Jump to content

Talk:Romani people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 184.144.112.243 (talk) at 18:38, 1 November 2023 (→‎Romani roots in India). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Romani roots in India

Although the article states that the Romani are from Rajasthan, what I had heard over many years of reading about them is that they are from Punjab. I would like to follow up on this at some point but would invite others who may be more into linguistics to pick up and take it forward. Augnablik (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is basically someone speculating on cultural elements of the Romani people. Modern genetic research points towards a Punjabi origin, but just like anything else, most of us are tired of edit warring and its seriously demoralising to see academic sources being removed all the time by the usual suspects. KamranHassanUK (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a disconnect with this article and the “History of the Romani people” that article states


“Mitochondrial or Y-chromosome haplotype studies provide valuable information, but a limitation of these types of studies is that they each represent only one instantiation of the genealogical process. Autosomal data permits simultaneous analysis of multiple lineages, which can provide novel information about population history. According to a genetic study on autosomal data on Roma the source of South Asian Ancestry in Roma is North-West India. The two populations showing closest relatedness to Roma were Punjabis and Kashmiris which also happen to have the highest West Eurasian related ancestry amongst South Asians.[24] However according to a study on genome-wide data published in 2019 the putative origin of the proto Roma involves a Punjabi group with low levels of West Eurasian ancestry.[25] The classical and mtDNA genetic markers suggested the closest affinity of the Roma with Rajput and Punjabi populations from North-Western India.“

But more importantly they don’t state these at facts just scientific theory on their origins which is very important this article language speaks as if it’s facts and there’s no debate on their origins.

US Population Estimate?

The 1,000,000 estimated Roma living in the USA feels very speculative and maybe should be better substantiated-- the main source of the claim is a gentle journalistic piece from 15 years ago with limited/few sources. 2604:3D09:8879:9600:6865:49DB:D521:784 (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the sources present here aren’t the most authoritative, but i’ve seen this estimate cited in many authoritative scholarly books and articles. Maybe a try at google books could yield you some fresh sources? TagaworShah (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"For versions of the word (some of which are cognates) in many other languages, this perception is very small or non-existent. "

What is the source of this claim? As far as I know, it is considered a racist term almost everywhere. --2A02:810A:14BF:ED48:1144:AE3C:2C11:9A14 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term listed as Spanish cognate, gitano, is used both by Romani and non-Romani people in Spain as the common designation. While it can be used with negative connotations, it is not considered a racist term.
According to the Fundación Secretariado Gitano ( a Romain People Association in Spain) defintion for the word Roma
https://www.gitanos.org/servicios/prensa/glosario/terminos.html#r
El término 'roma' cada vez está cogiendo más peso a nivel internacional, ya que en algunos países la palabra gitano (o sus variantes) tiene connotaciones muy despectivas. Desde la FSG se ha optado, en líneas generales, por utilizar el binomio 'roma/gitanos' para referirse a los gitanos europeos en general. Si se habla en el contexto español, se utiliza solamente el término 'gitanos'.'
They recognize that in some country it does have negative connotation. But, when talking within the context of Spain, gitano is the only term used. 24.85.172.90 (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, go woke go broke, problems? 213.233.108.152 (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Migration date

