological evidence we have.

Brinlarr



Just because a theory is the generally accepted view does not mean it is true. Similarly, the "generally accepted view" of Vikings is far removed from fact. "Common opinion" does not constitute proof, and never will. Sumnakay is absolutely correct. Just because it "seems likely that the roma drifted west to east", to quote Brinlarr, does not mean that it is automatically true. This theory should be presented as such, not as fact.

Harpalus

I did not state what I meant clearly enough, "generally accepted" refers to academic and professional historians views, not to the general public. I did not ever claim that it was proof, when dealing with undocumented history we have to look at what facts we have and then interpret those facts. What facts we have is that the gypsy’s language has Indian roots. What we know is that gypsies appeared in Europe. What is likely is that they drifted from east to west, this is not a fact. What is unlikely is that they went east stopped and then returned to their original starting point the continued on west. To present a view that the gypsies have a Semitic origin and then wander haphazardly over euro asia is akin to demanding that creation science be given equal footing to evolution because we do not have definitive proof for evolution.

Brinlarr

Analysis of recent edits, suggestion how to deal with them

In recent days a person under several user names and anonymous IPs made dozens of edits on this page, causing revert war. Here's my analysis of these edits and recommendation what to do with them.

  • 1. There is new paragraph that no current people from India are genetically related to current Roma people.
Genetics do not agree (see article). Opinion of linguists also favors India, e.g. http://www.romani.org/rishi/romrroma.html (Director of Indian Institute of Romani Studies). It must be that all university researchers, specialists dealing with this subject are wrong, then.
I was unable to find any such direct claim in the article. I only found the following, particular claims against India as an origin, please address these if you don't agree with them specifically, or quote the exact phrase you're contesting, in case I missed it:
  • Within section "Language": "Body habitus and ABO blood group distribution is also consistent with northern Indian warrior classes. However, a study recently published in Nature magazine suggests Romany is related to Sinhalese (see footnotes).";
  • Within section "Roma society": "Romany law establishes that the man’s family must pay the dowry to the bride's parents, which is quite the opposite to the tradition of all Indian peoples";
  • Within the same section: "The mother is considered impure during forty days. This peculiar law exists only in the Mosaic Torah (Leviticus 12:2-4), not being known among any Indian people";
  • Same section: "The dead must be buried, not burned. The dead enter Heaven; there is no suggestion that resembles the idea of reincarnation, common to all Indian peoples.";
--Gutza 00:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC) (date not very accurate, see previous edit -- I've forgot to sign)
  • 2. Paragraph about movement to use "Rroma" (with 2 r's) was removed.
The link http://www.romani.org/rishi/romrroma.html suggests such movement really exists and is active (though the author here says it is wrong).
Ok, included what I consider a NPOV version of that statement. --Gutza 00:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 3. Number of Roma population were changed, from 5-10 millions to 15-16 millions, in Europe from 6-8 to 9-10 millions (no reference given).
Respectable sources I could find (BBC, websites of universities) say:
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1445494.stm) says 12 millions worldwide
Very detailed population vreakdown on http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~mdohnalo/third%20level/RomaPopulation.html (8.5 millions worldwide, 7 in Europe).
http://www.tcnj.edu/~miskolc2/personaloutline.html (7-8.5 millions in Europe)
http://www.diplomacy.edu/Roma/ (8-12 millions worldwide)
Changed to 8 to 10 mil, according to UN estimate (see article) --Gutza 00:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 4. Russia added as country with more than 1/2 million of Roma.
1989 census said 153,000: http://countrystudies.us/russia/35.htm
http://www.eubusiness.com/East_Europe/roma.2005-06-07/view doesn't list Russia among countries with >= 1/2 mill of Roma people
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~mdohnalo/third%20level/RomaPopulation.html says 220-400 thousands
Ok, removed Russia based on a parallel personal investigation -- we all know the census is unreliable, and I wanted to double-check your sources, seems you are correct. However, I don't know if other countries have been added in the meanwhile, please review. --Gutza 01:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 5. Removed paragraph about assimilation in former communist countries.
The attempts of assimilation were real (e.g. Roma were forcibly settled in Czechoslovakia, their caravans were burned).
A simple Google query settles this argument -- I just don't understand why an ethnic Roma would remove that information, which is supported by a Czech national... However, I was unable to find an earlier version of this article which included that information. An interesting piece of information which was lost is included in this edit (I'm talking about the article in The Guardian), but it has nothing to do with the point at hand. --Gutza 01:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 6. Removed sentence about influence on Flamenco dance.
As far as I could tell, we have no reference or citation in the article on that. Again, I don't understand why a member of the Roma community would remove this kind of information -- is it offensive, or what?! --Gutza 01:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 7. Added four links:
http://www.imninalu.net/Roma.htm Myths and Facts Concerning the Origins of Roma by a Romany Author
http://www.vurdon.it/english.htm O Vurdón
http://www.paulpolansky.nstemp.com/gypsies.htm A Research On Gypsies by Paul Polansky
http://www.imninalu.net/imninalu.htm The Origin of Roma by a Romany Auth
The first website is owned by the person doing edits here. It claims, among others, that Roma are Semitic, not Indoeuropeans (theory based on cultural similarities). Only handful of links point to this website (< 10).
The link to writing by Paul Polansky is named "Original Research on Gypsies" :-) and consist of one page mostly describing author's life experience (he's US non-fiction writer writing about Roma). The link vurdon.it is one big page whose content doesn't look to bring much new to the Patrin link already in External links section.
The first link contains information written by Paul Polansky as well (which is inconsistent with your claims). Also, the fact that something is entitled "Original Research" is not intrinsically in contradiction with Wikipedia's homonym policy. However, you could look up the policy's What counts as a reputable publication? section and make a point based on that -- but that would still be subject to scrutiny. --Gutza 01:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Polansky is a journalist and he was able to stir up discussion about Roma people history in the Czech Republic by publishing book about concentration camps during WWII, where they were liquidated. Therefore I think he deserves article of his own. Whether the webpage has relevant information is another question. Pavel Vozenilek 04:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Removed three of the four. I left the link to www.vudron.it, but made it clear what the site is about. --Gutza 19:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest:

  • 1. Remove the paragraph about no relatives in India as not referenced by academic authorities and as original research.
  • 2. Return back sentence about Roma, with possible note that some people consider it mistake.
  • 3. Return back the old numbers and possibly add link to http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~mdohnalo/third%20level/RomaPopulation.html as most detailed source. Add note that the estimates differ a lot.
  • 4. Remove Russia from the list as unsupported by external reference.
  • 5. Return back paragraph about assimilation attempt in former communist countries because this was real fact.
  • 6. Return back Flamenco mention. I have no clue about this but am bit suspious of a deletion w/o explanation.
  • 7. Remove the both links to imninalu.net because the website has no notability or popularity. Remove the link to vurdon.it as redundant to exiting ones. Remove the link to Paul Polansky as it brings nothing new here - it would be fine for page on this author, though.

Factual suggestions and more precise data sources are much welcomed. If no one will express objections based on facts I'll implement these suggestions in the article. Pavel Vozenilek 28 June 2005 04:10 (UTC)

Ad #5 - former communist countires - there is a fine article on that Politics and the Roma in state-socialist Eastern Europe. If anyone has time and access to the article, the "communist countries" section can be greatly extended and improved by mentioning some of the results. (I'm affraid access to the articles is restricted, but you may try searching it in scholar.google.com and following the links.) Anyway, it supports the claims of the older version, disliked by user Sumnakay et.al. (e.g. ... The main goal (assimilation) was the same; the approaches were different.). As this study is about former Eastern Block countries except USSR and we have no reference to situation in USSR, it would be prudent to note it in the article. Also, the example can be stated more precisely (for example, use of Roma language was forbidden in schools in Czechoslovakia). Concerning the claim Roma are not of Indian origin - doesn't matter if true or false - the question is if it has some non-negligeable support. I don't know. I'd suggest searching in scholar.google.com, and if it was proposed by anyone in any academic journal, mention it. If all the reference equals to allready presented web links and personal feelings, don't mention it. --Wikimol 28 June 2005 07:52 (UTC)

  • if it was proposed by anyone in any academic journal - Please get updated about recent mentions in Nevipens Romani (Spain) and other Romany sources about the next edition of the Origins of Roma, to be published soon in Spain and Italy first.

It's evident that the SECTARIAN people editing this page do not want to accept any neutral scientific viewpoint, but only what they want to impose as the universal truth - NOT accepted by Roma themselves!

A further suggestion:

  • 8. Remove Pavel Vozenilek from the editors of this page, because of his arbitrary decisions to impose HIS viewpoint, regardless what Romany culture is beyond speculative theories.
  • I agree with the suggestion # 8. So mangel Romendar kakó gažó vuřito? Sumnakay

I'm new to this dispute, but apparently all Sumnakay had to contribute to this section was a sarcastic comment. Is there a reason except Pavel's sense of decency against implementing his suggestions? (I expect he didn't implement them himself because of the ad hominem attacks by Sumnakay, which could've made Pavel look like acting out of revenge if he edited the article based on his own suggestions).

So basically I have two questions:

  1. Is there any support for Sumnakay's views, except his own?
  2. Would solving the issues raised in this section be enough to remove the NPOV dispute notice from the article?

On a side note, can someone please do something about the peer review thing?

Thank you, Gutza 19:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The {{npov}} was added after and because of dispute above, after series of reverts. If this gets resolved {{npov}} should be removed. Pavel Vozenilek 23:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Great! If nobody contests these changes by tomorrow, I'll implement them and remove the dispute notice. I acknoledge that doesn't necessarily mean the dispute will have been settled, because whoever might hold different opinions may well be away from computer in this period, but at least we'll budge the dispute to a new state, with new actors. --Gutza 23:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Progress report: I haven't yet made any changes to the article because we have a "challenger" -- and I want to avoid edit wars. I'd prefer talking about the issue until we reach the "argument limit" before making changes (by "argument limit" I mean the moment when all parties have stated their arguments, and are beginning to become cyclic). --Gutza 22:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Progress report #2: Implemented the suggested changes where I've seen fit; failed to include them where I didn't; and failed to make any changes where I found no reference within the article history. I'm fully aware the result isn't perfect, so please comment. --Gutza 01:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Progress report #3: Ok, as far as I can tell, I addressed all the points which I was able to. I'm waiting for a review and/or more information on the points where I lacked some (at points 5 and 6) -- let's finish making changes and remove the NPOV dispute notice. --Gutza 19:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Romany Law - What supporters of Indian origin cannot explain...

I have contributed by adding to the section "Social life" the paragraph below, which explains undeniable truths about Romany laws still applied by most Roma worlwide (particularly the Kalderasha, Čuraria, Lovaria and Kale (Spanish). I wonder why these things, that are the most elementary characteristics of Rmany life, are usually ignored by the expert researchers... I have an answer, they can't explain how an "Indian" people has these laws! perhaps Mr. Pavel Vozenilek can?

"Romany law establishes that the man’s family must pay the dowry to the bride's parents, which is quite the opposite to the tradition of all Indian peoples. Romany social behaviour is strictly regulated by purity laws (“marime”), still respected by most Roma (except muslims) and by Sinti groups by the elder generations. This regulation affects many aspects of life, and is applied to actions, people and things: parts of the human body are considered impure in the same way as written in the Mosaic Torah (Leviticus, 15): the genital organs because they produce impure emissions and the lower body; clothes covering the lower parts and all those of menstruating women are washed separately from the other clothes, in different recipients. Items used for eating are also washed in a different place. Childbirth is impure and must occur outside the dwelling place. The mother is considered impure during forty days. This peculiar law exists only in the Mosaic Torah (Leviticus 12:2-4), not being known among any Indian people. Death is impure as well and affects the whole family of the dead, that remain impure for a period of time. This rule is also unknown among Indo-European peoples. The dead must be buried, not burned. The dead enters Heaven, there is not any suggestion that may resemble to the idea of reincarnation, common to all Indian peoples".

I have corrected the expression "tribal king", as everybody having a little knowledge of Romany society knows that Roma have no kings, and they never had. Writing "Roma king" without explaining that is not recognized by Roma, is MISINFORMATION.

I have also added the information about Roma's religion, another phenomenon that scholars tend to ignore or minimize, perhaps because unexplainable things are beyond their purely agnostic reasoning. Here's the addition (in case some anti-Roma would erase this, too, at least it could be read in the talk page):

Religion

Usually Roma have adopted the dominant religion of the host country, but keeping their particular way of believing and worshipping. Eastern European Roma are either Orthodox or Catholic, those of Western Europe either Catholic or Protestant, as well as in the USA, while in Latin-America they usually kept their European religion, most of them being Orthodox. After WWII, a consistent and constantly growing number of Roma have embraced Evangelical movements, and for the first time in history, Roma have engaged themselves as religious leaders and ministers, creating their own, autonomous churches and missionary organizations. In some countries, the majority of Roma now belong to the Romany churches. This unexpected change, usually hardly criticized by many, has greatly contributed to a better image of Roma in society, as they have begun to perform legal work and obtain legal permits for commercial activities. The Evangelical Romany churches exist today in every country where Roma are settled, particularly strong is the movement in France and Spain (in this last State, there are more than one thousand Romany churches –“Filadelfia”–, of which almost one hundred only in Madrid); in Germany the most numerous group is that of Polish Roma, having their main church in Mannheim. Other important and numerous Romany assemblies exist in Los Angeles, Houston, Buenos Aires and Mexico. Some groups in Romania and Chile have joined the Seventh-Day Adventist. Sumnakay


Its quite easy to explain, either the Rom brought those cultural practices with them or they absorbed or created them on their journey from India.

