Talk:Romani people

Semi-Protection

I assume the article is semi-protected to censor racist content. There may be quite enough of racist sayings against the Romani people already. But this also hinders non-racist edits. The article needs heavy copy-editing, it's wording is at times very poor and misleading. Can we not remove the extra barriers to contributing to this article and let the usual guidelines of correctness, verifiability and neutrality keep the racism from consuming the article and spreading misinformation. And note that it is unhelpful to remove all discussion about their stereotypically bohemian lifestyle. In fact, one of the reasons I'm reading the article is that I'm curious as to *why* gypsies are associated with disregard for property and laziness by capitalist Central-Europeans that neighbor them and how Romani societies function. And seriously, Romani people should not be protected in the same way Down syndrome is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvartMan (talk • contribs) 23:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Those that persecute them are neither Central Europeans nor Capitalists, per se. It's pretty mainland-Europe-wide. I've seen anti-Gypsy persecution in the streets of Barcelona and in Slovakia Romani woman were forcibly sterilised in 2008. Central Europe - which to me is Germany, Austria, etc - actually has a relatively lower level of cases of anti-Gypsy discrimination, possibly due to a smaller populations of said - Spain has a particularly well-established community, as do most Eastern European countries. Furthermore, I think you'll find racism of all sorts has little to do with one's political allegiance. I doubt there's even a correlation, unless you're an actual Neo-Nazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.173.46 (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm American, but I can certainly see why unlocking this page could create issues. However, as Svartman said, much of this article is poorly written; there is a plethora of misleading information both intentional and unintentional, not to mention a gross amount of irrelevant details that clog the article and obscure the important information it contains. As to Svartman's question however, the guy below him is correct: European disdain for Romani society has absolutely no relation to capitalism or modern European ideas at all. Te stigma surrounding Roma goes back to the turn of the millenium, when the ethnic group began to arrive in Eastern Europe. An itinerant and semi-nomadic people with different culture, customs, and religion, the Roma instantly aroused the suspicions of Medieval Eastern Europeans. Similar to Medieval European Jews, the Roma were stripped of rights and property and frequently freedom: Roma slavery was very common in the Balkans, Romania, and throughout Eastern Europe. At the bottom rung of European racial and national hierarchy throughout the last millennium, the suffering of the Roma, referred to as Gypsies, further sunk their standing in the minds of Europeans: a negative cycle leading to further persecution, distrust and superstition. In the mind of Europeans, Gypsies became a kind of Bogeyman, a traveling band of thieves, pickpockets, and criminals who preyed on the innocent. It is this perception and stigma that has never quite extinguished itself in the minds of many Europeans. However, trying to link bias against Gypsies to capitalism or modern European thought is like trying to link Medieval anti-semitism to today's European businessman. Jrector703 (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the protection is more to save the article from excessive pov-pushing on the part of Romani activists. If it saves us from the occasional racist edit, that's fine too. But most articles on ethnic groups get 90% of their attention from angry young men from that group on a mission to tell everyone how great their group is. That's natural, and the Romani article isn't worse off in this respect than many others. But it creates an asymmetric situation of very few neutral editors having to watch a sometimes concerted effort by agenda-driven editors, so we often end up with semiprotection. If you are serious about contributing, you can get an account and get editing within minutes, the time you lose due to semiprotection is negligible compared to the time you're going to have to invest to make a meaningful content contribution. --dab (𒁳) 10:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

«Romani people» or «Romany people»?

As it is correct «Romani people» or «Romany people», «Romani caravans» or «Romany caravans»? Or, probably, the Rums? --Biletsky Volodymyr (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, "Romany" is a commonly used substitute for "Romani", but it is possibly misleading since it also means "Roman", a completely different culture. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request June 07, 2013

"Balkans / For the Roma communities that have resided in the Balkans for numerous centuries, often referred to as "Turkish Gypsies", the following histories apply for religious beliefs:"..."Romania / The majority of the population are Muslim and also speak Turkish.[81]" The cited article [81] is mentioning just a small area of Romania ("region of Northern Dobrudja"), where the majority of the population is Muslim. The Roma community is about 1% Muslim in Romania, the majority of the population having the same religion as the majority of the Romanian population, namely Orthodox Christians. SebastosNet (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

6th century vs. 11th century date

The article keeps suggesting the Romani "left India" in about AD 500. This date is due to population genetics, apparently the founding population existed at roughly that time. This does not mean they "left" anywhere at the time, just that they existed as a group. The 11th century date is due to linguistics. The state of their language suggests they remained in contact with other Indo-Aryan languages until at least that time.