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: Your new additions contradict decades of scholarly consensus on the date when Roma left India. The vast majority of scholarly sources state that Roma left India around the eleventh century, some state earlier and some later but that is the date most scholars agree upon. Even encyclopedias state that most scholars agree upon the eleventh century. The field of Romani studies is heavily understudied and the few expert sources we do have should be prioritized. Experts such as the doctors Yaron Matras, Ian Hancock, Viorel Achim, Donald Kendrick, Thomas Acton and so on, all confirm a date-range way later than 500 AD, with the oldest of the estimates presented by Achim being the 9th century and the general consensus lying around the 11th century. These genetic studies are unencyclopedic, we do not base encyclopedias on genetic studies unless doing a specific section for genetic origins. The people doing these studies are not experts on Romani people and don’t have credibility in the field of historiography, speciality historian sources are always prioritized on Wikipedia. TagaworShah (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly consensus does not trump DNA consensus. Do you have an actual proof beyond statements that Romani left in 1000 CE? DNA can be used to calculate age [1]. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does the ability to estimate my age from my DNA have to do with determining when the Roma left India? Largoplazo (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong source, that is for living beings. Even age of human remains can be measured based on DNA [2]. It shows more proof than someone just spouting things. So for example we can measure when Roma left India using skeletons located outside India. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for you please check this, scientists can identify common features in the DNA with that of others including our ancestors [3]. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect and this is not how Wikipedia works, our articles are built on scholarly consensus not primary sources like “DNA findings” which by the way are not conclusive and dont all say the same thing. It is also not a good idea that revert your edit back when there is an active talk page discussion about its inclusion. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) on how we find what sources are deemed reliable for history related content on Wikipedia, as a genomic study does not trump well-established scholarly consensus and there really is no concrete way of saying a group left India at this certain time through purely DNA. TagaworShah (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) is an essay that contains advice of people, and not a guideline or policy. Recently when dating the Central Asian migration to India, it was done using genetics and DNA [4]. And this study has also been used on Wikipedia articles like Indo-Aryan migrations. Archaeology uses genetics often. If you don't like it, it doesn't matter. The article will stay as it is. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And regardless I haven't removed your scholarly consensus. It's still there, but clarified as an opinion of those scholars. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You added new information that goes against the well-established scholarly consensus, it is your responsibility to prove that it should be included, you have to follow Wikipedia guidelines which you are now refusing to do by saying “the article will stay as it is” that’s not how we do things around here, you must seek consensus If you cannot do that, I will have to take this to the administrators notice board. You are giving undue weight to a single primary source that contradicts even the earliest dates given by Historians, contrary to what you may believe, a dna study isn’t a trump card that overrides all historical consensus and makes it just an “opinion.” TagaworShah (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not add "new information". I just reverted to a pervious version of the article. It was you who changed the article and removed the part about 500 CE in case you forgot. It's your burden to seek consensus for that. The source is not "primary", it's The Guardian. And here are more sources, since you want I can add them to the article [5], [6], [7]. All my sources are secondary. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DNA studies are primary sources and journalists writing about the findings of DNA studies are not historians, historians are preferred in sections about history not journalists. The 1000 CE figure is a long standing academic consensus that was present in the stable version of the article for years, you changed it by saying that it was 500 years earlier which contradicts even the year earliest date ranges provided by actual historians, it is up to you to argue how that has more weight and no journalists writing about DNA studies does not make up for a lack of backing by subject-matter Historians. TagaworShah (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DNA studies are conducted by biologists, journalists don't have the qualifications for genetics. You are making up strange things. Synthesis which some historians do is not reliable, and genetics is also used in archaeology. See archaeogenetics. I didn't remove the opinion of your scholars, it's still there. The 500 CE part was there for a long time, so clearly no one has a problem but you. You have no evidence that the 1000 CE is a long-standing consensus, it wasn't even there originally in the lead section. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The findings of DNA by biologists are primary sources, the secondary sources you are providing are journalists summarizing their findings. You are just repeating yourself at this point and I refuse to go around in circles, I have already provided the names of all the subject-matter historians who go against this claim and form an academic consensus against this claim, if you are unable to find a subject-matter historian to support that early of a migration date, then it does not belong in the article. TagaworShah (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way all the sources you added, are all referencing the same dna study, those are circular references and does not prove weight. TagaworShah (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you know what primary source means. It refers to something that is the original source of information. Secondary sources derive their info from primary sources. I didn't use the biologists themselves. The journalists are just reporting second-hand info derived from studies of reliable academics. Your historians don't have any source backing them up and are making up synthesis. I have given you sources, it belongs in the article. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that subject-matter Historians have no source-backing demonstrates a Wikipedia:NOTHERE attitude, Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that reliable sources by subject-matter Historians are needed and preferred, this is not a blog, I will say it one last time, if you are not able to provided multiple subject-matter historians that can support your viewpoint as I have done above, then including that DNA study that contradicts scholarly consensus is undue. TagaworShah (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are yet to show me the original source which they are relying on. Questioning sources is not a part of NOTHERE. Your sources fall within WP:SELFSOURCE. Also the new sources I cite contain opinions of other biologists and scientists, not the ones who conducted the study. So I have cited reliable academic secondary sources. Not primary ones, nor they're journalists. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). It clearly says this essay is for "history-related articles". This is a project to work towards guidelines for History-related articles equivalent to those about reliable sources for medical articles. This article is about the ethnic group as a whole, not history-related. The advice you're using doesn't even apply here. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Romani people falls under history-related, and it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that Ian Hancock, Yaron Matras, Viorel Achim and more are self-published, they are subject matter historians who are the most trusted in this subject area, please familiarize yourself with the field of Romani studies before suggesting that they are unreliable. They have years of historical research under their belt, I have made myself clear that you need subject-matter historians, if you continue to repeat the same nonsense and fail to provide historical backing for your claims, you will be reverted. TagaworShah (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The essay about citing historical sources is for "history-related articles", not "history-related sections". This isn't a history-related article. You mislead about what you were citing. What years of historical search? You've yet to bring the original source their claims are based on. The origin of Roma is an anthropological issue and not just a historical issue. Per WP:SOURCETYPES: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. My sources are reliable. Revert and you yourself will be reverted again. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the original dna study that you presented thoroughly and your edit isn’t even in line with what the DNA study claims. It says, and I quote, “ Linguistic, anthropological, historical and genetic evidences point out India as the origin of the Roma populations, which may have left the continent approximately between the 5th–10th centuries.” It never directly states that Roma definitely left India during 500 CE, that figure simply comes from the journalists covering the article and choosing the earliest migration date for shock value, as journalists do. Your edit is simply inaccurate to what the source itself says as 500 CE is most definitely not a definitive figure and they make it clear that these are just educated hypotheses with their wording of “may have” so please revert yourself. And the DNA study literally cites the exact same subject-matter historians and linguists I provided such as Ian Hancock, the work of subject-matter historians is peer-reviewed, reliably published, and historically backed, if you continue to suggest that the consensus of historians means nothing you will be reported to administrators as that is a Wikipedia:NOTHERE attitude. TagaworShah (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(12)01260-2
ALL the articles you cited are circular references to this dna study conducted by Dr. Comas and his associates, nowhere in this study does it say that Roma left India definitively at 500 CE, it says the exact quote above and provides a range of 5th to 10th centuries based on a variety of factors and nothing definitive, the journalists writing about these findings are the ones saying 1,500 years ago but that’s not what the study itself says, this is why we stick to subject-matter experts and not journalists. TagaworShah (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As usual you are misleading.I checked the original source and it doesn't say what you're claiming. On the contrary it says The Romani diaspora originated in north/northwest India around 1.5 kya, The date of the out-of-India founder event was estimated at ∼1.5 thousand years ago (kya). That is 500 CE. At no point it mentions that they left between 5th-10 century CE. In fact it doesn't even use the "century CE" notations. You are now resorting to lying. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what the study says, one study should not be given the same weight as the established consensus by scholars. While in terms of a personal logic, 'DNA consensus' (although meaningless if you just cite one study) can trump scholarly consensus, in Wikipedia it can not. Uness232 (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Scholarly consensus" is nothing more than collective views of some people. To weight different views and structure an article so as to avoid original research and synthesis the common views of scholars should be consulted. Per WP:HISTRW Also the sources cited are individual views, they don't state they are a consensus.
Per WP:SECONDARY A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. So what primary source they are relying on? There isn't even an original/primary source or document stating Roma left around 1000 CE. So what exactly they are basing it on? That one genetic study you talk of is cited by multiple secondary sources and actually analyzed samples of Romani.
I'm sorry but I'm not willing to give some individual "views" preference over an actual study. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check the ORIGINAL DNA study, not the articles summarizing it by journalists, I linked the original dna studies above, it does not only say 1.5 thousand years ago, that is just an estimate and even they recognize that you can’t just base it on genetics and have to look at other factors, may have occurred between the 5th and 10th centuries is a direct quote based on historical sources, linguistics, anthropology and genetic evidence, and I agree with Uness232, a dna study in no way trumps an established Academic consensus based on years of historical research, even the DNA study itself cites these historians, Wikipedia runs on the consensus of scholars and editors, not what a singular DNA study which doesn’t even given a definitive date says. TagaworShah (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the link you gave and quoted from it, it says "1.5 kya" not 5th-10th century. Biologists are scholars too. Wikipedia doesn't run on baseless second-hand claims without any original source. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does say 5th-10th centuries, that was literally an exact quote from the original dna study, control f if you have to, the historical research of subject-matter historians are not “baseless second-hand claims” they are from years of historical research, wikipedia runs on these sources, not primary dna estimates which even the biologists who conducted the study admit is not the whole picture and you have to look at other factors as well, you’ve had 3 editors so far tell you this, you’re giving this estimate undue weight. TagaworShah (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say 5th-10th centuries. You've lied many times here. What it says is this:
Our analyses based on genome-wide data from 13 Romani groups collected across Europe suggest that the Romani diaspora constitutes a single initial founder population that originated in north/northwestern India ∼1.5 thousand years ago (kya).
The Romani diaspora originated in north/northwest India around 1.5 kya.
The date of the out-of-India founder event was estimated at ∼1.5 thousand years ago (kya).
The present study constitutes the most comprehensive survey available thus far on the genome-wide characterization and demographic history of the European Romani. Our data suggest that European Romani share a common genetic origin, which can be broadly ascribed to north/northwestern India around 1.5 kya.
I'm still waiting for the original source or historical document upon which your "historians" used to come to a conclusion about 1000 CE. Can you provide us? No amount of people can justify adding unreliable sources and your sources are unreliable. I think they should be removed. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless I've reverted myself since editorial consensus is against me. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section