Brinlarr

Brinlarr, yours is a simplistic and quite naïve non-answer. If you could find any document attesting that it was possible to adopt Jewish practices on the way between India and Europe, you might have any hint. But you cannot find such a thing. However, it would have been quite more possible for them to adopt Muslim practices and beliefs, and Arabic terms, but both things are completely absent in Romany culture. Would an exiled minority, already discriminated, adopt the practices and beliefs of another minority also persecuted and hated? They would have rather tried to avoid any further reason to be discriminated instead. So, the Romany beliefs and traditions are NOT from India and NOT acquired on their way to Europe, but belong to their origins before they settled in India, as they belong to an earlier period and not to a subsequent one.


Perhaps, I can give few insights on this. If at all, Romas migrated from India around 1000AD, that explains a lot why the caste practices have not been observed among these people. Caste might have originated 2000 years ago in India, however, its implementation in whole India was much later phenomenon. In fact, East and South India became caste societies during medival times. In all probability, Romas are the people with their own indigenous beliefs. In fact, the semitic contribution to Hinduism is as great if not less as that of Indo-Aryan. But haplogroup J2 in these population suggest earlier migrations of Semites contributing their beliefs to these people. However, the strongest reason to believe them to be of Indian origin is the predominance of Y-Haplogroup H and R2.

Regarding dowry system, the old Indian society was supposed to be matrifocal still observed among few South Indian population.

Childbirth away from dwelling place is a big givaway of Indian roots. This tradition is in fact practiced by few tribes in South India. In these societies pregnant woman will be given a hut outside the dwelling place. She has stay and deliver her child there and come back on her own.

Impure death affecting whole family: This is a salient feature of Hinduism. If death occurs in a family, there are 7 or 11 or 13 days impure period after which family members have toundergo 'shudhi(purity)' ceremony. Looks like though majority Roma were indegenous believers they absorbed few features of Hinduism also.

Perhaps, you should understand that Hinduism didn't grow in India by converting people but mostly declaring the people with their indigenous beliefs of belonging to some castes. The self-styled higher castes were Dravidian, Indo-Aryan and Semitic elites. As the time passed many of these declared castes also absorbed many beliefs of brahmanical hinduism. The unifying factor of Hinduism and indigenous beliefs being the gods, goddsses and nature worship. If you think it's the work of Indo-Aryans with their gods and beliefs, you would never understand and appreciate the local and semitic contribution to it. The Haplogroup J2 people were one of the oldest migrants to the sub-continent as such their contribution could be observed in both Hinduism and the native beliefs. Perhaps, Romas are the living link to that factor.

--Manjuantha (12 Dec 2005)

How to add a comment

Sumnakay, the way you do this is you make your own comments and you sign them. You don't rewrite other people's comments so nobody knows who did them or thinks it was someone else. That simply confuses everybody. Ariwara

I have written my comments without rewriting. I'll sign them as you suggested. Sumnakay
That is good, but what I mean is that when someone else writes something you disagree with, the best way for you to make your comments is to leave his heading and his comments as he wrote them, even though you disagree with them, and then add afterwards what your comment is. If you look at the paragraph above which another writer headed "Analysis of recent edits, suggestion how to deal with them " , and you changed to "A sectarian analysis of recent edits, a Nazi-like suggestion how to deal with them " , you will see that it is impossible now to see who is saying one thing and who is saying another. If you had left what he said and added a new paragraph at the end, we could all see who was saying what. Would you like to have a look at the [| Keep in Mind] page and perhaps think about following the advice there, which was written to help people who want to make contributions? I know you think other people aren't following this advice either, but if you do follow the rules there, then people will perhaps not get so angry! Ariwara

I've restored Pavel Vozenilek comment in original shape (as a side effect, comparisons to Nazis and several other personal attacks were removed). I hope discussion and editing of this page may continue in peaceful manner now. --Wikimol 29 June 2005 09:25 (UTC)

Correcting previous arbitrary assertions

Mr. Pavel Vozenilek has stated: "The first website is owned by the person doing edits here". Who has told him so? has he any proof? No, he hasn't, and his assertion is false, as many others. I think that before saying anything, you must be certain. He also refuses to update his figures, and shows how little he knows about the subject. For example, everybody in Spain knows, and the census attest, that Roma are about 900,000; he ignores that there are about 400,000 in Argentina, the same number in Brazil, and so on. He has completely neglected the existence of the Domari (Roma from Arab countries), that alone are more than 4 million... He has gneralized the reality of his own tiny country to the whole Eastern Europe (perhaps he never met any Russian Roma, or Hungarian, or Yugoslavian, or Polish...). Statements should be objective, not subjective and biased. Mr. Pavel Vozenilek has refused to give any reasonable answer to the proposed questions, deleting other editors additions and links to Romany websites. He has refused to show his knowledge on Romany culture, but simply insisted in reproducing speculative assertions of other people of doubtful authority on the subject. His requests to "delete whatever he dislikes" is quite un-democratic. He demonstrated to assert anything without having the slightest certainty, as he said that I am the author of the websites which I linked, which is false. He MUST show a proof before saying anything about other people. I didn't qualify him as a person, but his statements - that is, I didn't say he is a Nazi, but his statements are (Nazi-like suggestions). To conclude, he has shown complete lack of respect for Roma people. Sumnakay



Pesception of Gypsies in Russian history

It was an amazing mixture of hatred to horse thiefs, mixed with admiration with their skills, respect to the mastery of smiths and coppersmiths, wonder of fortunetellers, love of gypsy romance song and fire dance, and romanticizing of vagabond way of life. I regret I cannot write such section, but at least here is a graphical portrayal of the first item of my list, illustrating the say "to steal the horse from under a horseman" (will be deleted soon, since it is most probably copyrighted, but I claim "fair use" for a couple of days). mikka (t) 5 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

Please stop deleting parts of the talk page. You will be blocked for vandalism. mikka (t) 19:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Fork? Merge?

Someone has started a separate page Gitanos. I think that should probably just be a redirect here, and any information that may be unique to it should be merged. Looks like they've also messed with the disambiguation page Gypsy. Sorry to be just dropping a note rather than following through: I'm sure this is fraught with previous discussion, and I haven't had a chance to read this page in detail, so I'm leaving it to someone who has been engaged in this to follow up. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree; there are many groups of Roma throughout Europe (the Gitanos in Spain, the Romanichals of England, the Sinti of Germany) - it would be better to acknowledge that Roma are a widely dispersed group, and have links from this article to the other articles that cover the specifics of individual groups and tribes of Roma. (posted by 139.149.1.211)

There should be a clear explanation whether a particular term simply means "gypsy" in a particular language, or it is the name of a partiucular tribe. There is a good deal of confusion here. For example, the previous (anon) poster suggests that Sinti is a tribe of Roma, which is disagreeable. mikka (t) 20:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Sinti ARE a Roma tribe. There is not any doubt about it. The name Sinten was given to Roma by Germans in the same way as Gitanos in Spain, and both names were adopted by the Roma tribes in those countries. Actually, Spanish Roma call "Gitanos" to all Roma, in the same way as Sinti call "Sinti" to all Roma. They only add a regional classification to distinguish the different groups, for example, all Eastern-European Roma are usually called "Hungarians" by both Gitanos and Sinti.

Obviously many disagree with you, not to say that you probably don't know Germany. Please look into Sinti article. Are you saying it is all false?
Also, if you continue removing parts from talk page you will be banned from editing. mikka (t) 16:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

1) Obviously, you judge without knowledge, because I LIVE IN GERMANY AND I AM A SINTI. Who disagrees is of course some Gadjo that doesn't know Sinti at all. All Roma are called Sinti by Sinti. Vlax Roma are usually called "Hungarian Sinti", Gitanos are "Spanish Sinti", Xoraxané are "Turkish Sinti", and so on... What is written in that article is not false in the sense that it's because of the popular belief in their coming from the Sindh area that they were called "Sinten".

2) Don't publish copyrighted material if you don't want it removed!

SINTI: Roma group settled in Germany and Austria in the Middle Ages, then extended mainly to France and Northern Italy. There are two main groups: Eftavagarja (meaning "the Seven Caravans") and Estraxarja (meaning "from Österreich (Austria)"). These two groups then expanded, the first into France, merging with the local Romany groups (Manouches), the second into Italy and Eastern Europe, mainly Croatia, Hungary, Transylvania, Czech and Slovakia. At present they assumed different regional names, for example, "Sinti Lombardi", "Sinti Piemontesi", etc in Italy, "Sinti Hrvati" in Croatia, etc. They usually call German Sinti "Gáčkane" (Gáčkano meaning "Germany") or also "Täitsch" (Deutsch).

Sinti dialect is called "Romanes" and is fully Romany by lexicon, only grammar differs, being quite influenced by German.

I am not judging without knowledge. I am pointing out the contradiction between your description and what I see in the "Sinti" article. If Sinti artricle is wrong, please write correct information into it, rather than simply yell that you are Sinti and I am an idiot. And you are removing my text, not simply copyrighted material. mikka (t) 19:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say you're an idiot, you said that. The real matter is that many Gadje are saying what they believe about our people, without knowing us from inside. Unfortunately, there are few of us having done high school or university, but those few ones strongly disagree with the official theories forged by Gadje.

I've corrected the Sinti article text. Joschka Reinhart

The article Gadje could be useful as well. mikka (t) 17:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Gypsy population sizes and miscellenae.

Let me say all countries try to shrink gypsy population numbers on paper. States find it inconvenient to admit they have that many roma. In Hungary it is offically 660k, but in reality it is 800k or 1million (if you count people who have roma mother but "white" father). It is illegal in Europe to census people on ethnicity, it is up to the individuals to declare his/her race or keep silent about it. (BTW, very few tzigane speak their "beas" and "lovari" native languages any more). Yet, gypsy have different skin color, so you can count them even if it is immoral.

Another problem with statistics is that entire popoulation number in Europe is slowly declining, but gypsy people have a lot of children, so their numbers keep growing rapidly and their percentage in the whole society may jump every few years. So 10 or 15 year old counts may give you a very false idea.

The text about virginity among gypsies is false. Roma are well known for their adoration of joys of the flesh and reproduction. The roma are catholic only because they regard BVM as the "Magna Mater". Mary with a few porn star posters alongside on the wall is quite common, they do not consider it offensive in any way. Twelwe year old gypsy girls are regularly arranged by the family to marry 14 year old boys and have kids by the time they get 14 or 15. Many roma girls are renowned beautiful with mind-boggling hair and legs, but they get to look old much sooner than "white" woman. Gypsies tell their 3 or 4 year old boys and girls to hug each other to play with each others genitals and there is no taboo about that. A gypsy girl would be repelled by the family if she refused to produce kids or defer it beyond 20 years of age. A minimum of 4 children is expected from any roma woman who wants to have any respect, many have 8 or 10. She's lucky if that means only three different fathers, not more. The roma way of life is very kid-centric, but critics say it is kid-output centric and gypsy should have fewer kids, so they could spend more time and money per capita to raise them into "honest people".

There is a lot of in-breeding among the roma, because the ancient tribal system has fallen apart. They had the "vajda", a tribal wise elder, who was an autoritarian leader in legislative and jurisdictional matters. He and his staff kept precise track of family relations to prevent close relatives sleep together and produce damaged children. In the last century state pressure forced gypsies to abandon their old way of life and the vajda position is now missing or powerless and the family trees are not maintained any more, so everybody mounts everybody else. Nowadays a gypsy could be his own grandfather and noone would blink an eye, as the weirdest family relations are all too common. Of course if your teenage daughter is impregnated by her uncle and both of them are badly drunk during the act, that does not help in producing healthy kids...

I was told about two particular genetical based issues in gypsy healthcare. Roma have larger eyes than the surrounding "white" population, contributing to cuteness in girls, but it makes them more susceptible to eye diseases, especially because their ghetto homes often lack hygiene facilities. Secondly, allegedly there is an inherited encephalo-vascular problem among many gypsy females, which causes stroke during their late-30's or early-40's. Because of this many roma kids and teenagers are sadly orphaned and become prey for criminal gangs or fell into state guardianship, which isn't most direct route to a university degree and a successful life start...

Homelessness is practically non-existant among the gypsies. They have very strong feelings of family, so any roma left without shelter can ring any roma door and will be accepted. The true outdoor homeless are 90% white (alcoholics, divorced, drug abusers and the mentally ill). This means many roma flats and houses are overcrowded, e.g. as many as 10 or 12 people get to live in a 40 sq. meter flat.

One of the strongest reasons "whites" are vary of the gypsy is their loud speak, both at home and public places or transportation. Magyars and other "whites" in central-eastern europe expect all people to stay quite quiet and gypsy decibels frighten them.

