Talk:Romani people

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 assaults, theft, fly-tipping, trespass, and casual disregard for the law in general (which is often exaggerated in some sections of the national press), and so is it not reasonable for balanced discussion of all of these broad aspects of Romani interaction 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.41.242 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add something: The word "thief" doesn't exist on this page, even though that's one of the main stereotypes people have of the Roma. I was trying to find some unbiased information on where that came from, and how valid it is. Are there any statistics that can be added to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.108.66 (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Living mostly in Europe"

The article opens with The Romani are an ethnic group living mostly in Europe. - is there any source for that "mostly in Europe" part?

Meaning, is there any source that most Romani live in Europe? I am searching for hours for some good source on this, but I can't find any. --- Ɍưɳŋınɢ 21:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have now found this quote from Matras, Yaron (2005). "The status of Romani in Europe" (PDF). University of Manchester. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) - In the absence of reliable census figures, the total population of Romani speakers can only be estimated, at anywhere upwards of 3.5 million. The largest concentrations of Romani speakers are in southeastern and central Europe, especially Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovakia. - but it's about Romani language. I am not sure if we can say "it says that about the language, therefore it says that about Roma people in general." --- Ɍưɳŋınɢ 21:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• • I have now found this quote in Hancock, Ian F (2002). We Are the Romani People, p. XX. ISBN 978-1-902806-19-8. Retrieved 2008-07-31. - There are Romanies everywhere, even in China or Singapure, but by far the greatest number live in Europe and in North and South America - which is good enough for saying Romani people are mainly in Europe and Americas. --- Ɍưɳŋınɢ 22:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Subgroups

In the part "Population and subgroups", there are a few subgroups given. However, in none of the sources given, there are exactly these subgroups listed (and one is even just about Romani language). I have a suspicion that the author of the article made it up.

Please, give me the exact sentences that suggest this division into subgroups, because I don't see it.

(I haven't checked the Russian website, because it's dead and I don't speak Russian.) --- Ɍưɳŋınɢ 17:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

See also Talk:Roma_(Romani_subgroup)#Roma_vs._Romani --- Ɍưɳŋınɢ 18:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Good publicly accessible article about subgroups is here - http://romani.uni-graz.at/rombase/cgi-bin/artframe.pl?src=data/ethn/topics/names.en.xml . Basically, the "subgroups" are classified by endonyms of a given population; most people call themselves "Rom", but some are calling themselves differently. However, I still see no need to have one article called "Roma" and another article called "Romani people", since in all the literature all the cultures with different endonyms (like Kale or Sinti) are still in the "Roma" group (which is used interchangably with "Romani"). --- Ɍưɳŋınɢ 20:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The best and most usable quote I have found about this:

The Roma call themselves different names according to which sub−ethnic Indian group they came from, and the wave and time of their migration to Europe. All European dialects of the Roma language include the word “rom”, meaning man or husband. The female form is “romni”, meaning woman or wife. As for the group name, the endoethnonyme “Rom”, the term “Roma” is used mainly by the descendants of the first groups that spread across the Balkans and the eastern part of Central Europe before the 15th century. Groups in Western Europe from later migratory waves used their own names: the Sinti lived in German territory, the Manusha in France, the Romanitsel in England, the Kale in Spain and Portugal, and the Kaale in Finland. The word “manush” is also included in all dialects of Romany. It means man, while “Manusha” equals people. This word has the same form and meaning in Sanskrit as well, and is almost identical in other Indian languages. The use of the term for “people” in the form of an endoethnonyme is the oldest way in which ancient tribes and ethnic groups were named.

from Jurová, Anna (2003). Vaščka, Michal; Jurásková, Martina; Nicholson, Tom (eds.). "From Leaving The Homeland to the First Assimilation Measures". ČAČIPEN PAL O ROMA - A Global Report on Roma in Slovakia. Slovak Republic: Institute for Public Affairs: 17. Retrieved September 7, 2013.

--- Ɍưɳŋınɢ 23:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Forced "repatriation"

I profoundly disagree with this part of the article.

Repatriation? Roma have no country. They happen to be citizens of countries where they are given a citizenship.

Camps? You can call their houses camps or huts but they were their homes.

Illegal? It was illegal in Nazi Germany to be Jewish and breathe. When it comes to human rights, "legality" has to be consider with some brains.

I think the French people can call a cat a dog but people are not stupid. It was an expulsion, and that was illegal, not Roma people. --188.79.77.191 (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Gone too far

This article is so studded with citations and "citation needed" tags that it has become unreadable. We need a better way — perhaps grouping the tags at the ends of the paragraphs. rowley (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I added most of those. I just think it has just too many claims without any references. - Ɍưɳŋınɢ 11:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Romani in Romania are not Muslim

I'm a Romanian. The statement "The majority of the population [of Roma in Romania] are Muslim and also speak Turkish" is ridiculously false. I don't have a citation to prove this, but I urge anyone interested in editing this article to check things out... Muslims in Romania are scarce, the vast majority of the population is Christian, including the Roma people. And they speak Romani or Para-Romani or Romanian or Hungarian, not Turkish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0E:FF:FFFF:0:0:4F77:6472 (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 October 2013

Please change " There is also no known record of a migration from India to Europe from medieval times, that can be connected indisputably to Roma." to: " There is also no known record of a migration from India to Europe from medieval times that can be connected indisputably to Roma." because the comma in the original text is superfluous. Dkapetansky (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Discuss here: A request has been received for the merger of Roma (Romani subgroup) into the main article of this talk page. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 03:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Ceremonies and practices "Romanies often adopt the dominant religion of their host country in the event that a ceremony associated with a formal religious institution is necessary, such as a baptism or funeral (their particular belief systems and indigenous religion and worship remain preserved regardless of such adoption processes). The Roma continue to practice "Shaktism", a practice with origins in India, whereby a female consort is required for the worship of a god. Adherence to this practice means that for the Roma who worship a Christian God, prayer is conducted through the Virgin Mary, or her mother, Saint Anne—Shaktism continues over one thousand years after the people's separation from India.[126] Besides the Roma elders, who serve as spiritual leaders, priests, churches, or bibles do not exist among the Romanies—the only exception is the Pentecostal Roma.[126]" I'm actually Catholic, this is a misrepresentation of both Catholic and Romani beliefs (for one, Catholics only believe in one God and do NOT treat the Virgin Mary as a god or goddess) maybe someone should re-phrase it? 2601:0:4180:7D1:994C:B9E1:FF3E:441B (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Why no mention of Roma criminality?

The gypsies in Europe are despised not because of their race or skin tone but because of their criminal culture.

I was almost robbed as a tourist visiting Italy by children who have been raised and groomed exclusively to commit crime.

Yet no mention of this at all, why is that?

--Savakk (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)