These dates aren't mutually exclusive at all. It is perfectly possible that the group existed, as a group, within India during the 6th to 10th centuries, and then left around the 11th. The article should just not suggest that the 6th century has anything to do with "leaving India". --dab (𒁳) 09:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Balkans section

Makes no sense to have such a section. Misses out the rest of Europe e.g. Hungary and the rest of Romania. The reference to Romanian Romani speaking Turkish is wrong as it only refers to the tiny region of Northern Dobruja which isn't all in the Balkans anyway. Chrisjwowen (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree this sub-section dealing with Religion is a bit of a mish-mash and does not accord very well with the single source provided. Feel free to correct, hopefully with alternative sources. RashersTierney (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence and Education Level

This section seems to be a crudely disguised attempt to paint all Romani as mentally challenged. Specifically, the Bakalar study cited was insufficient in terms of subjects (particularly Romani subjects who represented only 7% of an already anemic sample size of 1357) and location. All other studies mentioned were inadequately described with little supporting evidence and there is no mention of conflicting studies or research other than the opening quote from Amnesty International which was used as a rhetorical device. Due to its shoddy presentation and racist overtones this section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadchicken7 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree. Not having read the cited studies I cannot comment on their scientific merit but on the face of it the claims sound outrageous. I am also reminded of the US military's IQ test results which showed Jews having an abnormally low IQ. These tests were conducted at a time when Jewish refugees were flocking to the US; current IQ tests results of this population show them to outperform almost all other racial groups in the US and the difference between their scores today and their scores then is greater than the current difference between today's lowest performing racial groups in the US and the highest. (See Thomas Sowell's book Ethnic America: A History [1].) Sowell's work indicates to me that these tests are not reliable if you want to draw conclusions about inherent intellectual potential of an ethnic group, especially one that is economically and linguistically marginalized while the testing takes place.

Unless more reliable sources can be produced echoing these conclusions, I think we need to reexamine the amount of room devoted to the claims of that one reference and reduce it down to a more appropriate size. Peace, Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. If an attempt was made to introduce such POV, relying on WP:SYNTH, into any other ethnic group article it would be given short shrift in toto. RashersTierney (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Relations between Romani and the "settled population"

Hello,

I am curious as to why there is no mention in the main article (other than the very reasonable discussion of the persecution that many Romani face in different countries) of the occasionally harmonious but occasionally fractious relationship between some Romani and some settled populations? For example, there are travellers (Romani, not Irish) in my village and the neighbouring village, and other than occasional minor illegal behaviour that I have seen (e.g. driving untaxed vehicles, giving driving lessons to children on public highways, etc.) they are friendly and cause no trouble, although do not choose to integrate themselves into the local community at all (as in, they do not participate in local events, have no interest in the parish council, visit the local pub only very infrequently and keep themselves to themselves).

However I often read reports in local and national newspapers (and hear anecdotal evidence from friends, colleagues and neighbours) of assualts, theft, fly-tipping, trespass, and casual disregard for the law in general (which is often exagerated in some sections of the national press), and so is it not reasonable for balanced discussion of all of these broad aspects of Romani interation with others to be presented here? It is pretty obvious to anybody reading this article that this is the "elephant in the room" that is being completely ignored. For this Wikipedia article to be taken seriously as a reference material then this must surely be addressed. I understand that the article is locked (or whatever the terminology is) to prevent extreme views (either pro or con) being presented, but as it stands it is woefully incomplete. Hopefully this will be addressed. NB in am in the UK.

Stefan Razvan (roma / gypsy people) early history

It is said in the main article that " In 1595, Ştefan Răzvan overcame his birth into slavery, and became the Voivode (Prince) of Moldavia.[68]"

but seems inexact and according to article dedicated to "Stefan Razvan":

"The father of Ştefan Răzvan was a Muslim Rom from the Ottoman Empire who emigrated north of Danube, in Wallachia, while his mother was a Romanian peasant from the new country of settlement. At that time, all the Romani people living in the Romanian states of Wallachia and Moldavia were slaves. The rule was applied also to any Romani immigrants, excepting the Ottoman citizens. Benefiting of this exception, the father and later the son could remain free and become an active part in the local society."

Which on short means he wasn't "born into slavery".

This line should be edited / removed as induce in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.154.147 (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Rom does not mean 'man'

In the article it says that Rom means husband or man. This is obviously written by Gaje (non-Romani) as any Romani knows this is wrong.

Yes. Rom does mean 'husband' but Manus, Gero / Goro or Jheno means 'man'.

Rom means 'man' no more than Jatt means 'man' in the Panjabi language. In Romani a married respectable man of Romani blood is called a Rrom and his wife is called a Rromni but this does not a translation for 'man' or 'woman' as you cannot be a Rrom if you are a gaje (unless it is a reference to husband / married).

Tsigano (talk) 09:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)