Please, write "Roma" and "Gypsy" with capital initials, as they are a nation.

relatives of Roma language (FIRST paragraph)

Hi,

the first paragraph says:

Most Roma speak some form of Romany, a language closely related to the modern Indo-European languages of Europe, northern India and Pakistan, North America, and Australia.

This is wrong in two points. (In one it is surely wrong, in the second I believe so and will be happy about any correction).

It is wrong, that it is closely related to the modern Indo-European languages of Europe [...] North America and Australia. They are most related to the IE Indian/Pakistani languages, but those again, while being IE, are not closely related to the European ones. Therefore the Roma language neither is. This wrong information (of close relationship to European Indo-Europan languages is (fortunately) not repeated in the section "Language". It ought to be corrected in the first paragraph, probably saying

[...] Romany, an Indo-European language most related to languages spoken in Northern India.

to make the primary information less ambiguous.

The second point is: I am really not sure, if most Roma speak some form of Romany. My experiences (in several countries) show, that the majority has adopted the language of their living country (but using a lexicon containing several loan words from Romany).

I'd definitely change the first paragraph about the language relationship, and ask for discussion and experiences, knowledge concerning the second issue. -- Szabi 10:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you please provide some source that explains that Roma language is related to IE Indian/Pakistani? At least in Serbia, most Roma people are bilingual, and I'll try to edit it to reflect that (I'm sure it's like that in most other countries). --Dejan Čabrilo 05:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Stereotypes about fortune-telling, etc.

I moved them to what seems a more appropriate place. I honestly doubt that this is what "defines" Roma people, but unfortunately it still is present. --Dejan Čabrilo 05:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

Has anyone checked on the so-called "peer review"? The existing peer review is a joke, I only left the notice for a third party to remove (don't want to raise the issue and also remove the notice myself), but I added the contradictory note requesting peer review. --Gutza 22:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Here I report the peer review subject, and the answer:
What religion(s) are the Roma? are they hindu or do many of them adopt the religion of the country they're in?
There are NO Roma of Hindu religion. Hinduism is utterly the opposite to Romany spirituality. In fact, there's not the slightest hint of any remote belief in reincarnation or burning the dead, or any other Hindu practice or belief. All Roma traditions and ancestral rituals are quite the opposite to Hinduism or any Indo-European tradition.
Roma usually adopt the religion of the host country, but only in a very apparent manner, keeping the elements of their own belief as the true practices they follow. Roma have never been actually committed with any religion, until recent times. After WWII, a great number of Roma have became Evangelical Christians, mainly of Pentecostal movements, and now that's the majority belief among Roma worldwide. It's the first time in history that Roma have their own priests (pastors) and ministers, and their own missionary organizations. In the last decade, a Messianic Jewish revival is taking place within Roma in some countries (mainly within the Evangelical groups).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Roma_people"
I would add that the Hindu religion is utterly despicable for Romany culture, mainly because it's a phallic-centered worship (as every Hinduist temple shows). Images or representations of sexual acts or exposed genitalia are completely the opposite to Romany moral patterns and ethics, and never the Divinity would be related with such aspects in the Romany mind.
Thankyou for your narrow-minded and prejudice comments - its always so heart warming when a formerly oppressed people turn to vile prejudice, infact, in all likelyhood, your ancestors were devi devotees, who were forcibly converted by the less tolerant Abrahamic religions - thus Durga became the virgin mary. One would think this would lead a people to find out about their possible roots in greater detail, but no. I guess my despicable religion, where we dont fear being damned by god for eternity just for depicting the natural world is beneath you. Perhaps if you learnt somehting about Hinduism, (and I dont mean from an evangelist documentary), you wouldnt be such a fool. Which is the more superstitious religion, one that states a supernatural devil controls all evil, and talks about irredemable punishment, or one where human nature and ignorance is the root of prejudice, and there is no totally good or totally bad people. What a wonderfull place the world will be when every diverse and beautifull culture has been replaced by Mosques and Churches, simply because of the greater extortion power of those faiths.

Right-o, the guys involved in a dispute also do the peer review (yes, I mean exactly the actual text of the peer review, which was written by the same user who's involved in this very dispute). This is ridiculous. --Gutza 20:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for your ignorance, but the question "What religion(s) are the Roma? are they hindu or do many of them adopt the religion of the country they're in?" was not written by me, only the answer, OK?

The Roma Defence

I've seen the following argument used more than once throughout this talk page, and I'd like to address it in a single place: "You're not Roma, you don't understand -- hence I'm right, and you're wrong!"

Myself, I'm a Romanian. What if I edited the Romanians article to add claims like "20% of the world population is made of ethnic Romanians", or "the entire Western civilisation was heavily influenced by Romanians"? Do you expect those changes could have a lease of life longer than 15 minutes, before the whole thing blew in my face? Of course you don't -- but why? I'm a Romanian, I must know what I'm talking about! While our anonymous user's claims are not quite that outrageous regarding Roma, his argument works the same way -- and we shouldn't judge the merits of an argument by the final claims' outrageousness, but rather by its intrinsic value.

The fact that someone belongs to whatever group is discussed in an article should intrinsically only influence his/her competence at describing the group's opinions, and even that with reservations (What if s/he's holding a minoritarian view within the group? What if s/he's only pretending to belong to that group in order to accomplish his own agenda?) Apart from that, all other opinions must necessarily be based on actual data, and that person must be viewed as any other contributor -- if s/he's very well documented and knowledgeable on the topic, that's all for the best, but that's not a function of his/her belonging to the group alone! --Gutza 22:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, some Gadge don't accept Roma knowning more about Roma themselves than Gadge claim to know... Gutza, get documented WITHIN the Roma community, instead of holding pre-conceived viewpoints of your own Romanians & co. Just go and check the accuracy of the information given here by ROMA before speaking unproperly, travel throughout the world, meet Roma communities worldwide, only then you can have a valuable opinion, though always one of an outer observer.

Great, so people do that! Why don't we have references of their work then? --Gutza 01:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If you don't have such references, it doesn't mean that they don't exist.
By the way, I wouldn't be astonished if a Romanian makes such declarations as those you suggested, as it's well known that Romanians have their own version of history (ask from Hungarians for the documented version, instead).
On the other hand, Romania is together with Italy the most racist European country against Roma - it might be due to their claim of being the true heirs of the Roman Empire... probably, as the Roman were as anti-Jewish as Romanians are anti-Roma...
Gutza, have you ever met any Rom? Do you speak Romanes? So žanes tu amendar? Kon dyas tut voya te des duma ande partya le Řomengi?

True, if you don't have such references, it doesn't mean that they don't exist. Unfortunately for the points you want to make, Wikipedia has an explicit, official policy against original research -- please read that article, or at least the Verifiability, not truth section. Or, if you meant that the references themselves exist, even if you don't know them, then sorry, but you can't expect everybody to do your work for you -- dig them out and show them to the world! Or if you don't have the time or resources to do that, wait until another contributor does. But it's absurd to cry wolf and have nothing to show for it!

Do you understand our position now? It's not that we're racist, or fascist, or anti-Roma, or what have you -- it's simply that we're trying to abide by the rules of our common host, Wikipedia. If you'll play by the same rules, you'll have the same rights, your version of the facts will be included in the article -- just make sure to read what counts as a reputable publication before including such facts and references. But if you don't want to play by the same rules, maybe because you think they're too strict, then probably you already have a poor opinion about Wikipedia on the whole (after all, it doesn't allow you to tell what you see as the truth, that must surely mean that the rest of the articles are similarly untrue), so why bother at all?

You mentioned sarcastically my country's disputed history -- it's an excellent example of how Wikipedia treats disputed topics, have you had the curiosity to look it up? Here, I'll save you the trouble: Origin of Romanians. Since all theories are documented, all are included. The ultra-nationalistic Romanians were unable to impose their version of the truth, and neither were the ultra-nationalistic Hungarians able to impose theirs.

So then, now that we're clear on these issues, I'll try to find time tonight to make the changes Pavel suggested. Thank you for clarifying your position! --Gutza 17:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

1) What changes are you speaking about?
2) Which of the "versions of the truth" about Roma do you or Wikipedia consider documented? All what exists are simply theories, but nothing concrete, just because most researchers have tried to understand the Romany identity from their Gadje viewpoint. It's like a Goy trying to teach a Rabbi about Judaism. Indeed, we are a group of intellectual Roma (including Sinti) that are working on our own research, that will be published as soon as it's ready. Anyway, if you want to go on in ignorance and teaching the world the wrong theories, do go ahead! That wouldn't change the truth at all.
Perhaps the first step you need to do is to learn Romany language, then meet Roma and let THEM explain you about their traditions and culture, and make correct comparisons and accurate research about the whole, in order to have a broaden view instead of eating books and articles of so-called intellectuals.
OK. I must say that to the anonymous user who claims to be Roma and speak Romany - would you mind starting a version of Wikipedia in Rromanes. It would be interesting, seriously. Even though I don't speak Roma, I will lobby for its formation. It would do a lot to spread positive perceptions about the Roma and it could act as a cultural medium of exchange. Are there many Romany speakers on Wikipedia? Anyway, to the issue - I would like to support Gutza on the fact that just because you are Roma doesn't necessarily make you more qualified on Roma issues - if anything, it opens you up to greater scrutiny because you're bound to be talking from one certain point of view. I don't know what the controversy of this article is. It seems to be fairly neutral, it doesn't say anything bad about the Roma, etc. What particular things are there wrong? Just as a note - could you please not use the term gadje. Just as we don't call you "ţigani" (which is a terrible term), we don't like being called "gadje". Non-Roma will do. Ronline 12:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Ronline, the changes I was talking about are the ones in this section: #Analysis of recent edits, suggestion how to deal with them. Apparently we reached the "argument limit", as described in that section, so I'll get on with it. --Gutza 23:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Ronline: The idea of making a Romany version of Wikipedia is a good one, and we can consider the possibility of doing it, though the enormous amount of terms and definitions will not take a short time, and requires much commitment, which might not be so worth doing since most Roma don't read Romanes or if they do they use different writing systems according to their second mother tongue. Concerning the fact that being Roma is not relevant about Roma issues, we deeply disagree, simply because it's impossible for a Gadjo to have a real perception of Romany culture, and he can only elaborate conjectures. I repeat, it's the same as for a Goy to pretend teaching a Rabbi about Judaism.
In second place, not even I know what the controversy of this article is. It arose when Gutza arbitrarily decided to disqualify whatever information was given by Roma themselves, just because such information doesn't fit his conceptions.
In third place, the term "Gadje" is not a pejorative one, and not offensive at all, it simply means "not belonging to the Roma people", exactly as "Goyim" for Jews, which means "the nations".
Reply to Gutza: In doing so, you will only confirm your anti-Roma feelings, as banning Roma from editing or deleting what Roma have edited is indeed a discriminatory behaviour.
PS: Concerning your article about the Origin of Romanians, well, that's the Romanian version indeed... But that's not the matter of discussion here.
About [2]: someone had tried to increase awareness of website (iminalu.net) with a theory of Roma origin. He put links into the article and modified its content accordingly. Since no one in the world had referenced this website and it failed show support by contemporary scholars it got disputed as original research and attempt for self-popularization. Pavel Vozenilek 17:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Pavel, you're only making conjecturres without any reliable support. Can you on the other side, mention what authority have those that you call "contemporary scholars" when they nave not a single written document attesting the past of Roma people? Because probably you don't know, that Roma have not any written history, and the only elements on which the so-called scholars make their conjectures are external reports with biased concepts against those "dirty invaderds of Europe" that were expelled from every country where they reached. Sorry, it's you who has no idea about the Romany culture. It's more likely that who is attempting self-popularization here is you, as some of our people has already qualified your behaviour...

Reply to the anonymous user: yes, you're quite right, I am indeed discriminating you. But it's not based on your ethnicity, but rather based on the fact that you don't have references and you want to push original research, as throroughly explained in this section. If you have anything new to add to that, I'd be happy to discuss it, but I won't go into an endless discussion where you shout "discrimination!" just because I happen to be a Gadjo, since it would be a waste of our time. You say you have extensive research on the way, and it will be published soon. I suggest you focus more on it, than on sterile disputes here, get it published soon, in a peer reviewed environment, and then come back here with understandable pride to reference it. But until then, sorry, I won't go into a cyclic argument. In the meanwhile, you can try persuading some documented Hungarians to focus on Origin of Romanians, if this would quench your thirst for justice -- in your thoughts are in accord with your arrogance on the issue, you'll be surprised at their reaction. --Gutza 19:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It appears that the arrogant one is you, indeed. I have references, more than you: My own People and culture, that you don't know at all. And as you don't want to go on wasting time in arguing, please don't delete what Roma have edited, and nobody will bother you. I suggest to restore all the links you deleted, as they are written by Roma, and the world has the right to know Roma's own opinion on the matter. As a matter of fact, you're discriminating US by our ethnicity, because you're not only arguing with me, but you are deleting what OTHER ROMA have edited, and they had no argument with you. Sasha

This is just to acknowledge reading your comment. In the meanwhile, I reverted your changes, based on the arguments given extensively by several contributors on this talk page, and in corroboration with the guidelines at consensus decision-making. Please don't re-revert before you have enough support for your claims to get them out of the original research area. Thank you. --Gutza 08:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


Dear anonymous user,

I understand your passion about this topic, and I sympathize with your efforts. But please understand that no matter how much you insult me, that won't change the fact that you're pushing for including original research in the article. Therefore my position on this issue can't be possibly changed with insults alone. If anything, you'll only create tensions between yourself and other contributors, and make yourself look bad -- why in God's name would you possibly want to do that? You have research on the way, why don't you focus on finishing it? You must have sources for that research, why don't you share them? Why, instead, do you prefer to edit the article in a way which is obiously not consensual? Do you really, honestly expect to "get away with it" if you do it long enough? Even if you did, the simple fact there's a NPOV dispute notice in the article makes the whole thing unworthy of trust for most readers. Please try to change your strategy, this will only lead to more tension, and possibly arbitration, which is a waste of everybody's time, ours and the arbitration team's alike! Again, screaming "discrimination!" won't work, I already told you that a couple of posts before, why do you insist on this? Please do consider alternative approaches, more in line with the Wikipedia policy!