@Ninhursag3 Hello, this is the Wikipedia talk page for Romani people, here we discuss additions and changes to the article so that we can make it the best that we can. Your recent additions are not an improvement and some of the original research added actually hurts the integrity of the article. In addition, the lead was formatted correctly before, the long overly linked first paragraph now is not correct, please refer to the manual of style for the lead section for more information on how a lead should be properly formatted. Thank you, TagaworShah (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with N Ninhursag3 beyond overlinking, the edits he removed rely on unreliable sources like Daily Kos and Street Roots. He has also added reliably sourced edits. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes, Daily Kos and Street Roots are unreliable sources while the sources I added and the hyperlinks I added are from academics. Ninhursag3 (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasnt referring to that. I was referring to overloading the first paragraph of the lead with an excessive amount of historical information and over-linking that significantly impacts the readability of the article. As I linked above, I would check out the manual of style of the lead and how it should be formatted. Also, that type of edit was already reverted at least twice by other contributors and should have been discussed in the talk page, this is a collaborative effort and edit warring is not conducive to that. Also the assertion that Roma went by the name Doma upon reaching Europe is in fact original research. TagaworShah (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Doma (डोम) caste appears in Tantra scriptures: https://books.google.ro/books?id=SYM4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT52&redir_esc=y
Religious tradition, language and genetics points to the Roma/Gypsies coming from India. The Roma/Gypsies had the same traditions as the Doma: they were musicians, dancers and both were from the Dalit caste and faced discrimination.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re not allowed to draw those connections yourself on Wikipedia, that is original research which is strictly prohibited, while it’s true that SOME scholars think that the name of Roma could have come from Doma, that does not mean that you can assert that Roma were named Doma upon entering Europe when not a single source supports that claim, or giving undue weight to certain viewpoints when they’re not accepted by all scholars in this field. Also, the formatting has left the lead section of the article a mess, please review the manual of style. TagaworShah (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't assert that myself, I copy-pasted from a lower part of the wikipedia article and added a sourced reference from the Doma caste wikipedia article. It's nothing from myself. Hope I cleared things up. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is from yourself, you asserted that Roma were called Doma upon entering Europe and took it upon yourself to reflect that in the article when not a single source confirms that, that is original research, and you are not addressing any of the other concerns I brought forward. TagaworShah (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also this part was removed which I dont undedstand why because it's true and people actually call them like this? "For versions of the word (some of which are cognates) in many other languages, this perception is very small or non-existent. Examples include Greek: Γύφτος or Τσιγγάνος; French: Tzigane or gitan; Spanish: gitano; Italian: zingaro; Portuguese: cigano; Romanian: țigan; and German: Zigeuner" 213.233.108.152 (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for changing the title from Romani people to Roma people. Most of Europe and the world uses Roma, not Romani. Romani is the feminine adjective form.

Hello there, I request the change of the title from Romani people to Roma people - Most of Europe uses Roma, not Romani. Romani comes from Romni which is the feminine form of Rom. Romani is the feminine adjective of the word Roma (that itself comes from Doma, a Dalit caste of drummers/dancers/musicians).


Since the word Dom (caste) is rarely used nowadays, even if it's the most historically correct and an endonym the Roma used to describe themselves, the word Roma is the most used formally. Even if the name "Gypsy" used to be the most used and it wasn't an insult. Only later on it became something negatve. Medieval Europeans thought the Doma/Roma came from Egypt because of their dark skin color. The English term Gypsy (or Gipsy) originates from the Middle English gypcian, short for Egipcien (Egyptian). In Britain, many Doma/Roma proudly identify as "Gypsies", and, as part of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller grouping, this is the name used to describe all para-Roma groups in official contexts (taken from wikipedia): https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/summaries/gypsy-roma-irish-traveller#the-gypsy-roma-traveller-group


The most used formal plural form in most countries is Roma, not Romani. Here is the word Roma used in formal contexts: European Roma Rights Centre, Decade of Roma Inclusion, Contact Point for Roma and Sinti Issues, Roma Special School.


At the first World Romani Congress in 1971, usage of the word "Roma" (rather than variants of "Gypsy") was also accepted by a majority of attendees. The "Roma" name is the most formal use that the World Roma Congress decided back in 1971 by the Roma leaders themselves.