Thank you, Gutza 07:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Why do you say I insulted you? That's your assumption, and why do you erase my previous response, so that everybody may judge if it's an insult or not? As you said that everything written must be proven, why do you add a comment to the Religion issue "It has been suggested that..." By WHOM was it suggested? Is any serious scholarly research introduced by "it has been suggested that"? It appears rather quite evident that with that statement your only intention is to DENY the EVIDENCE, that there is not any trace of Hinduism in Romany religion, tradition or culture, and you try to go ahead by insulting Roma with your statements. If you have any PROOF about the early Hinduist belief of Roma, please PROVIDE such a proof, instead of making such statements, violating the Wikipedia policy. Otherwise, keep the text as it was written originally by the author.
On the other hand, you are deleting links that I HAVE NOT placed, but as you hate me, you are doing so because your friend Pavel has suggested it. Undoubtedly, you don't want that people can have the whole view, but only that in which you believe. Besides this, I didn't make any edits myself, but just restored some phrases edited by others. So in erasing such phrases, you are not doing it against me, but against other editors.
What is "not consensual" for you? What you and Pavel don't accept, no matter if the whole Roma itellectual environment does accept? Perhaps you two being in Eastern Europe are unaware of what's going on in the world, at least in the west, and don't know the latest research on the matter. Indeed, you both are making statements that are not supported by proofs at all, taking references from some self-defined "experts" in the matter, but without real knowledge of Romany culture, because whoever insists in linking Roma with any Hindu tradition is showing deep ignorance about Romany culture. Please verify your sources before deleting what WE ROMA know about ourselves, don't be so arrogant!!! Sasha.
PS: About the consensus issue: How many of you are qualified to decide which sources are to be taken in consideration and which not? How many of you know personally Romany culture? How many of you have knowledge of Romany traditions and language? Please qualify yourselves as creditable before Roma, in order that some of us may guarantee that you have any authority on Romany matters. By insisting on your position, you're only offending Roma, as NONE OF US feels in any way idientified with the people you want force us to be identified. You are hindering people to know OUR OWN feelings on the matter, and what OUR CULTURE actually is.

Ummm, I'm quite puzzled now... Who are you talking to? --Gutza 15:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking to you or whoever is insisting in supporting what is not true. Apparently, who is arguing with me is signed Gutza...

Curious. I didn't remove your comment where you were telling me to go to hell. I didn't remove your comment calling me a racist. I didn't add any statmenet in the article reading "It has been suggested that...". And I did very few edits myself, I mostly just restored some phrases edited by others -- if anything, I made them more neutral as to please you, not them. So, again, are you sure you wanted to accuse me of all those things? --Gutza 15:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You declared above that YOU removed the links and the previous edits. Now you deny it. I didn't tell you to go hell, but the expression I wrote in Romany has another meaning. Who removed it, I don't know; it's you who replied after. You didn't restore phrases but deleted them; otherwise, you may take some measures to avoid who is doing so and restore yourself the links and other statements deleted by someone who, undoubtedly, wants to impose a viewpoint contrary to Romany culture.

I did remove some links because they point to small sites which have no relevance and look like self-promotion. I did remove several edits, but I put in place phrases edited by others. If you didn't make the edits I linked to (and it's true, it wasn't you), then why do you reply in that guy's name? Given that none of you typically sign your messages, the confusion is easily understandable. --Gutza 17:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I simply defend what other Roma have edited, and has been deleted or modified by some biased stupid Gadjo that has no idea of Romany culture. The links you removed are not promoting anybody, but the Romany viewpoint on our own culture, as other sites are completely IRRELEVANT for us, no matter who the authors claim to be.
By the way, please don't re-edit the blasphemy that somebody has placed at the article Rligion, that says as follows :"It has been suggested that while still in India the Roma people belonged to the Hindu religion, this theory being supported by the Romany word for "cross", trushul, which is the word which describes Shiva's trident". First, because such assertion offends Roma, second, because is not supported by any evidence, and as it is introduced, "It weas suggested" is not explained by whom or which sources might confirm such stupid claims. The word "trushul", on the other hand, was used by Sumerians, Assyrians and other Middle-Eastern peoples with the meaning of "cross". A single word cannot be used as an element to create a conjecture. Is it possible that a people may lose ALL the early characters of their alleged ancient belief? It would be an unique case in the history of mankind, and not any single people has completely lost all the aspects of their past religion, not even Christians, that have included many traditions of their pagan past, either Roman or Celtic or Germanic or whatever. How is it possible that NO TRACES of Hinduism survived in Romany culture? Please, don't go on offending Roma with such statement!

"It was suggested" is a very neutral way of saying that some people believe something, without actually endorsing that statement. I think it's quite a neutral, reasonable way to put it, given that:

  • MSN Encarta says "Close contact with non-Roma people is regarded as potentially “polluting”, a concept probably derived from the religious beliefs of Hindu ancestors."
  • The First Romany Congress in 1971 established the Chackra Wheel as the official symbol for the Roma -- lo and behold, that's a depiction of the Dharma wheel, which is common to the dharmic religions (given the Roma ancestry, I doubt you can claim you were Buddhists);
  • Steve Watrous (of disputed fame in the links section) says "Although the Roma came out of Hindu India 1,000 years ago, in the U.S. many connect with Christian churches.", clearly understating Hindu as the "original" religion.
  • This site also says "There is clearly a distinct set of Roma religious beliefs and practices, which scholars frequently describe as Aryan/Indian/Hindu in origin with an overlay of local (esp. European) religious culture (often Catholic)."

This is from some 20 minutes of research on Google. I say all those definitely qualify as "It was suggested". Please note that the article doesn't say "While in India, the Roma people belonged to the Hindu religion", but rather that it has merely been suggested so. Which is quite adequate.

Oh, on a side note, it seems "[t]here are also Eastern Orthodox, Hindu and Muslim believers among the Roma" [2] -- isn't your claim offensive to them? --Gutza 14:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Do suggestions become a scholarly reliable research? Concerning Orthodox, why would my claims offend them? and Muslims - that are Domari, Nawwar (whose existence you deny) and Xoraxané, they are a minority and have lost most of ROmany tradition, but if someone asserted that tere are Hinduy Roma, please introduce that person to us, as we'd be glad to let him know the difference between Roma and nomadic peoples that many think to be Roma!
If a stupid so-called scholar understood (without a single proof) that Roma were Hindu, it's not our fault. Galileus was condemned because he said the Earth moves, but all the most qualified scholars said it was standing fixed. So you are with those "outstanding experts" that make absurd claims just because they believe so? About the Dharma wheel, perhaps you don't know that it was the symbol of Israel before the Magen David (Shield of David)... It was carried to India by the pre-Israelite Hebrews (Habiru).


That's quite a good example you have there. If today the scholars agreed that the Earth stood still, and Galileo Galilei came to Wikipedia with his theory that the Earth was moving, he would be told that he needs to publish his theory in a peer-reviewed environment before it was included in Wikipedia -- in the meanwhile, the article on Earth would continue to say that Earth was NOT moving. As I said before, Wikipedia is not about the TRUTH, it's about the current KNOWLEDGE. --Gutza 14:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the current KNOWLEDGE of the GADJE is one quite different to the current KNOWLEDGE of ROMA. Is Wikipedia only the Gadje's voice? OK; so why somebody asked me to edit a Romany version? By the way, it's not rue that all scholars agree with the conventional theory, but there are many (Gadje) scholars that disagree. It's like creationism and evolutionism, there are two positions, and two parties deeply convinced of having the true version of knowledge. Which one does Wikipedia support?

All of the theories accepted by respectable sources, even if they contradict each other. That's why it encourages phrases like "it has been suggested that [...]", because that way you can present a piece of information without endorsing it. You can follow right up with another contrary theory as long as it's not original research. --Gutza 14:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

So, why did you delete my edit contrasting the phrase you mentioned, in which I explained that such a suggestion is groundless because is founded on a single word that has an earlier origin and with another meaning, and that's not an original research because you can check in any Aramaic or Sumerian encyclopaedia? If you re-edit that blasphemy, you MUST also edit the opposite view to be impartial.
Why do you delete the undeniable truth (at least in the present) expressed by the statement "Even though Roma have stayed for long time in India, there are no traces of any Hinduist past in their culture"? Are you impartial?

Simply because there are, see the Chackra Wheel argument above. Can you explain that in a way unrelated to Hinduism? --Gutza 17:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is the common symbol of all ancient nomadic peoples, long before the first Hindu existed.

Rejection

I recently found the following concerning the legal status of Roma in the Czech Republic:
The Roma suffered disproportionately under the 1993 Czech citizenship law which rendered a large number of them stateless, and drew the condemnation of numerous international intergovernmental organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and domestic critics, many of whom argued that the law was specifically directed at the political exclusion and physical expulsion of members of this vulnerable group. from Rae, Heather. States, Identities and the Homogenisation of Peoples. Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2002. p 250. [3]
The article referenced by this statement is Jirina Siklova and Marta Miklusakova. ‘Law as an Instrument of Discrimination: Denying Citizenship to the Czech Roma'. East European Constitutional Review 7: 2 (1998), 338. Would this be relevant? L Hamm 15:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

We don't really know until someone who's a student at that university can confirm it... But anyway, such a closed-circuit URL has no relevance in Wikipedia IMO. --Gutza 18:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll attempt to find accessible versions to replace the reg. required URLs, so that they can be verified. I go to that University, hence the access, I was unclear as to whether it would allow others to link. L Hamm 18:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I have updated the URL within my previous post. L Hamm 18:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem had dissapeared in the meantime (the Roma got Czech citizenship). You may add some details on Velvet divorce, there's small section about it. The law stated that people w/o Czech citizenship living there may obtain it if they didn't commit crime. Most of Roma living there (I read 70+%) were born and domiciled in Slovakia and large percentage of these didn't fit with the requirement (I saw 50-70% men but since there are no reliable statistics its impossible to say exactly). After few years the law was changed, since it didn't serve anybody to have large group of people w/o citizenship here. Pavel Vozenilek 20:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I am investigating this in order to develop a paragraph on the situation of Roma in Europe today, legal status et cetera, I have not yet checked the EU websites as to their position. So these data could segue into a paragraph concerning the EU position regarding Roma, and Roma position regarding the EU (still looking for sources). L Hamm 04:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Rejection is evident also in this article, in which Gadje are constantly deleting what Roma have edited.

population estimates

Estimates suggest that there are between approximately 8 and 10 million Roma worldwide [4]. It's estimated that between 7 and 10 million Roma live in Europe.

This doesn't seem to make sense, unless some people deny the existence of Roma outside Europe. Otherwise those who estimate 10m Roma in Europe must be estimating a higher figure worldwide. Some explanation or reconciliation of this paradox seems necessary. Flapdragon 12:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is definitely paradoxical. The first estimate comes from UN (you quoted the link). You can find explanations for the second estimate here: #Population. --Gutza 13:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you to get more updated estimates, if not, just rely on maths... If there are more than 1.5 million Roma in Romania, between 500,000 and 1 million in Hungary, Bulgaria, Spain, former USSR, Czech/Slovakia, former Yugoslavia, USA, Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, and the Romani Union estimates 9-10 million in Europe and about 16 million worldwide (without taking account of the Domari/Nawwar in Egypt and Middle East, which are more than 5 million, your figures of 10 million worldwide is simply ridiculous. Sasha

How does maths and the Romani Union estimates go along then? Even with the absurd assumption that ALL six European countries you listed above (except Romania) have 1 mil, plus Romania's 1.5 mil, you still get 7.5. Even with those absurdly maximal estimates, you still need to assume an extra 1.5 mil in the other European countries to reach the minimal estimation made by the Romani Union. --Gutza 15:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Europe has not only six countries. I think you need to travel a little and see...

Oh, sarcasm, this is helpful. Maybe you rushed through my comment and got to replying too soon -- please try re-reading it more carefully and reply again. --Gutza 15:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems that you have more updated figures than the Romani Union in every country, don't you? If you are still convinced of your numbers, please have a look at the website of the Domari Research Center (if you don't know, the Domari are the Roma of Arab countries). If your absurdly minimal figures for Europe are not enough to reach 15 million worldwide, where do you place the estimated 5 to 8 million Domari (even assuming that they are only 5 million)? Where do you place the 500,000 Roma in Argentina, 600,000 in Brazil, 500,000 in Mexico, plus other countries having more than 50,000 like Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, and Canada?

Yet more sarcasm -- and useful once again! Look, if I was as biased as you claim me to be, I would've pushed for census data, period. Which, by the way, if you were consistent in your opinions, should be considered the accurate number, since that's the data provided BY ROMA (as you're so keen on capitalizing in #The Roma Defence section). But no, I acknowledge that the census data minimizes the Roma population, and I accept that other estimates are more accurate. However, that's not enough for you: you need nothing less than estimates made by obvious pro-Roma sources, which unsurprisingly have an active interest in maximising their estimates. I chose to use data from the United Nations -- how is that wrong? Is UN racist too? --Gutza 17:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Roma have no interest in maximizing our numbers. It's a matter of truth not of propaganda. The UN data are indeed inaccurate, as many states don't count Roma or reduce their actual number (like Romania, that officially counts 1.5 million, but reliable sources assert that their actual number is around 2.4 million). In fact, Romania does so mainly because of their wish to have a good curriculum to enter the EU, abu we in the EU aleready know (because we read newspapers and are updated), that the main propblem for the UN when Romania will join is that Roma will be a number grater than Swedes or Austrians, that menas, more than 9 million in the EU only (without counting those in the former USSR, former Yugoslavia and Turkey, that make other 3 million). So, it's reasonable to give correct information, not what is "official". Also Egypt claims tha the Kopts are just 2 million, when indeed they are 15 million, because it's against Muslim policiy to admit such a number of "misbelievers". In the same way, Romania and other European countries try to minimize the Romany presence. According to the baptism registries of the Evangelical Romany Mission, only in France, UK, Italy and Germany together there must be around 1 million Roma and Sinti.

Please stop being sarcastic, it's quite annoying ("we in the EU aleready know (because we read newspapers and are updated)"). Do you think it would be hard for me to reply in the same manner? It's not productive and doesn't help your efforts in any way.
Your numbers add up to 12 mil in Europe, a number even higher than that the upper limit estimated by the Romani Union by your own account (9-10 mil), something must be amiss.

So you see that I'm giving a conservative figure when editing the numnber of Roma in Europe as 9-10 million, instead of the feasible 12 million.

Finally, while you make an entire case on why European states (and most states for that matter) minimize their Roma population estimates (a fact we all knew and needed no argument), you barely touch the actual topic of my previous comment: how can you say that Roma have no interest in maximizing their numbers? Of course you have an interest, like any ethnic or national group, because that way you have better ethnic representation everywhere. This is simply logical, there's nothing to contest about this. The fact that an anonymous person says "it's a matter of truth" is not typically considered a strong argument. --Gutza 17:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

We are not inteserested in maximiziing our numbers, actually, many Romani sources don't take account of some groups like Domari or Luri, which other non-Roma sources include (as well as some other nomdic non-Roma groups).

The Domari Research Center gives a population of 2,158,400 for the Middle East [5] but this excludes countries where no survey exists to extimate population (i.e. Algeria, Bahrain, Chad, Israel, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, UAE and Yemen).L Hamm 15:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The following comes from the V World IRU (International Romani Union) Congress in July 2000.
"There are hundreds of Romani familiyi in Australia, the survey conducted in 1995, counted some 16,500 individuals. It is estimated that this figure in 2000, could be as high as 22,000. Roma in Australia do not generally appear in statistics in Australia as we are "hidden". This is because of many reasons, but mainly: 1. We are not on electoral rolls, as we do not take part in Census Statistics which makes us difficult to identify and locate. 2. Others of us describe our ethnicity either as Australian or as the country from which we emigrated. It is rare for Rom in Australia to acknowledge their heritage to an outsider, unless it is for the specific purpose of making money or some other goal."[6]
L Hamm 19:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

man u are stupid. I am a "romanian" from Australia, and i dont know anyone that is rroma. Maybe rroma say they are of th country they come from, because the majority of them speak the language they come from. Also, in the 2001 census of Australia, only a little over 600 people said they are rroma. I dont think your information is correct. 2001 census is the most recent one. If in the 2002 romanian census only 500,000 people declared themselves as rroma, then thats how many of them consider themselves to be rroma. The other "1 million" that is estimated to be in romania, consider themselves to be romanian, just as there are greeks, serbs, italians, romanians etc.... in australia, that say they are australian. The rroma have lived in romania for over 1 thousand years, so they are as much romanian as i am.

Roma population in Bosnia-Herzegovina, until the internal census is finished, is estimated to have a Roma population of 40,000 to 120,000[7]. In Transcarpathian Ukraine the Roma population is between 12,000 and 30,000 [8]. In Greece, reliable estimates are between 300,000 and 500,000 Roma [9], this is higher than that quoted by both the Domari Research Center or the Greek government [10].

Sorry I posted these in the wrong talk section.L Hamm 01:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

If the census makers of the site have a little patience, I can provide the different figures given by different organizations, both Romany and non-Romany, in a couple of months.
By the moment I can add a datum about the Roma in Israel, that as is said above, there is no survey to estimate the Romany population because they are not discriminated and counted as Jews (in Israel there are two categories of citizens: Jews and non-Jews, and it is expressed in the ID). However, we have knowledge that there are about 50,000 Jewish Roma, mainly settled in Tel-Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem and Kiryat-Gat, of Russian and Balkan origin and Jewish or Messianic Jewish belief. They have no relationships with teh Domari-Nawwar, settled in Old Jerusalem (Lion's Gate) and Gaza, of Christian or Muslim religion.

Current Dispute

Ok, so, we finally have an overview of the disputed topics -- is that a reasonably accurate diff between the two "parties"? We only have a couple of changes by "neutrals", that is the edits about Poles/POW versus prostitutes on one hand, and the removal of categories on the other hand. Would both "parties" be completely happy with their respective columns in the diff linked above, "neutral" edits notwithstanding? (You know who you are, I won't go into which side is whose.) Please confirm if that's the case (I for one can confirm that I'd be happy with the version on the right), so we can start discussing a consensual version, including elements from both, or compromises in-between. --Gutza 20:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

We Roma only ask from editors to be honest, by NOT OFFENDING our culture in any of the ways as follow:
1) alleging that we had any relationship with Hinduism, as they have no proofs to say so;
2) deleting what WE ROMA have edited;
3) deleting links related with ROMANY websites that WE ROMA conider the most accurate as they perfectly explain our culture and tradition.
If you don't insist in doing the things listed above, we have no other objection.
We Roma DEEPLY DISAGREE with Mr. Vozenilek's suggestions, as he is NOT qualified about Romany culture and is only carrying on his own ideas, that are AGAINST Romany identity.
By the way, Gutza, instead of arguing, why don't you contribute by adding some names to the list I made about Roma football players? I know there are some Romanian ones, but I don't remember their names. I've listed only those I'm sure they are (because we had also TV documentaries about their biographies).

Because I'm trying to have a constructive discussion. Unfortunately you look more and more like trolling. --Gutza 14:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Trolling for saying the truth and asking that our voice be heared?

No, trolling as in repeating the same arguments no matter how much I'm trying to work towards compromise. --Gutza 14:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Compromise? Is deleting whatever Roma edit and editing whatever the anti-Roma edit a compromise? Is your concept of compromise not to allow Roma to explain their own culture? A strange kind of compromise, hearing one voice only!!!
If you are really working for compromise, why do you delete our links and our edits? Why do you insist in editing the false Hindu stuff instead of ackowledging the evident truth, that there's no Hinduism at all within Roma?

Because if I leave it there we reach status quo -- I'm going to wait like a fool for you to comment on my attempts to compromise, and in the meanwhile you'll mock me because the article already looks the way you want it to, so you feel no need for compromise. This way however, you seem quite interested to have a conversation. --Gutza 14:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

So you intend to declare war? Of course I'm open to conversation instead, but since you or whoever is constantly deleting our links is showing only ONE viewpoint (the wrong one, indeed), we understand that you aren't interested in conversation but only in promoting a theory. We are not opposing the editing of the other side's opinions, but we ask that our researches be considered as well. In fact, the article looked the way is RIGHT NOW (with my restoring the links and texts) BEFORE your argument with me begun. Compromise would mean that both positions be equally considered, not one alone and the other deleted!

No, I don't intend to "declare war" -- how would that work, anyway? The fact that the article looked the way it is right now before or after some arbitrary event is irrelevant, we're not playing "who started it?" here. I agree that compromise would mean that both positions are equally considered -- but why do you push for a particular site, which is quite a small one at that, instead of linking to a more prestigious site about Roma, such as http://www.romaniworld.com/ or maybe even a directory such as http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Ethnicity/Romani/Organizations -- the way you're pushing for a single, obscure site linked multiple times looks quite a whole lot either like self-promotion, or like pushing for a particular view, no matter how hard you're trying to deny that. --Gutza 14:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Why you don't place also the links you mentioned? Who denies you to do so?
About your accusations of self-promotion, by whom? Is the author promoting himself? In fact, that's the only website dealing with origins done only by Roma (more than one author), and the only one expressing our true view of the whole matter. Ask any Roma intellectual if you don't believe (or perhaps there are no Roma intellectuals in Romania).
About WHO STARTED IT, just see who has created and signed the section "The Roma Defence" Was I or you?
By the way, in the second link you suggested, it's mentioned an organization whose existence you ignore: The Domari Research Center. Why don't you have a look before editing the absurd figures about Romany population? (So absurd that if the estimate in Europe is 7-10 million and worldwide is 8-10 million, it means that in the case that the maximum figures are right for Europe, the Roma population in the rest of the world is equal to zero)...
A compromise may be reached, if you DON'T DELETE our edits and links, you may however add whatever you want, we won't delete it (unless you re-edit the abominable Hindu stuff about Shiva's trident, that may be admitted ONLY if you also explain that there is no ground for such assertion).

Really? So you wouldn't mind if I found some racist sites and posted links to them in the "External links" section? --Gutza 17:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you would include such links, as they are not relevant for the topic.
Please DON'T ALTER the text explaining the content of the linked websites, it is DISHONEST to change it in an openly discriminatory way as you did. PLEASE LEAVE THE LINK AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. The expression "don't delete" means also "don't make changes that may be a de-facto deletion of the original text". Sasha.
You have anyway deleted one of the links, but I can accept such a thing just because the site is in Spanish and perhaps is better to include it in the Spanish version of Wikipedia. I still ask you to restore the link to Paul Polansky's website.

I can't not alter the text, because the text is biased. As you can see, I am trying to work towards compromise, but you won't have anything but your way.

Regarding the racist sites, yes, they would be quite relevant, there isn't just a handful of racists, and it might be interesting for many people to read their point of view. The problem is not that it's irrelevant, but rather that it's a biased opinion. Similarly, the theory you're defending so fiercely is also biased. That's why it has to go, or at least needs to have its text changed -- otherwise it looks like Wikipedia endorses it, which is not the case, as seen from the article, which makes no mention whatsoever about the possible Hebrew ancestry of the Roma people.

I'm going to revert to my compromise version now. If you still won't talk about the changes and just revert to your version, I'm going to list the article at RfC, since it will be obvious that I can't reach any compromise with you.--Gutza 13:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, if you consider the racist sites relevant, do include them, we have nothing contrary to it.
Sorry, but it's you who is presenting a site in a biased manner. We cannot accept that you "qualify" according to YOUR standards and not those of neutrality. Let people judge if the sites are biased or not, otherwise you're considering the readers as stupid fellows unable to have a view of their own.
I see that you need to be reminded which is the solution to this dispute:
We Roma only ask from editors to be honest, by NOT OFFENDING our culture in any of the ways as follow:
1) alleging that we had any relationship with Hinduism, as they have no proofs to say so;
2) deleting what WE ROMA have edited;
3) deleting links related with ROMANY websites that WE ROMA conider the most accurate as they perfectly explain our culture and tradition.
If you don't insist in doing the things listed above, we have no other objection.
We Roma DEEPLY DISAGREE with Mr. Vozenilek's suggestions, as he is NOT qualified about Romany culture and is only carrying on his own ideas, that are AGAINST Romany identity.
You are still deliberately changing our edits in order to insist in your aim to convert all Roma into Hinduism, a thing that NEVER HAPPENED and WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
You (or somebody else) have also deleted Ibrahimovic from the list of Roma football players, I don't know why...

I didn't delete Ibrahimovic. When you say "WE ROMA", who do you represent? I see no claims as to what YOU ROMA hold so dearly as the truth (Hebrew ancestry) on any respectable Roma site, so you can't represent very many people -- so please stop acting as if you would.

Regarding the Hinduism thing, no matter how much that offends you, you can't make that sentence as POV as you did, it's simply contrary to the Wikipedia policy. You need to present the facts, as currently known, and let the reader decide what he believes to be the truth -- or allow him to not make up his mind at all. Also, why did you delete "Some Roma consider [it offensive]"? Again, do you represent all Roma? Regarding your claim that there are no other Hindu elements in your culture, I consider the topic closed as long as you fail to explain your ethnicity's official symbol, which is identical to a Hindu religious symbol. As long as you can't explain that away, you simply can't claim there are "there are no traces of any Hinduist past in [the Roma] culture". Hinduism is not only about phallic symbolistic, you know?