Hope you will take into consideration my argument and change the title of the article from Romani people to Roma people. Thank you in advance. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why don't you start a formal move request? You can check WP:RM. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I checked out Wikipedia:Requested moves and made an Uncontroversial technical request. Hope my request will follow through. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This change is not uncontroversial, this has already been discussed many times on this page leading to a consensus among user that Romani is the common name. TagaworShah (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a very partial and subjective move. Most institutions use Roma, not Romani. Wikipedia is read by billions of people and tries to sway public opinion. Gramatically speaking, Romani was never the plural of Rom, but Roma was the plural. Romani is the feminine adjective form. It's just not correct gramatically and now wikipedia influences institutions to change from Roma to Romani just because it's read by more people that will wrongly think the plural of Rom is Romani and not Roma. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being a grammatical problem it should be considered a "technical uncontroversial move" and not a "controversial move". Also, the "Roma" name is the most formal use that the World Roma Congress decided back in 1971 by the Roma leaders themselves, it's not considered "controversial" by the Roma leaders and academics. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you should request one for controversial moves, so that others can discuss it too. Technical move requests are for technical reasons. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being considered a "controversial move" when it's gramatically correct seems like a very partial and subjective move. Most institutions use Roma, not Romani. Wikipedia is read by billions of people and tries to sway public opinion. Gramatically speaking, Romani was never the plural of Rom, but Roma was the plural. Romani is the feminine adjective form. It's just not correct gramatically and now wikipedia influences institutions to change from Roma to Romani just because it's read by more people that will wrongly think the plural of Rom is Romani and not Roma. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't make the policies and guidelines here. You need consensus for this move, that's why I recommended that you use the formal move request. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not grammatically correct, Romani is grammatically correct, Roma people doesn’t make sense, Roma is a noun, Romani is the adjective, and whatever the case may be, Wikipedia articles are not defined by non-English grammar rules, the fact being that Romani has already been established to be the common name through extensive talk page discussion. TagaworShah (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Roma is both a noun and an adjective:
/ˈrōmə/
plural
  • 1.a people originating in South Asia and traditionally having an itinerant way of life, living widely dispersed across Europe and North and South America and speaking a language (Romani) that is related to Hindi:"the Roma have a strong cultural heritage"
adjective
  • 1.relating to the Roma or their language.
Romani is the feminine adjective form that only recently for some reason (no one knows the reason) it suddenly started to shift from the correct form and more used form "Roma" to the incorrect and less used form of "Romani".
It also makes so much confusion with the Romanian people that at the the wikipedia article says: "Not to be confused with Roman people, a historical ethnic group, or Romanians."
It creates confusion unnecessary, Romans are now a thing of the past but Romanians still exist today.
Roma is the correct way to call Roma people, even important institutions use it, like: European Roma Rights Centre, Decade of Roma Inclusion, Contact Point for Roma and Sinti Issues, Roma Special School.
Why are you so against this? When it's gramatically, socially and politically correct? Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being a grammatical problem it should be considered a "technical uncontroversial move" and not a "controversial move". Also, the "Roma" name is the most formal use that the World Roma Congress decided back in 1971 by the Roma leaders themselves, it's not considered "controversial" by the Roma leaders and academics. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not what they decided. Many Romani groups, namely the Sinti and Romanichal reject the name Roma and see it as a separate subgroup that is part of the Romani people, that is why Ian Hancock, the prime contributor to the field of Romani studies, recommends using Romani when discussing all these groups together. Ian Hancock was literally actually there at the first World Romani congress where the International ROMANI Union was founded. TagaworShah (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you are biased because of the Sinti. The Roma call themselves Roma, not Romani. It's important how Roma call themselves. Ninhursag3 (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We call ourselves both. Romani is an adjective and Roma is the noun. Romani people is the common name that has been confirmed by extensive consensus in this very talk page that you can check out yourself. Romani includes all these groups including the Sinti and Romanichal who do not identify as Roma. TagaworShah (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the wikipedia article title, a noun should be used, not an adjective, especially not something that was originally a feminine adjective. Ninhursag3 (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? Do you think we should have articles titled "Spaniard people", "Turk people", "Jew people", "Kurd people"? What goes in front of people should be an adjective, not a noun—except in cases where the adjective also happens to be the noun, either the singular noun as in "Italian people" or the plural noun as in "French people". The Italian one is actually at Italians; what would be comparable to that would be Roma, but that's a disambiguation page. Largoplazo (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Not Roma people but Roma (people) like Dom (caste), people is in parenthesis as to not confuse it with Rome (ancient city).
You couldn't be more wrong about this. Every wikipedia article title for ethnicities has a noun not an adjective, it's Spaniards not Spanish people, Romanians not Romanian people, Italians not Italian people, Bulgarians not Bulgarian people, Hungarians, not Hungarian people, Germans not German people etc Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Hancock is just one academic that studies the Roma, there are plenty other academics that aren't Ian Hancock and don't agree with everything he says. Ian Hancock is just one man, the Roma call themselves Roma and they outnumber Ian Hancock. Ian Hancock shouldn't dictate how Roma or Roma institutions should be called. Ninhursag3 (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And he doesn’t, again there has already been plenty of consensus on this page that Romani is the common name. TagaworShah (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus not to move. While the arguments in favor of the move were stronger they were not sufficiently strong to overcome the number of editors opposed to the move. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romani people → Roma people (added 21 June, 19:54 UTC: or Roma (people))– Note that this would also affect pages like Romani people in Romania. This is a request I'm filing on behalf of Ninhursag3, who has done anything but a formal request for this. Their explanation is here. I have no opinion on this as a result of this filing being on behalf of someone else. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Oppose This topic has already been discussed many times with “Romani people” being the consensus as the WP:COMMONNAME. Renaming the article to Roma would cause a lot of problems as a lot pf Romani groups, namely the Romanichal and Sinti do not identify as Roma and see that as a separate subgroup of the Romani people, hence why in places like Germany and the UK, Roma is listed separately (e.g. Roma and Sinti). Also the gramatical justification is entirely incorrect, as a native speaker of the Romani language, Romani people is perfectly correct grammatically, as Romani is an adjective that describes our people and plus English Wikipedia is based on English grammar. Lastly, the insistence to give undue weight to the Doma theory, that Roma descend from the Dom caste, which is not universally agreed upon is not correct, Wikipedia needs to present all significant viewpoints with due weight. Significant figures in Romani Studies such as Ian Hancock and Yaron Matras have warned against using Roma to describe all Romani people for this very reason. TagaworShah (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also in the English language Romani can act as both an adjective and a noun, see the wiktionary page for more details.
    https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Romani
    According Dr. Ian Hancock’s glossary of Romani terms published by Oxford University in the American Journal of Comparative Law, “ Romani- The English adjective (sometimes spelled ROMANY) for "Gypsy," thus
    “the Romani people,""the Romani language.” The word is also used by itself to refer to the language and sometimes as a noun to refer to a Romani person.”
    https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/31217/GlossaryRomaniTerms.pdf?sequence=1 TagaworShah (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you and all the people I talked to on wikipedia acknowledged that Roma used as a noun, plural form is correct grammatically, and it also solves the issue of the confusion with Romanians, so what's your argument against this?
    No one could in the past could argue intelligently enough to change from Romani people to Roma (people), but I'm not the people in the past and I can argue on an intellectual level, toe-to-toe with anyone. I know my argument is rock solid. Ninhursag3 (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One, knocking other editors down for their intellectual level is not a good thing. Two, we are not going to change our name because it sounds to similar to Romanian, that is ultra-nationalist rhetoric from Romanian politicians and a result of anti-Roma racism, plus “Roma” is the capital of Italy too, so that would just create another confusion. Lastly, Romani people is the common name, this was agreed upon from extensive talk page discussion and consensus among editors. TagaworShah (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why it's gonna be Roma (people) and not just Roma. Also, in English Roma is Rome, so it's not gonna create confusion. Italians use Roma to refer to Roma people anyway.
    I didn't knock other editors down, they might be thousands of time more intelligent than me on other topics but history and etymology is something I think I'm pretty good at. As for "ultra-nationalist rhetoric from Romanian politicians", was I ultra-nationalist? Was I hateful? It's like blaming people that don't agree with Cleopatra in the Netflix documentary being black African, since statues and paintings as well as coins show Cleopatra as having Greek features (and in Roman paintings she has light brown or red hair), she also came from the Ptolemy Greek family.
    Just like Netflix and the producers of the Cleopatra documentary miniseries, you try to falsify history. You can't accuse me of being hateful or insulting or try to shame into agreeing with you. Roma came from Northern India: religious customs, language, phenotype, DNA, culture, traditions all point to Roma as being from Northern India, it's not something insulting that they came from Northern India, it's just reality.
    It's also reality that religious customs, language, phenotype, DNA, culture, traditions all point to Romanians as being South Eastern Europeans, it's nothing insulting to say that.
    In your blind wrath against possible "hateful nationalistic Romanians" you forget one very important thing: you can't deny reality, you can deny we are people too, that we have our history, our tradition, our mythology, our customs. It's not hateful to point out the confusions made between the Roma (Romani as it's on wikipedia) and Romanians.
    Understand I'm not ultra-nationalistic or hateful, or bigoted, I disavow anyy and all bigoted and hateful, xenophobic things said against or about the Roma. I hope you can take my arguments to heart. Ninhursag3 (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't deny we are people too* sorry for the mistake. Ninhursag3 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And Romanians is Romanian in English not Romani, so they’re different words. That has no relevance to what our name is; Romani people. Our name is not going to change because it inconveniences you that it sounds too similar to your ethnic group, and I didn’t call you an ultra-nationalist, I said that is an ultra-nationalist talking point from politicians, you’re not a politician I presume. I’m not even going to comment on the rest of what you’re saying as Wikipedia is not a forum and you’re rambling off topic. TagaworShah (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a short tangent about Cleopatra, I think that was a topical comparison, since it's in the news.
    You're a Sinti though, not a Roma, and like I said the bigger "Romani umbrella term" than encompasses both the Roma and Sinti doesn't exist, Romani is a singular, feminine form adjective, it's not a plural form adjective at its root. The correct umbrella term for both Roma and Sinti is डोम Doma /Dom (caste), or even more expansive दलित Dalit.
    The fact that Ian Hancock, a non-Roma changed Romani from being a singular feminine form adjective to being a plural form, both genders adjective totally contradict your "That has no relevance to what our name is; Romani people. Our name is not going to change" stance. The Roma people that I speak to call themselves Roma, never heard them calling themselves "Romani". Ian Hancock tries to change linguistics by omitting and even erasing the linguistic history of the Roma people, that originally called themselves डोम (Doma), dancers and musicians. From Doma, to Roma, to Ian Hancock's "Romani", is a long way to go.
    The reasons why Romanians call themselves Romanians is that the Roman conquered Dacia in 106 AD (the territory of Romania today) and they Daco-Thraco-Romans began to speak a Roman language (Latin), thus Romanians. From Doma to Romani is a very big change to be sure, so it's puzzling you say "That has no relevance to what our name is; Romani people. Our name is not going to change" when Ian Hancock, a non-Roma, already recently changed Roma to "Romani", so you clearly contradict yourself. Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already addressed all of those blatantly incorrect points yet it’s clear you are not listening. I am not Sinti, Ian Hancock IS Romani, and he by absolutely no means did not invent the word Romani, our language is literally called Romani chib, the -ni is a Romani suffix that traces all the way back to Sanskrit, you do not understand our language and you are spreading blatant misinformation about my people. There is no scholarly consensus that we come from Doma, let alone that we were calling ourselves that when we got into Europe, I’ve already told you that is original research and you have yet to provide a source stating that we called ourselves Dom in Europe. Our name is Romani, end of discussion, this is looking to be a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. TagaworShah (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about the Romani language but about the Roma ethnicity, that's all. Didn't know Ian Hancock was a Roma, now I see his birth name is Yanko le Redžosko.
    Still, Roma is a correct word, a correct noun for the Romani people. Roma is also more frequently used. Ninhursag3 (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that's one opinion, btw I wanted Roma (people) not Roma people, since Roma is a noun. Roma is grammatically correct and that's a fact.
    You are biased because you said you are a Sinti and you think you are different from the Roma but are under the bigger "Romani umbrella". The "Romani umbrella" is not a real thing, Romani is a feminine singular adjective form, there therefore masculine singular, masculine plural and feminine plural can't be under this umbrella. Ian Hancock just took the feminine singular adjective "Romani" (as in "Romani girl") and used it carelessly as an adjective plural, both feminine and masculine form. Not thinking how similar "Romani " sounds to "Romanians". Even at the start of the wikipedia Romanians it says "Not to be confused with Romani people", clearly indicating that confusing Romani (people that came from Northern India) and Romanians (Balkan people) is something that happens OFTEN.
    Since Roma (people) is gramatically correct and it stops the confusion with Romanians, why are you so opposed to it? Ninhursag3 (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you asking why TagaworShah is opposed to it? You already know why. You read why they said they're opposed to it. You responded to it. As for accusing someone of bias, it's easy to dismiss someone whose opinion is different from yours as bias just because they have a different perspective from yours. You have a bias here too, right? Be careful of accusing people of bias unless they're communicating falsehoods and propaganda.
    There is merit to TagaworShah's point that we need to take into account what's actually being used in relevant sources. It doesn't matter what some organization decided if there's resistance to it and others in the field are following a different practice. See WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not saying a particular conclusion is being led to here, only that this is a valid consideration.
    As for your repeated comment on how "Romani" is feminine singular, that's irrelevant because we aren't writing in Romani, we're writing in English. In English, the adjective is "Romani" regardless of what noun it's qualifies.
    Finally, "Roma" can be confused with "Rome" or "Romans" just as easily as "Romani" can be confused with "Romanians". Largoplazo (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t say im Sinto, I said that certain Romani groups such as the Sinti and Romanichal don’t identify as Roma. Ian Hancock did not invent the term Romani, it’s been used by many Romani people, namely the Romani chal for centuries, Romani people in the UK have been using Romani and not Roma for a long time, Ian Hancock did not invent the word Romani, and your comments show a lack of understanding on how the Romani language (which is literally called Romani chib) works, both Romani people and Roma are grammatically correct, however only one of these terms is inclusive of all Romani people and is the common name. TagaworShah (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you said you're a Sinti when we talked about the doma डोम origin of the word Roma and when I added the Doma were from a Dalit caste of dancers and musicians: Dom (caste). Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By "adding" I mean at the start of the article, since that information was already on the Romani people page, just way below in the wikipedia article. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I found it, you said it the the context of the name change, not the doma. You said: "Romani groups, namely the Sinti and Romanichal reject the name Roma and see it as a separate subgroup that is part of the Romani people" so that's why I thought you were a Sinti.
    But you also said: "We call ourselves both. Romani is an adjective and Roma is the noun." So you agree with Roma being used as a noun is correct. You also can't deny Roma is way more frequently used. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ian Hancock and Yaron Matras have warned against using Roma to describe all Romani people for this very reason. you do know that on this very article it says, and I quote to the letter:

    colloquially known as the Roma

    I think this is a rather perplexing situation you've pickle-jared us into. 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 17:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think everyone on the discussion thread has missed this most important DETAIL. I do not conceive further comments and my vote is:
     • Support. 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 17:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s why the statement is regarded as colloquial, this has already been discussed and the consensus was to regard “Roma” as colloquial because even though it is technically correct not all Romani people identify with that term. Please read the talk page archives. TagaworShah (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread has become too long for a new user like me (joined in March) and has lead to an inconclusive SPI CheckUser examination with an investigation currently ongoing. I don't want to get involved with the Clerks or ArbCom, so I rest my case there. 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 17:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you could send me examples of references from globally recognised sources I may change my mind. 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 17:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @LilianaUwU:
    @TagaworShah:
    @Ninhursag3:
    多多123 (✉ • ✎) 17:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I sure did make this situation more complicated than it had any right to be, huh. I would close, but I'm obviously involved at this point, so I can't. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • With that said, I do have an opinion on this, and it's gonna be oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't think there is much for me to say that hasn't already been said, but yeah, consensus seems to have been estabilished in previous discussions already. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, just another point: Romanians call themselves "români" but many using internet don't use diacritics and it's just "romani". That's exactly, letter by letter the same as "Romani" (Roma). So that's already very confusing.
    What do you think about that? Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While Roma as a noun, plural form is already perfectly grammatically correct. Also, maybe TagaworShah, a Sinti, calls himself "Romani" but all the Roma I talk to call themselves Roma, not Romani. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the points of view of Ninhursag3. All the best to her and to everyone here. I truly hope you will reach consensus as soon as possible! Have an excellent day! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please write support in bold, I think that's the rule. Thank you so much @Rosenborg BK Fan ^^ Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I see. Thank you for mentioning this. I support the points of view of Ninhursag3. All the best to everyone. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, TagarworShah is not a Sinti, he is of Armenian-Kalderash-Roma background, see he is User page. Horahane (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 07:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, he is not a Sinti. What he said " made me think he is a Sinti: "Romani groups, namely the Sinti and Romanichal reject the name Roma and see it as a separate subgroup that is part of the Romani people". Ninhursag3 (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In Germany as example no one said Romani, in German language its Sinti and Roma (Sinti und Roma). The word roma is for the people, and romanes is used for the language, but be careful, here in american english wikipedia, people with other minds will be dismissed and call sockpuppet of other users who have the same or similar mind. Also many roma groups call themself gypsy and havent a problem with it. Best example are the muslim roma in dobrudja-romania. They said we are Cingene or Horahane, (Turci tsigani) and speak turkish here a very good article https://www.academia.edu/6998709/The_Muslim_Gypsies_in_Romania Horahane (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 07:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thank you for the information, so do you agree with the wikipedia title article to be Roma (people)? If you agree please write support in bold letters.
    Also, please take this into consideration: Romanians call themselves "români" but many using internet don't use diacritics and it's just "romani". That's exactly, letter by letter the same as "Romani" (Roma). So that's already very confusing being Romani and Romanian. Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't bother taking it into consideration, I've already responded to this twice, and I will once again: This is English Wikipedia. The vast majority of people here know no Romanian. They can't be confused by something they aren't even aware of. And, meanwhile, you flatly discounted the possibility of English speakers, who often do know the Italian name for Rome, confusing the Roma people with Romans. So you contradict yourself. Largoplazo (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On English wikipedia it says the first words of the Romanians English language article say: "The Romanians (Romanian: români, pronounced [roˈmɨnʲ];"
    So yeah, "români" appears in the English wikipedia article.
    I will say that again, Romanian is an ethnicity, Rome (Roma in Italian) is just a city, it's not a country or an ethnicity. An entire ethnicity should take priority over one single city. Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the confusion is greater between two ethnicities: Romanian and Romani than an ethnicity and a city: Roma (people) and Rome (city). Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The confusion between Romani and Romanian is not just in English but in most if not all languages, like in Turkish, the Roma user @Horahane said here: Talk:Romani people#Çingene
    "In Turkish the word Roman or Romanlar is also a new thing, started in the 1990's before the word Çingene was in use. yet if you said Roman they thought you are from romania or you are romanian, because in turkish Romen or Romenler is Romanian people, Romanya is Romania, Romence is romanian language, while Romanca, Roman and Romanlar is used for the roma people. This words are too similar. This confused sooo much in turkish language. Compare:
    • Roman and Romen
    • Romanca and Romence
    • Romanlar and Romenler"
    Ninhursag3 (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, Roma people, not romani. romani is the language. This is american english phrase only to call the people as romani, laughable, nonsense. For all who can read or would see the romani language...the term romani to describe the people is not. Its roma, rom, or romalen. By the way many groups call themself Çingene (Gypsy), because Gypsy is not allways a slur as it claimed here in english wikipedia.
    https://cingeneyizenglish.blogspot.com/p/i-am-gypsy.html
    https://www.vice.com/ro/topic/me-sem-rom Horahane (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 07:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please write support in bold, thank you so much ^^ Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the vast, vast majority of people using English Wikipedia have no idea what the Romanian word for "Romanian" is, so it doesn't matter what the Romanian word for "Romanian" is. We also get along managing with both Slovaks and Slovenes (and the Slovaks get along calling their country Slovensko and their language slovenčina while calling Slovenia Slovinsko and the Slovenian language slovenščina). Largoplazo (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you're fixating on what name we use for the people in article titles. It barely matters because the instant we use the adjectival form in the body of articles, it's going to be "Romani", because that is the adjectival form, and that's the way it's going to be despite any concerns of confusion. Largoplazo (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with the adjectival form in instances like "Romani culture", "Romani language" etc but when used as a noun, Roma is the noun. So like the Roma did that, the Roma migrated, the Roma travelled etc. Are you fine with that? Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The confusion between Romani and Romanian is not just in English but in most if not all languages, like in Turkish, the Roma user @
    Horahane
    said here:
    Talk:Romani people#Çingene
    "In Turkish the word Roman or Romanlar is also a new thing, started in the 1990's before the word Çingene was in use. yet if you said Roman they thought you are from romania or you are romanian, because in turkish Romen or Romenler is Romanian people, Romanya is Romania, Romence is romanian language, while Romanca, Roman and Romanlar is used for the roma people. This words are too similar. This confused sooo much in turkish language. Compare:
    • Roman and Romen
    • Romanca and Romence
    • Romanlar and Romenler"
    So it's weird you still don't care how similar Romani and Romanian is similar in almost, if not all languages when the perfectly good, grammatically correct noun "Roma" exists. Also, @Horahane said here: User talk:Ninhursag3#TagaworShah
    "In europe, the name romani especially in Germany or the Balkans, for the people is not known at all, We call Roma and the language is romani chib or Romanes. No Roma I know said I am a romani ...this made no sense in romani language. Me sem Rom (I am a Rom). A rom male and romliya is a female and the people are the roma, also Amaro Romalen (We roma). I think this tagarowhsha doesnt speak any word of Romanes."
    Romani languge is "romani chib or Romanes" so Romanes is a perfectly good way to say instead of Romani language.
    Also another noun is Romalen, not just Roma. While the male adjective is "Rom", the female adjective is "Romliya" and no sight of the adjective "Romani" other than "Romani chib" that refers only to the language. Ninhursag3 (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, @LilianaUwU, have you see this? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nalanidil
    @TagaworShah accused me of: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry
    And the verdict said "Inconclusive" that they don't agree that I'm a sockpuppet. I can give dozens of articles I edited: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romanians&action=history
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thracians&action=history
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Hunyadi&action=history
    If I were @TagaworShah right now, I would be very ashamed. He tried to delete my account because he doesn't like the English wikipedia title change. Ninhursag3 (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was notified by @
    Horahane
    here:
    User talk:Ninhursag3#TagaworShah
    I think it's a very cowardly move by @TagaworShah done in bad faith. Also: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers Ninhursag3 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    have you seen* sorry for the mistake Ninhursag3 (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By my count, you have 28 comments (so far) in this discussion, which has only four votes. Everyone clearly understands what your point of view is here; please let the move discussion play out now, and let people have their say. See WP:BLUDGEON. Mathglot (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, sorry for being bothersome. I tried to give new arguments though... Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I consulted an expert on the Nalanidil socks @RoySmith on his talk page and he advised me to file the SPI because you literally repeat the same exact talking points and behavior that got Nalanidil banned in the first place, you are literally collaborating with them right now, they confessed to being a sock puppet of Nalanidil and you are trying to persuade them to vote support here and using a banned user’s personal opinions as evidence in this discussion, this is not good behavior and you have been warned and notified of the Wikipedia guidelines several times over this past month by me alone, this is not about biting the newcomers, you continue a pattern of disruptive behavior. TagaworShah (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can 100% prove I'm my own person and not a sockpuppet account, I have many other different interests than just the Roma/Romani people. I didn't want or plan to be disruptive WP:DISRUPTIVE. I didn't insult and wasn't hateful towards anyone, I was polite and respectful to everyone. I deeply apologize if I bothered anyone, but you also were pretty hostile towards me. Now I understand you thought I was a sockpuppet account of @Nalanidil. I think Nalanidil has potential as a good wikipedia user if she stops personal attacks and stops making sockpuppet accounts.
    You already said Roma is correct as a noun and Romani is very, very close to Romanian, it literally says "Not to be confused with Romani people." at the top of Romanians. Can you please see things my way as well? Ninhursag3 (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This is the English Wikipedia, and article title policy calls for using terms that follow English usage. The argument in favor of changing the title here would be the same as arguing for changing the titles of other articles to Americans people, Italians people, and Brazilians people, and we're not going to do that, and we're not going to change this title either, for the same reason. And we're especially not going to take into consideration what the demonym is in their own language, if it's different from English; that's why our article on "Germans" is called Germans and not "Deutsche". Mathglot (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC) updated per inconclusive search tallies below; by Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Americans people is an adjective, just like Romani people is an adjective. Roma is a noun, plural form just like: Spaniards, Italians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Hungarians etc