Regarding the link currently reading "Origin of Roma and Sinti - by a Romany author, a Romany answer to the conventional theories". I acknowledge that's a lot better -- and thank you for your compromise regarding the Spanish link, you were right, I deleted that one because it's in Spanish. However, I still think the text associated with the remaining link needs a little more work. You must agree that an original theory supported by a very limited group of people which needs to ignore all linguistic evidence to reach its conclusions is at least a little shaky, no matter how hard you want to believe in it. Therefore we need to give the reader more information about the theory, in a neutral way.

At any rate, thank you for working towards comprmise! --Gutza 18:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

According to your narrow-minded concepts, symbols ae univocal and cannot be shared by different cultures. On the other side, as far as it appears here, not only I but other couple of people are the ONLY ROMA represented here, and ALL of us agree in the same thing. Stop changing the title and explanation of THE ONLY ROMANY LINK listed. You're only confirming the fact of being a stubborn Romanian that wants at any cost be the owner of the truth, and having a quite racist behaviour.

Ok, I'm narrow-minded for considering a unique symbol, which can't be the result of random scribbling, shared between two cultures as a link between them. But in this line of thought, I wonder what you would call the author of a theory based on such things as "we pay for man, like Jews, and unlike Hindu, therefore we are Hebrew", when such a thing has more than 50-50 chances of being the case (either you pay for the man or you pay for the woman, there are no other options). What's your take on that guy? --Gutza 09:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you insist in giving the impression that you're actually narrow-minded? Your example is absurd, as there is not a single element the basis to determine origin, but a whole system of culture and traditions (not only the fact that it's the man who pays for the bride, but ALL the rituals and prctices involving social life, child-birth, wedding, death, etc. etc. etc.). On the other side, you're founding the whole Hinduist theory on a single stupid symbol that was NOT carried from ancient but just chosen in a congress some few years ago, a symbol of which 99% of Roma have no idea of its meaning, and that you won't find anywhere in their homes or making reference to it in any way. What's more, according to your reasoning, also the pre-WWII Germans were pure Hindus because they had the swastika as their national symbol. And following the same concept, for example, Americans are Albanians because both have the eagle in their shield, or the British or Venetians are Iranic because they have the lion (symbol of Iran before the islamic takeover). Your attachment to a COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT symbol seems to be more important for you than the whole cultural heritage of an entire people.
I've added a link to the European Roma Rights Center website... I think you won't have objections about it, it's an European institution and the information and news provided are useful and relevant.
I hope that the present presentation of the site, explaining that it is the first research done entirely by Roma is not disturbing for you (it's just to let people know the source). Anyway, if you want to revert to the way you accepted previously ("Origin of Roma and Sinti - by a Romany author, a Romany answer to the conventional theories"), it'd be OK as well. I've also placed both links in the position I consider more coherent as they deal with the whole Roma, while the following one deals only with the Luli and the others are journalistic articles, museum, etc.


What do you feel is wrong or inaccurate about my wording, "a radical theory by a Romany author which concludes a Hebrew ancestry for the Roma people based on some similar customs rather than linguistics"? Don't you consider it radical? Doesn't it conclude a Hebrew ancestry? Isn't is based on similar customs rather than linguistics? Isn't the description neutral? I'd very much prefer to work towards a more descriptive text regarding the content, rather than stating, rather arbitrarily, that it's "a Romany answer" -- on one hand I feel that's not descriptive of the content, and on the other hand it's not neutral in my opinion. --Gutza 19:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

deleted the Hebrew link and the anti-Indian Origination comments and I will continue to do so. Don't blame Gutza, who is obviously someone trying very hard to be reasonable with someone who has no interest in being reasonable. Also please note, I have no desire nor will I actually have a conversation with you over the merits of your opinions, it is obvious you want to either a.) establish yourself as some kind of authority or b.) just want to cause trouble. I am no expert on the Roma or Indian history. However, none of the Gypsies (that's how they referred to themselves) I ever meet (admittedly only in Romania) never identified themselves as a Semitic people, nor have any of the Asian Indians I meet (admittedly only in America) ever heard of Jewish gypsies. When you started referring to yourself as "We" instead of "I" in your various unsigned comments, that was the icing on the cake. Any reasonable person would conclude you have no interest in the truth, you have your belief and you want to convert or shout down the unbelievers. I have no tolerance for that. --TJD

Personal attack on TDJ removed. Pavel Vozenilek 21:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Religion

This unexpected change, usually hardly criticized by many, has greatly contributed to a better image of Roma in society - this appears in the section religion and its a confusing and badly constructed sentence: clarification: has the change hardly been criticized by any?, harshly criticized by many?, clarification please?L Hamm 23:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The confusing phrase "usually hardly criticized by many", has been removed. How's that for prompt action? --Blainster 05:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Name

I have added the Welsh name for the Roma people. As someone who speaks in Welsh I can admit that I am "qualified" to put this in the article. I have put the Welsh word in for one reason, not because it is "POV" even though it isn't, but it's because it's true. I would also like to state that there are Roma People in Wales and they live in the South Wales area.

ORIGINS IN INDIA

I am an Indian Hindu, and though I admit there are some similarities between the Roma language and customs,I have another point against the argument that they were originally Indian Hindus.

In Hinduism, for a very long time, to cross the seas, that is to leave Jambu Dweep(India) was considered a sin and meant excommunication from the religion and exile. No one wanted this, and even during British Rule, many Indian Sepoys refused to fight for the British overseas, fearing for their souls.

Also please be a little less derisive about Hinduism, we're not demon worshippers as some Tele evangeists would have you believe.

Dear Hindu friend: Thank you for your contribution, though I guess it's idle to tell people the truth when they are not willing to know it. WE Roma have shown them what OUR culture is, YOU Indians do the same, but THEY, the non-Roma and non-Indian, but pseudo-intellectuals, will insist in holding their ridiculous theories. By the way, I respect Hinduism, I simply made clear that our religious heritage has nothing to do with it.
Get over yourself already. Wikipedia isn't the place for hysterical victim complex tirades.
You shut up. I happen to be christian, but whatever's cool with you cool with me. OK, enough religion stuff. I heard the Roma came out of India long before British rule, possibly even before Hinduism really got started.
66.205.108.8 06:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe in their Indoaryan Origin (or Iranians of India).

Certainly from what ive seen, read and experienced about Roma people i think that they certainly show close resemalance to similar Nomads of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and just North India (not south India); yet i don´t agree that the historians or anthropologist should keep on mentioning India as the origin of their people, since India is to big a concept and ethnicity to do so. We must first encounter that really India as a concept is borrowing or a creation of the invading Aryans (indoeuropeans of iranian orign) that actually settled up north in between Pakistan and Afghanistan as the origin of this culture (later tu establish themselves in Rajasthan, Jammu-Kashmir, Guajarat and north-west regions basically to extend their culture)

It is precisly the regions of the "Sindhu River" between mountains of Afghanistan and the Pakistnian valleys of "Kashmir" and "Punjab" the real home of Hinduism and "indoaryans" (indoiranians).

So what i mean, is that if we talk about "gypsy" people we must talk not precisaly about India but first about Pakistani or Afghan-Iranian aryan culture and tribes that entered those regions invading the aboriginal populations and established a new culture.

That is why many people feel (i am one) that "roma" people have more connections to mesapotamia or semitic peoples since many forget to mention that indoarians (invading iranians) where culturally and ethnically closer to Semites, Huns and Greeks that came from Iran (a fusion between them peoples id say).

Precisly the Romani languague closely resembles Punjabi and Hindi yet more closer even to Pothohari and mountain languages of Pakistan and Afghanistan (were there are many nomadic tribes).

That is the reason why many gypsy dont look Indian (south indian atleast) but more Persian, Iranian, Kurdish, Dardic, Drokpas or Pashtu people and dont have dravidian traits of austrolid or asian origin; but certinaly resemble a mix of southern european mediteraneas (iranian-greek) mixed with semitic traits. M

Many gyspys have long beards as how old nomadic VEDIC ARYANS (sun worshipers, budda etc) had; as well as have green eyes and a reddish tone to their skin like people for centuries where nomads in the mountain areas of Pakistan, North India and Afghanistan. What i mean to say is that they dress,look,act,and their music is more similar to people like the Kurds,Dards,Guajars,Pashtus,Pothoharis,Kashmiris and Punjabis than to dravidian-mongolian or austrolid indians.

We must also remember that the apperance of those nomadic indoeuropean (iranian) and others partly semitic-iranian-hun-greekish people; is how old ARYANS used to look like; add to that a reddish tone of skin since they lived in the mountains.

The dress of gypsy people closely resembles more Iranin or Afghan nomadi peoples. The tipical jewlery and earings of women nomads in those areas is one sign. Also the long hair used buy man plus earings close resembles those aryan conceptos of sunworshipping worriors that where great horse riders and metalsmiths who brought Cattle_Cows to the desert and tropical areas of Pakistan and India; that was how historically dravidians described those whiter skinned, mostage-bearded men that invaded their more asian-austroloid land.


I believe Gypsys or Roma are descendants of the "Indoaryan" of orgin worriors of "iranian origin" that settled in the mountanous regions of Pakistan (Pothohari-Kashmir) and those who went into the deserts of Rajasthan (Rajputs-Jatts). I believe these people gatthered together to defend themselves from invading Muslims as did classical persiands; yet where defeated and pride got to them so they fled their land since they wanted to continue their concept of nomadic sunworshippers.


Gypsyes do not resemble dravidian culturs but more Irani (Persian)Afghani(Pashtu)-Punjabi-Kashmiri-Rajasthani-Harayana-Brhamman cultures of indoeuropean or irani-scythian-greekish influence and language...


Gypsy Music is not only resembled in the famous ZARDS, the primitive Tangos or Boleros of Romania, Hungary and Russia; and Flamenco or Cante Jondo but u can trace their indoaryan music in Country,Rock and Roll-Hippie Music, Fox Trot-Jazz; and ofcourse latin american rythms like: Rumba, Salsa, Bolero, Tango, Peruvian Valse, Tondero, Zamacueca, Charchalera, Milonga etc...

It errant living and the suffering of a worrior people that pridley did not accept the imposition of mongolian or muslim invaders; so they fled with their women and similar tribes of indoaryan origin into the western regions; saddly to know they to large and were not given any help they dedicated themselves to music, entertainment (circus-acrobats-scene players) and poets; yet they mained their worrior cast spirit in they knife making (metal working) and their riding abilities.

There are many people of Gypsy or Romani origin in the world; and they all seperatly resemble:

Easter Europe: Bohemians.. Spain: Gitanos or Flamencos Mexico: Charros Peru: Morochucos or Piajenos Argentina:Gauchos Venezuela: LLaneros Cuba:Guajiros.

Probaly the countries that recieved most gypsu influence where

Romania,Hungary,Spain,Mexico,Cuba and Peru in south america; all these have gypsy influenced music and cultures...

I believe in their Indoaryan Origin (or Iranians of India).

Certainly from what ive seen, read and experienced about Roma people i think that they certainly show close resemalance to similar Nomads of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and just North India (not south India); yet i don´t agree that the historians or anthropologist should keep on mentioning India as the origin of their people, since India is to big a concept and ethnicity to do so. We must first encounter that really India as a concept is borrowing or a creation of the invading Aryans (indoeuropeans of iranian orign) that actually settled up north in between Pakistan and Afghanistan as the origin of this culture (later tu establish themselves in Rajasthan, Jammu-Kashmir, Guajarat and north-west regions basically to extend their culture)

It is precisly the regions of the "Sindhu River" between mountains of Afghanistan and the Pakistnian valleys of "Kashmir" and "Punjab" the real home of Hinduism and "indoaryans" (indoiranians).

So what i mean, is that if we talk about "gypsy" people we must talk not precisaly about India but first about Pakistani or Afghan-Iranian aryan culture and tribes that entered those regions invading the aboriginal populations and established a new culture.

That is why many people feel (i am one) that "roma" people have more connections to mesapotamia or semitic peoples since many forget to mention that indoarians (invading iranians) where culturally and ethnically closer to Semites, Huns and Greeks that came from Iran (a fusion between them peoples id say).

Precisly the Romani languague closely resembles Punjabi and Hindi yet more closer even to Pothohari and mountain languages of Pakistan and Afghanistan (were there are many nomadic tribes).

That is the reason why many gypsy dont look Indian (south indian atleast) but more Persian, Iranian, Kurdish, Dardic, Drokpas or Pashtu people and dont have dravidian traits of austrolid or asian origin; but certinaly resemble a mix of southern european mediteraneas (iranian-greek) mixed with semitic traits. M

Many gyspys have long beards as how old nomadic VEDIC ARYANS (sun worshipers, budda etc) had; as well as have green eyes and a reddish tone to their skin like people for centuries where nomads in the mountain areas of Pakistan, North India and Afghanistan. What i mean to say is that they dress,look,act,and their music is more similar to people like the Kurds,Dards,Guajars,Pashtus,Pothoharis,Kashmiris and Punjabis than to dravidian-mongolian or austrolid indians.