    So why don't you agree with Roma, since it's in English as well? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/roma
    "plural Roma ˈrō-mə  or Rom also Roms
    a member of a traditionally itinerant people who originated in northern India and now live chiefly in Europe and in smaller numbers throughout the world". Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's simply not how it works in English. I appreciate your passion for this discussion, and I'm very sorry, but it is evident that your English is not sufficiently proficient to make grammar-based arguments about English usage in this discussion. In addition, as previously noted, please stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, it's preventing others from !voting and making occasional responses. Please let others bring their views to this discussion now; your view about this topic is crystal clear, and does not need further expansion. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - The article should not be moved to a new name based on arguments made by Largoplazo, TagaworShah, and Mathglot. “Romani people” is correct and is the WP:COMMONNAME per consensus. Additionally, the Romanichal and Sinti do not identify as Roma, thus a name change would introduce bias. Netherzone (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both the Sinti and Romanichal have their own pages so that is a non-issue. What is an issue is that instead of using Roma, Romani is used, which makes people confuse them with Romanians, it even says at the top "Not to be confused with Romani people." Since there is confusion something should be done about it, thus the use of Roma (a noun, plural form) as the title of the article. Most ethnicities/nationalities have a noun, and not an adjective, example: Spaniards, Italians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Hungarians etc
    You are totally ignoring the Romanian issue. Ninhursag3 (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded to a behavioral issue at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ninhursag3, Please STOP bludgeoning the process and let the discussion unfold naturally. Netherzone (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. I have not read this long discussion nor do I intend to. Could someone briefly show to me how "Romani people" is more common than "Roma people"? Super Ψ Dro 22:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the top results they actually seem to be pretty similar in number. See for example this OR'd search in books containing either term, double quoted, this century. The tally is 18::15 (slightly favoring "Romani people") on the first page of results, but the second page of results tilts strongly the other way. Inconclusive, but maybe more tests could help. Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is "Roma people" that appears to be more common in Google Scholar. Compare 18,800 results with 6,860 results of "Romani people". That margin is in fact huge. Super Ψ Dro 06:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus From the previous discussions about this name change, all of which have been extensive and resulted in Romani people as the best compromise, users have pointed out that: “Using inverted commas/quotation marks in a search is much less intuitive than searches without. Roma people returns fewer (864,000),and more ambiguous hits than Romani people (58,200,000).” This is a quote from a previous talk page discussion where the same point you make was brought up, these are old figures but the links still work, I unfortunately can’t see the hits because I’m on mobile but I suspect the difference between the two is still similar. TagaworShah (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without quotation marks I get 1,340,000 GS results for Roma people [8] and 408,000 GS results for Romani people [9]. I am guessing that results vary depending on the country each person is in. Maybe the insight of more people is needed in this issue. Super Ψ Dro 07:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also researched in the archives of this talk page. I am on the 8th archive only and I am already at discussions from 2009. I haven't seen any demonstration of "Romani" being more common up until now in the archives. I really hope the supposed demonstration was not made in 2006 or something. If so it is perfectly okay to dispute the alleged consensus notion after so long.
I am also researching in other places. Google Ngrams shows that "Roma people" surpassed "Romani people" in the mid-1990s [10]. In fact the latter is actively declining in favor of the former in recent years (since 2017). As I see it, that "Romani" is more common appears to simply not be true. I am also unsure as to how the Google Books link provided by Mathglot would favor one title or another. As far as I know, a search using two quoted names and an "OR" would only show sources employing both terms. It doesn't seem useful to me for determining a common name but maybe I've understood it wrong.
With all this it appears to me that "Roma people" is in fact more common than "Romani people and I thus support the move. I would also like to dispute the !votes of TagaworShah, LilianaUwU and Netherzone as they're partially or entirely based on WP:COMMONNAME. Maybe they will be able to show to me Romani is indeed more common. Super Ψ Dro 08:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus I would like to point out that “Roma people” is rarely used in sources, and most of the sources that use it are not from subject-matter experts, the most trusted and reliable sources use either “Romani people” or “Roma” that is because “Roma people” is what is actually not grammatically correct (it’s like saying Jews people), as a native Romani speaker I can tell you that virtually no Romani-led organization, specialty historian or linguist would use that. In fact if you search the link provided you’ll see that the vast majority of sources aren’t actually saying “Roma people” they’re saying “The Roma” or “Roma/Gypsies” followed by “Romani people,” this is why we can’t take these google statistics at face value without taking a closer look and consulting subject-matter experts, I stand by my claim that Romani people is used more commonly in quality sources than the highly incorrect “Roma people.” TagaworShah (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does "Roma" carry this meaning also in the English language or only in the Romani language? Because it appears authors widely use "Roma people", even in the case that "Romani people" was more common. I've sometimes seen accuracy being sacrificed over the common name. I've seen other more certain examples before and I'll give cite them here if I remember but right now the best I could offer is Muslim conquest of Spain (article includes Portugal as well because, allegedly, "Spain" is the most common way of referring to this event). WP:COMMONNAME simply overrides anything except in extreme cases in which another title would not be appropriate, such as Gypsies which is considered informal or even derogatory as I understand. Further, I do see some usage and advocacy for the name Roma in English-language contexts. See for example this user here [11] but also articles (some already cited above) related to the Romani using "Roma", see Roma Special School, European Roma Information Office, National Agency for the Roma, European Roma Rights Centre. Being used by national and international (EU-level) institutions, it appears to be at least a formal designation for the Romani. It is true however that none of these articles use "Roma" followed by "people". But it is a common designation in Wikipedia with many redirects [12]. And also to note, searches in quotes will only give results including that exact same succession of words. In the quoted searches I cited above there is no risk of "Roma people" not actually being in the source. Super Ψ Dro 08:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus You’re missing the most important part, “Roma” is not the common name for all Romani people, groups like the Sinti and Romanichal do not identify with that term and that is why phrases like “Sinti and Roma” exist throughout Europe and Roma being considered a separate designation from the Romanichal in UK. This why the previous consensus worked, it was built on compromise and Romani people was found as the best compromise. Let’s not be rash and hasty with google searches, as I previously mentioned, top experts in the field of Romani studies have warned against using “Roma” for all Romani people for this very reasons, subject-matter experts should be prioritized or else you’ll have people arguing that Sinti and Romanichal and potentially other groups shouldn’t be included in this article and a whole bunch of other mess. Also, as I said before, notice how those organizations say “Roma” and not “Roma people” we shouldn’t settle for an incorrect and frankly offensive title just because non-specialty sources seem to have recently picked it up. TagaworShah (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Picking up on the example given by Dro, Muslim conquest of Spain (article includes Portugal as well because, allegedly, "Spain" is the most common way of referring to this event). shows that Wikipedia does not care about the minorities, it does talk about them and may even have articles on them, but the article title is most oftenly a major view on the topic. Wikipedia does not have bias towards attempting to "be on the good side" of any one population or group of people, offending a country is not of concern to an encyclopedia, it shows it from a neutral point of view, showing the facts, even if they are offending to a minority or majority. Or else we would be vandalisers. Showing opinion instead of fact. Personal opinion. Wikipedia shows things as they are, and does not make them look good or bad, they are what they are. If you think this is "unrelated" read it again a few times and think on what you've written here. If you still think it's unrelated then your reply on top is also unrelated. 多多123 14:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
多多123 No, that’s incorrect and a false understanding of how Wikipedia naming conventions work. Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) that clearly states:
”How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided.”
It also mentions the precedent on how articles about ethnic groups should be named, Adjectival with "people" is one of them and widely accepted however adding (people) after a plural ethnonym is not and frankly a bit dehumanizing in my opinion. TagaworShah (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here I was actually quite confusing on how I phrased this, I wasn't actually referring to naming an article with derogatory wording, I was talking about the content of the article being unbiased and if someone has made a offensive comment it still is included on the Wiki, the main point here is about the majority and minority. 多多123 23:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we use the word Romani, wouldn't the ones using Roma be left out? There's no way you can get all of them in one title. We have to choose from majority and minority; there's a template which calls for clean-up when an article only talks about minority, wouldn't that be against Wikipedia's standards? 多多123 14:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The map you showed also shows that we should be calling this article Kale instead. Why don't we just change it to Sinti/Romani/Roma/Kale people? 多多123 14:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Romani people refers to all the groups, Roma only refers to a portion of the groups, and the similarity between Romani and Romanian is subjective and not a proper argument for renaming the article, I have already addressed this to you and we have already repeated ourselves enough in this conversation. TagaworShah (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TagaworShah is correct. Netherzone (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have also talked about COMMONNAME and Super Dro showed results of Roma being a more predominant result within the searches. You have also mentioned grammar as being important at the bottom of the discussion, so Romani would be wrong, as Ninhursag3 demonstrated.(Many times.) 多多123 23:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A quick note, the title is actually being discussed to be moved to Roma (people), this uses Roma by itself and the disambiguation from the redirectory link to the multiple uses of Roma, situated here, Roma. Romani is also quite confusing for me, and probably for others too, as it seems to be related to Romanians; as most often in the English language -ians is added to an individual word, normally from the "root" of the word itself, casually derived from the Latin language group. 多多123 14:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much @Super Ψ Dro for your support ^^ Also please read the first paragraph of the article: "The Romani, also spelled Romany or Rromani (/ˈroʊməni/, /ˈrɒ-/), colloquially known as the Roma".
"Colloquially" means more commonly used which is true but also it means "informally" which is untrue. Roma is a noun, plural form and is formal, not "informal".
So the whole Roma is colloquial therefore shouldn't be title of the page assumption doesn't stand. Roma is a noun and should be used as a noun when it's needed, not be replaced with an adjective and then a noun like "Romani people". Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this map on the difference between saying Romani people and Roma, they are not always interchangeable. That’s why previous editors compromised on saying “colloquially known as Roma” because not all Romani people are known as Roma. Per the article title naming policy wikipedia:PRECISION, Romani people should be used as it is unambiguous as opposed to Roma which is ambiguous on what groups it includes as shown below.