We must also remember that the apperance of those nomadic indoeuropean (iranian) and others partly semitic-iranian-hun-greekish people; is how old ARYANS used to look like; add to that a reddish tone of skin since they lived in the mountains.

The dress of gypsy people closely resembles more Iranin or Afghan nomadi peoples. The tipical jewlery and earings of women nomads in those areas is one sign. Also the long hair used buy man plus earings close resembles those aryan conceptos of sunworshipping worriors that where great horse riders and metalsmiths who brought Cattle_Cows to the desert and tropical areas of Pakistan and India; that was how historically dravidians described those whiter skinned, mostage-bearded men that invaded their more asian-austroloid land.


I believe Gypsys or Roma are descendants of the "Indoaryan" of orgin worriors of "iranian origin" that settled in the mountanous regions of Pakistan (Pothohari-Kashmir) and those who went into the deserts of Rajasthan (Rajputs-Jatts). I believe these people gatthered together to defend themselves from invading Muslims as did classical persiands; yet where defeated and pride got to them so they fled their land since they wanted to continue their concept of nomadic sunworshippers.


Gypsyes do not resemble dravidian culturs but more Irani (Persian)Afghani(Pashtu)-Punjabi-Kashmiri-Rajasthani-Harayana-Brhamman cultures of indoeuropean or irani-scythian-greekish influence and language...


Gypsy Music is not only resembled in the famous ZARDS, the primitive Tangos or Boleros of Romania, Hungary and Russia; and Flamenco or Cante Jondo but u can trace their indoaryan music in Country,Rock and Roll-Hippie Music, Fox Trot-Jazz; and ofcourse latin american rythms like: Rumba, Salsa, Bolero, Tango, Peruvian Valse, Tondero, Zamacueca, Charchalera, Milonga etc...

It errant living and the suffering of a worrior people that pridley did not accept the imposition of mongolian or muslim invaders; so they fled with their women and similar tribes of indoaryan origin into the western regions; saddly to know they to large and were not given any help they dedicated themselves to music, entertainment (circus-acrobats-scene players) and poets; yet they mained their worrior cast spirit in they knife making (metal working) and their riding abilities.

There are many people of Gypsy or Romani origin in the world; and they all seperatly resemble:

Easter Europe: Bohemians.. Spain: Gitanos or Flamencos Mexico: Charros Peru: Morochucos or Piajenos Argentina:Gauchos Venezuela: LLaneros Cuba:Guajiros.

USA: COWBOYS AND HIPPIES (ROCK AND ROLL,JAZZ, FOX TROT AND COUNTRY MUSIC)

Probaly the countries that recieved most gypsy influence where

Romania,Hungary,Spain,Mexico,Cuba and Peru in south america; all these have gypsy influenced music and cultures...

From a Romnichel

i'm sick and tired of this crap its hard to say things if u dont know the youngest i've seen someone in my family get married was like 16 i've heard younger never seen i'm in the USA but this is redictulus i dont mind being called a gypsy i like it actually and its just annoying to read this it's sad u shouldnt bad mouth people i dont really know any thiefs in my family hustlers con's at times not thieves we make a hard living asphalt sealing panting cutting tree's lot of thing but come on just odnt be racist and yeah some of the people quit school early ok most of um i'm still in i'm smart there normal out in about 8th grade which i'm in but not quitting going to college people shouldnt be so judge mental romnies in the hizzle dog so bye folkie damn divya suvers by bye damn gadjas

Anthony T.
Fair enough. If you see the article badmouthing Roma people, please feel free to edit the part you find offensive, and/or talk about it here, and we'll make sure the article doesn't badmouth anyone. It is very important to us that Wikipedia be fair and unbiased.
But please, please don't just delete a page if you disagree with some of it. That is considered vandalism. Let's work together to make it better, instead! Thank you! :) -- Ashenai 14:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed vague reference to fortune-telling

After a lot of thought, I decided to remove 66.27.199.50's contribution (the line: "Though some [Roma people] do perform fortune telling"). I simply don't feel that this statement means anything; some Caucasian people also perform fortune telling. So do some people of African descent. "Some Roma people do this" isn't very encyclopedic; how much is "some"? Is it a larger percentage of Roma people than Caucasian people who do this? I did a quick Google search, and found no credible research on this. Until and unless something less vague can be said about Roma fortune-tellers, I just don't think it's a worthy addition. --Ashenai 12:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I am a Romany descendant, I do have the oral history of her clan from my maternal grandmothers tribe going 28 generations back starting in the 1100's. Her great grandmother passed their family history down through oral tradition as such: Lerene Reinhardt (my grandmothers 24th great grandmother) was Gáčkane (Sinti-Romany name of Germany), also called Teyč (from ″deutsch″, German), are the Sinti of Germany, who are present also in all the neighboring countries and in Italy. Their élite is represented by the Eftavagarya (the ″Seven Caravans″), the largest family clan, usually having by surname Reinhardt. She was then moved with her caravan to France where they became Válštike (“Roman”, meaning French), better known as Manuš or Manouches: they are the Sinti of France, actually an offshoot of the Gáčkane, that settled in France and eventually assimilated any Romany group that may have been already dwelling in that country. To which the clan finally transplanted to Scotland to which some researchers assert that the first Roma arrived in Scotland with the Knight Templar's, who brought them from the Holy Land, ( I have not found evidence or proof of this however it is included as part of the story my grandmother passed to me and the Knights Templar dates back to the 1300's when they were disbanded, Pope Clement V disbanded the Order in 1312) where the Knights employed these “Egyptians” as metal-workers to manufacture and keep maintenance of their weapons. It is well documented that a community of Gypsies dwelled in the Rosslyn Chapel area under protection of the Sinclair family, and many Roma even adopted this surname. The reason for such a privilege is said to be the decisive contribution of a Gypsy contingent to defeat the English in the Battle of Bannockburn (1314 c.e.). That Roma in Scotland had to do with nobility is confirmed also by the Kirk Yetholm Gypsies, who have been recognized as a respectable social group, having even their own Kings and Queens ‒ an oddity of Scottish Roma, because such titles do not exist in Romany society, but only in romantic literature or else for social or political convenience in the relationship with the Gadje society, but not recognized within Roma community. In the land of Scotland her tribe settled. She was married to an Irish Traveler, this was against most Roma cultures however the Kris agreed to allow it to further the ties in this community. The so-called Irish Gypsies are not Roma but Travelers. However, there are some ethnic Roma in Ireland, but they are Scottish Gypsies that settled or stay temporarily in Ireland. And from the clan of my grandmother to an "Irish Gypsy" my grandmother became. I tell you this history to expand on the fortune telling reference. My grandmothers clan were musicians and artist and fortune tellers. The art of telling fortunes was a part of their culture. Yes there are many fortune tellers of many racial backgrounds however Roma are considered the original tarot and palm readers. They brought the art through many of their travels and introduced it into mainframe societies. It is a huge part of their heritage and culture. It is relevant to note it because of the history. Fortune telling was part of their income, and inside the clans it was much more. Roma relied on their specific forms of divination to tell them where to travel, when to travel, when to leave and area. They were very superstitious in nature. It's prominent to this discussion because it is something that is heavily associated with this ethnic group as shamanism is to Native American's. I think with some expanding on the subject and taking time to look into the background of divination you will surprisingly find many associations.


While what I am about to write does not also belong in this section you may add or delete as I am sure that you will. I am also a graduate of Abilene Christian University in Texas with a Doctorate in Religious Theology. I have done personal study on Fortune Telling and Divination in regards to my heritage and am working to validate the history that was passed down to me. It is a valid point because it helps to define their society, religious views and how they built their social structure within clans. That is all personal reference to what I have discovered not verifiable fact so you may remove if necessary. And on another note. I do realize that in my culture and family there were several things that would point to many Rom's being undereducated. I do however object strongly of the reference to poor hygiene. Roma's were in recorded history some of the forerunners on things such as bathing, while many societies found bathing to be unsanitary. Roma's in my family tradition did not allow animals into the house, had very strict rules on cleanliness, you were not even allowed to share dinnerware or utensils with anyone, to touch another's dinnerware was a serious offense that would have you punished within our laws. I understand in some clans this is Not the norm. however I would appreciate the reference that all are as such to be amended if possible to state that in some Roma traditions these were the conditions as not to imply all the descendants from Roma are as such on such topics where they are generalized.


(67.66.232.105 (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Vanessa Minarik can be reached at Gsilentrain@aol.com to clairify, October 19, 2011)

Regarding the age of Roma brides

There's been a minor edit-war on this lately. I looked at some Hungarian news articles, on the subject, and found that there is, in fact, uncertainty regarding that age of the bride.

The article is here: [11]. Here are very rough translations of some of the critical bits:

Legally, tsigany-king Cioaba's 12 year old daughter was raped by her husband -- claims a member of the European Parliament. Emma Nicholson is lobbying for Ana-Maria's rights, but the Tsigany community says their customs are nobody else's business.
Tsigany-king Cioaba's daughter could be sent to an orphanage -- said Serban Mihailescu, the minister without portfolio responsible for interparliamentary contacts, yesterday. He claims that authorities started an investigation in response to a request by Emma Nicholson, a member of the European Parliament.
(...)
While national and international publications seem unable to come to a consensus regarding the girl's age (it is apparently between 12 and 14 years) (...)
(...)
Romanian law allows young people to have sexual relations from 15 years of age, and to marry (with the consent of their parents) from the age of 16. Ana-Maria's fiance was determined when she was seven years old - children are often engaged to each other in Roma communities, and authorities turn a blind eye. The Tsigany people claim that forcing their children into marriage is part of their traditions.
"It is good for children to marry young"
– said Cioaba, then advised Emma Nicholson to become informed first, and judge later. "I'd like her to know that my daughter is not going to be put in an orphanage, and that her father wants only what is best for her. If she marries when she is 13, that is because this is our custom.

Please note that I have no opinion on this matter. I'd merely like to keep this article neutral, NPOV, and verifiable.

If there's anything more I can do to help, please let me know. I'm a native speaker of Hungarian, and a professional translator. The above translation is not representative of my work in general; it's just a quick-and-dirty hack job, but probably sufficient for the current debate.

Cheers! --Ashenai 09:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps better than a newspaper article or what a politician said would be serious sociological study (not that I can point to something now). Article should try not to be collection of anecdotes. Pavel Vozenilek 17:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree in principle, but beggars can't be choosers. I am, unfortunately, not aware of any studies on this subject. Until and unless we find one that is credible, I'd say mainstream newspaper articles are significantly better than nothing. :) --Ashenai 17:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
How can I argue with such saying ;-) Howevere it should be clear the info comes from newspaper. About the recent edit wars about a age number - unless there's reputable enough source I think it is better to omit the numbers completely. They are obviously controversial and there's nothing to point as authority. Pavel Vozenilek 19:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Good point, I agree. What do you think of the current version? --Ashenai 19:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
It is better, IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 20:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph looks ok to me. Early marriage has been widely reported. Fred Bauder 21:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

POV issues

This article contains some dubious material which would be quite objectionable if made about some other ethnic groups e.g. they are better off on welfare, they ought to have smaller families. PatGallacher 17:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Childish contributions

Roma are Part South Asians and Part European/Middle Eastern.

Read the genetics papers if you have the brains.GROW UP.The South Asian components can not determine exactly the origin in South Asia, but Roma language suggests North India.

    -Um...  Maybe I'm just ignorant, but - doesn't it already say that??  KL

Roma are Indo-afghan or indoiranian (persians of India)

Most "Roma" people look like people of Afghanistan, Kashmir, Sringar, Sind, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Iran. The languags that closely resembles romany are Pothohari from mountain laguagues of Pakistan, Pashtu, clasical Punjabi, Dardic languages and somewhat old Rajasthani (North India).

The language argument is convincing, but that they "look like" one another? The Bushmen look more East Asian than African, yet African is what they are, and have been for thousands of years. Saying one people "looks like" another is unscientific and singularly useless. thefamouseccles 02:15, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    : Um.. no.  Bushman are not African.  They are native Australian.  Please choose words carefully.  KL

All those languages are closer to old Sansrkit, Persian and Farsi than to asian or dravidian lan guages; so it evidences that the romaas a people are of Indoaryan: Indoiranian, Indoafghan or Indopersian ethnicity originally.

Other evidendes of their Indopersian or Hindosthani aryan-scythian origin (hence not dravidian) is their nomadic spirit, guideded by stars etc (as old aryans-scythians).Typical dress resemble Pakistani mountain Nomads, Punjabi men and rebelious Rajasthani people whom do not even belong to the hindu cast of souther India; hence their foreign non dravidian origin.

Long beards and moustaches used by many gypsy men is quite common as evidence of their non dravidian origin again (oiginal dravidians have little hair on face as most true asians; points to aryan scythian or muslim invasions).

Their abilities for metal weopon making such as knifes and daggars as well as their musical passion point to their soldier like attitude; as the true descendants of old defeated Rapts and Jatts that lived in Pakistan and North India and later pushed away by Muslims and Mongols consequently to become nomadic. It is also evidently common for many romany to carry hand made knifes or daggars (Lohar Pakistan knife) along their belt; as well as their typical colored silk long sleave shirts that resemble Kashmiri, Afghani and even Irani nomadic traders. Their typical hat and boots; are evolutions of their leather making skills aswell.

I am not saying that some roma do have dravidian blood (probaly through women DNA that had some dravidian blood and where married to the invaders) but its consequently evident that more than 70% of their features resemble women and men from Irani,Afghani,Pashtu, Dardic, Punjabi and Rajasthan. That is way many of the gypsies already had green eyes, thick beards and a skin that was closer not to dravids bu to middle easterns and similar reddish tones to mountain people of Pakistan-Afghanistan and Northwest India.

Gypsies: "Old Hindosthan Warriors of Persian-Scythian Origin"

First of all: true ARAYSN are Persians and people related to them such as: Scythians, Greeks, Turks, old Latins, Slavs, Russians and old Sanskrit Hindus.

Germans fit more into the "nordic barbarian tribes" and the "vikings". Aryans where the first white race, yet not all white races have blue eyes, blond hair and 1.90 mt 6.3 feet tall on the contrary; those where divergences into barbarian tribes (whom also had aryan blood but distant for centuries in living in Icy Regions)that where not the original whites; but a divergence as said.

The true aryans where white skinned or copper almond like, green or dark profound eyes, thick beards, hair on chest, high long postured, thick chested-back, well built and warrior like nomadic horse riders that established themselves in Iran; and came from the southern most part of the Caucasus and Russia.

Gypsies or Roma People are of total Indoaryan or Indopersian descent. Their language is not only pure Indopersian or Indoaryan but it closely resembles the actual Punjabi, Sindi, Kashmiri, Pothohari and Dardic Mountain Languages of Pakistan, aswell as old Rajasthani (close to classical Sanskrit or old Hindi from Sind-Pakistan) and even Farsi.

Gypsy tradition as in aryans (old persians) is nomadic, and guided by the stars. They are a branch of Indopersian (aryan) or Indoafghan peoples that invaded actual India and established themselves in India that is in fact very close to the Rajputs and Jatts of aryan(persian)-scythian origin. They are the true Rajasthans and Indosthans,defenders of the old territories of Pakistan and North India against Monguls and Arabs for years and years ago. When the were defeated, they pledged alliance to their warrio Rama ("Roma") God and prefered to maintain their spirit as nomadic warriors.

Today in Rajasthan many people still see them as the original inhabitants and as outo ostrichized warrior hight cast people that ruled in tiems of the Old Hindosthan Era.

Many articales talk about how many of the Lohars and gypsies of North India still have green eyes, long beards, clearer hair and moustashes. This tradition is seen even today by gypsies wearing long hair, moustashes and beards as Old Aryans dide thousands of years ago.

Its good to know that true asians be it dravidians, nepalis etc have no facial hair; no thick beards, non thin noses and never clear eyes or green eyes. This shows total Aryan descent of Romamy People as origin, atleast for most of them in the warrior or priest class. Skin for many of them is almond for desert living the hot deserts for thousands of years or mountain reddish tone skin like Punjabis and Kashmiris and sometimes even more pale. Most gypsies look like Bollywood Stars most of them come from actual Rajasthan, Kashmir, Mewar, etc

You can also find resembleness of the true Gypsies in tribes of half aryan and mongolian blood in the frontiers of the Himalayas; they have white sking and many times more middleastern (scythian) or persian look. They show many resembleance to Pakistani Gypsies or Afghan Nomads that came from Sind as in their silk clothes, have traditional long moustashes and beards, are still great daggar and knife makers, carpet makers and great musicians.

True Origin of Roma People: SIND,PUNJAB AND SRINGAR-KASHMIR

True Romany People migrated in a time where India was more Indoaryan or Indoirani-Indopersian than what we see today. They left old Punjab-"Sind" (Sinti) and Kashmir-"Sringar" (Zingaro) valleyes fighting mongols and arabs and spread in two ways:

1)Europe: via Kashmir-Afghanistan and the establisehd themselves in the Silk Road whre they reached Iran, then spit into sub groups leaving for Turkey and Greece and others into Egypt. They brought the famous "Cockfights" to Europe and ofcourse their soulful music.

2)Rajasthan: and Thar Deserts; Others that were not captured by mongols and arabs fled in to the "Rajasthan Deserts" as u see them today; arrogant attitide and warlike passionete spirits that refuse to be part of modern Indians and want to maintain their old Aryan-Scythian mark as nomadic horse riders of Rajput and Jatt descent.

Although many have have mixed with dravidian peoples they still show some aryan traits like their attitude towards life: agressive battle like attitude, long mustashes, beards, long hairs for nomadic Priests, beutiful scarfs, some have green eyes (Rajasthan is famous for green eye Gypsies), knife and metal weopon making, acrobatic skills as old warriors did, great horse riders and modern musicians: whom after the wars refuse to loose their Hindosthani culture.

Im not saying that Roma People are pure aryans or persians but they are rooted in Indopersian and Indoscythian Cultures: "Rajputs and Jatts", some did asimilate a little dravidian blood (especially Romany Low in the Chain usually women) but most of them that reached Europre belong to the true Blacksmith, Warrior and great Hordesmen of totall "Rajputic" partly scythian and persian blood, all famous in North India and Pakistan during the copper era as the Old Hindosthans of Sind.

You can see Gypsies as old nomadic aryans of Persia by their facial traits (red almond skin: not black dravidian, green or dark eyes, thick beards and long mustashes),language (Rajasthan, Pakisthan, Iran, Terhan = Aryan old Persian: not Bombay =asiatic or dravidian terminolgy) Culture-Values (Virginity for Women is not an asian since Kamasutra is asiatic-dravidian; yet Romany people have middleaster or old persian values), their Dress (Silk and powerful colours command to traders and nomads of Afganistan, Iran and Pakistan) anf ofcourse Romany Music; which is closer to Norther Pakistani, Old Indian and Old Iranian Music (wich is based on Sanskrit Aryan Music)it is not asian dravidian southern music.

Gypsies look like Pakistanis,Afghans and Iranians.

Hence that back 1000 years ago (around when they left into the mountains and deserts it was 1000 AD) then North Indian territories had alot more persian, scythian % of people, that looked more like peoples of Iran,Afghanistan and Bollywood North Indian Actors......

Sounds like you guys are saying the same thing over and over, the only reason why alot of Roma people have fair skin,light eyes, lighter hair is simply because of mixture, LOL at "Bollywood North Indian Actors" ....most people in North India dont even look like that, the people who make those films tries to cast the lightest Indians they can find, Gypsies (Roma) are a mixed race, Rajasthani, Punjabi,Kashmiri, Todays areas of Pakistan, local Europeans(Latin people,Slavic people,Greeks,Albanians, North Europeans,Western Europeans) and Middle-Easterners. Thats why many have light colored eyes and fair skin. but many (Especially in the Balkans) still have very dark hair. If you actually look at old pictures of Roma, most of them have dark skin and not as light as they are today. so of course they will "look" like Iranians,Kurdish, and Afghans. it already says that they could have came from parts of Pakistan. Roma music is a MIXTURE of Balkan,Middle-Eastern(As a result from Turkish Ottoman rule), Jewish-Klezmer music, also in countries like Romania and Bulgaria, Roma Pop music have songs that sound like Bollywood music(theres a song that sounds just like the old Hindi song "Kabhi Kabhie", but in Romanian and different subject). Roma culture is unique and should'nt be grouped with these other people by saying they "Look-like". I also find it odd that you capitalize other Ethnic groups except Dravidians and calling them "black dravidian". btw Dravidian music is not the only "Asiatic" music in India, All music in India is "Asiatic" hence India and Pakistan is in South ASIA.

Checking Machvano for accuracy

Hi, can someone help me check this article to see if it is accurate?

Three questions:

  • Are they the same as the Machvaya? Should the articles be merged?
  • There are millions of Machvano in the world? This seems sketchy considering that there are 8 to 10 million Roma in the entire world.
  • They are banned from living in the Serb Republic in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Why?

Thanks in advance.

-- ran (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Gypsies in non nomadic societies

I am currently doing my dissertation on Gypsies and travellers and how they integrate into settled societies. If anyone would like to leave any feedback good or bad it would be appreciated. Basically I am questioning wether Gypsies are more accepted in society today,do settled societies frown upon travellers in their societies, can things change and how do people think this is possible or do you think it is not at all possible. Why do you think travelling communities are less accepted in todays society? Is it to do with the increase in unemployment, loss of the need for handymen and home crafts? Also does anyone think that having set sites within settled community's for semi permanent travellers and gypsies would help the situation or would it just concentrate the problem to one area? Any feedback is welcome and if anyone would like to talk with me further contact scorpio12111984@hotmail.com I would really like to find a travelling or gypsy group to talk to for research. Laura Mead

References and resources

Laura,

Try ssalo@capaccess.org.

This group of Roma answers a variety questions. Intergrating Roma into settled societies requires some to give up key aspects of their belief system and to leave behind certain traditions. I'll provide a reference in short order (hard copies of a couple of articles that I've shoved somewhere or other.;). In the meantime, look into the way in which affected institutions like schools and hospitals are trying to make the Roma feel more comfortable. Sickness is often viewed not as a medical issue by the Roma, but rather as bad luck. As a result, some Roma patients do not follow doctor's orders or hospital rules. Schools curricula often present a cultural gap. Western classical education and cultural references have little relevence for Roma students.

All,

I'm an aspiring fiction writer. I've been looking into Kalderash culture and beliefs and I've have been in touch with a local Romani group for a couple of years now. The Wikipedia article isn't so bad really, but it could be better. I'm wondering why Ian Hancock isn't among the references. He is an eminent Romani scholar, whose books and articles are readily available. Also, the Patrin Web Journal lists a wide variety of resource materials about the Romani people, including a web version of Ian Hancock's 'The Pariah Syndrome':

http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/patrin.htm

msklystron 05:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)msklystron

Proof that Roma People are Indo-Iranian-Scythian Blood

It is not uncommon to find green-eyed women around nomads in Northern India or paler skinned bearded men. These photos belong to the gypsy warrios that left Indian large cities never to return until their "Rama" dinasty recovered its power in India as the Old Hindosthan culture. That is why North Indians are more persian than indian.

Gypsies of India are Indo-Iranian-Scythian-Middleastern and even Greek: some have dravidian blood asiatic or even mongol since they croosed everywhere along their passages from Sind-Punjab, Pothohari Mountains and Sringar: yet most of these nomads have the old aryan sanskrit nomnadic warrior spirit as in Jatts, Sikkhs, Baloushistans, Dards, Lohars etc.

ROma People were born in to ways:

1-The ones captured and then to Europe 2- The Thar Desert of Rajasthan: where they refuse to take part in Indian modern society

Here ull find the typical basis of ROma Culture as these nomadic proud ex-warrios live against all odds maintaining their warrios skills for blacksmith knife making (lohars), passionete warrior indosthan(aryan) poemes and music, preist abilities (magic, sorcery etc), great horseriders, rebellious attitude and improvisal entertainers:

"They are definetly not Dravidian but Persian-Afghan-Dardic-Pashtun or Baloushistan looking"

Santos, chanteuse bopa (gitane), Jaisalmer Santos, (Gypsy) Bopa singer, Jaisalmer

http://www.pachouvy.org/Photos/Inde/Rajasthan/Portraits/RajasthanPortraits2005.htm

PHOTOS OF ORIGINAL ROOTED GYPSY-ROMA PEOPLE:

1-Nomada de Rajasthan "Pañuelo Verde"

http://www.neuenhofer.de/christa/maennerportraets/pages/10%20rajasthan%205.htm

2-Nomada de de Rajasthan "Arete"

http://www.neuenhofer.de/christa/maennerportraets/pages/08%20rajasthan%203.htm

3-A la derecha hombre Rajasthani: razgos no dravidicos sino persas, o afganos.

http://www.indiantraveldestinations.com/rajasthan%2Dtravel%2Dindia/

5-Musico Rajasthani de "barba gruesa"

http://www.indiantraveldestinations.com/rajasthan%2Dtravel%2Dindia/

6-Anciano Rajasthani "barbudo y con pañuelo"

http://www.mtharris.freeserve.co.uk/india/rajasthan/oldman1.htm

7-Hombre de Ojos Claros "Rajasthani"

http://elizabethinindia.typepad.com/weblog/marlboro_man.jpg

8-Hombre Rajasthani de "Arete" y "Bigotes Largos"

http://www.tourismasia-india.com/gifs/rajasthani-man.jpg

9-Hombre Rajsthani dee Turban : razgos persas

http://www.rajasthan-tour-travel.com/fort-monuments/salim-singh-haveli.htm

10- Hombre Rajasthani "Orgulloso de sus antepasados Ario-persas "

http://www.fotosearch.com/CPH469/595010

Peer review

The above "peer review" is a joke and its very presence does more harm than good. I propose removing it at least, and possibly getting a proper peer review. Any seconds? Istvan 15:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review notice archived instead. --Gutza T T+ 20:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)