TagaworShah (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also would like to point out that according to Wikipedia:COMMONNAME: “ Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.”
Reliable sources say that Roma/Roma people is both ambiguous in its scope and “Roma people” is inaccurate grammatically, for all these reasons I stand by my case of common name. TagaworShah (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note, that has been repeated about 5< times, it wouldn't be Roma people, it would be Roma (people). 多多123 14:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two options in this name change discussion, Super Dro was clearly supporting the “Roma people” option so I don’t see the relevance of repeating something that has been repeated over and over again. Also same concerns and it goes against Wikipedia precedent, we don’t say Jews (people), in that case it would just be Roma. TagaworShah (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance is that you said “Roma people” is inaccurate grammatically. 多多123 23:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Roma (people) would be grammatical. Roma people would not be. We should be avoiding parenthesis in titles when able to, so Romani people is the preferred option. What comes to mind is Jews vs. articles like Jewish culture. If Roma only had one meaning than of course that's what we could name the page, but it doesn't, so we can't. TheSavageNorwegian 17:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I requested @LilianaUwU to change the title to Roma (people) not Roma people. She recently corrected her mistake: Romani people → Roma people (added 21 June, 19:54 UTC: or Roma (people))
    You said Roma (people) is grammatically correct, so do you support Roma (people)? Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also please read the first paragraph of the article: "The Romani, also spelled Romany or Rromani (/ˈroʊməni/, /ˈrɒ-/), colloquially known as the Roma".
    "Colloquially" means more commonly used which is true but also it means "informally" which is untrue. Roma is a noun, plural form and is formal, not "informal".
    So the whole Roma is colloquial therefore shouldn't be title of the page assumption doesn't stand. Roma is a noun and should be used as a noun when it's needed, not be replaced with an adjective and then a noun like "Romani people". Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion of whether the lead should read "colloquially known as the Roma" or "also known as the Roma" is a different discussion entirely. Upon reviewing more of this thread I still oppose this move. I don't think we should be using parentheticals in titles if we don't have to, and strong points are made that here on en.wikipedia the name Romani is more accurate and unambiguous to the group than Roma. The argument that it's ungrammatical in languages other than English is irrelevant. TheSavageNorwegian 16:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ninhursag3 Please stop pinging me. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A way to do this is using {{no ping}} or just the username on its own without any Wikicode. 多多123 15:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't believe that Roma (people) improves recognizability enough to outweigh the loss in WP:NATURALism that comes with using a parenthetical disambiguator. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In English, Romani unambiguously refers neither to Romanians (Romanian: români) nor to Romans (Italian/Latin: romani), even though it is spelled the same as those non-English words. It is also entirely irrelevant that romani is feminine in the Romani language; it is gender-neutral in English. With that, I do not see good reason to move to the parenthetical Roma (people), even though Roma is generally synonymous with Romani people. SilverLocust (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Çingene

I use the old turkish word Çingene for myself as many other Roma people did in Turkey. https://cingeneyizenglish.blogspot.com/p/i-am-gypsy.html., https://www.medyayazar.com/aslina-bakarsaniz-biz-cingeneyiz In Turkish the word Roman or Romanlar is also a new thing, started in the 1990's before the word Çingene was in use. yet if you said Roman they thought you are from romania or you are romanian, because in turkish Romen or Romenler is Romanian people, Romanya is Romania, Romence is romanian language, while Romanca, Roman and Romanlar is used for the roma people. This words are too similar. This confused sooo much in turkish language. Compare:

  • Roman and Romen
  • Romanca and Romence
  • Romanlar and Romenler

so its more easy, to use Çingene, Çingeneler and Çingenece like the turkish wikipedia did. https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çingenece https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çingeneler https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çingene_(anlam_ ayrımı) Horahane (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While Çingene is perfectly fine, it's very rare in the English language. Roma is the most used formal word (while Gypsy is the most used historical word, non-Roma say "Gypsy" is an insult, while many Roma ethnics identify with "Gypsy", -which comes from Egyptian- also "Gitano", "Çingene" etc while others find it insulting).
The talk here is between Roma (people) and Romani people and I think you said you don't agree with the use "Romani people" because you never use it. You said here: "In europe, the name romani especially in Germany or the Balkans, for the people is not known at all, We call Roma and the language is romani chib or Romanes. No Roma I know said I am a romani ...this made no sense in romani language. Me sem Rom (I am a Rom). A rom male and romliya is a female and the people are the roma, also Amaro Romalen (We roma). I think this tagarowhsha doesnt speak any word of Romanes."
I don't think for now "Çingene" has a real chance to replace "Romani people" as the English wikipedia article title. But Roma has a real chance! Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot the link. You said here: User talk:Ninhursag3#TagaworShah Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello@Ninhursag3, as I said before, if any User who have have a same mindset or same interest in a topic and changed something on the same page, like a user who was blocked before, you will be suspected to be a sockpuppet of them and they made an investigation about you, and the result is you got blocked too. This is a bad behaviour here in the american-english wikipedia.
There is no chance as a continental european to give here informations and improvments. There is a strong Lobby here who think to know ALL and EVERYTHING. Especially any topic of roma people. There is no such a thing as a only one roma culture or religion or language. So many different romani dialects they cant talk togehter. Look: the Muslim roma Horahane, arli dialect https://www.polar.se/en/about-the-website/other-languages/romska-romani-arli-eng/ and the kelderash chrsitian roma dialeckt, this is not same https://www.polar.se/en/about-the-website/other-languages/romska-romani-kelderash-eng/. Horahane (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a completely false statement. All Europeans are welcome here. However, your suggestions for improvement for artiles at English Wikipedia must conform to the policies and guidelines of English Wikipedia; arguments that go against policy will not be accepted here. Please read WP:Article titles and make your suggestions based on that policy, and they will be very welcome here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying the term we use in English should be chosen based on problems Turks have experienced with the terminology in Turkish? Why don't we ask Mongolian speakers what they think too? We'll stick with basing our titles and terminology on English usage. Largoplazo (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Roma is in English as well:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/roma
"plural Roma ˈrō-mə  or Rom also Roms: a member of a traditionally itinerant people who originated in northern India and now live chiefly in Europe and in smaller numbers throughout the world".
It's in the Merriam-Webster American dictionary, isn't that a good enough English source?
Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that source is perfectly good. Now, if you understand that that is a noun, you will understand why "Roma people" does not work. If English is not your native language, please understand that English grammar has certain requirements (just like every language does) and it simply can't be that way. Mathglot (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LilianaUwU wrote Roma people, I asked her to write Roma (people) just like in the case of Dom (caste): it's a noun and in parenthesis it explains what it refers to, in the case of the Roma it refers to the people, in the case of the Dom it refers to the caste etc.
Hope that explains it, I already said it many times on this page but you didn't read those replies so now I have to say it again. You'll again accuse me of Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process Sorry in advance >.< Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Wikipedia makes decisions based on its policies and guidelines. Thank you for your good faith suggestion, but we are simply not going to name this article using a term available in Turkish, and it doesn't matter at allwhat term people in Europe use. And it doesn't matter at all, here at English Wikipedia, what the Roma call themselves in their own language. What matters, per article title policy at English Wikipedia, is what term is used in reliable, secondary sources in English to refer to them. That's it; full stop. Please stop discussing what term is used in other languages, because it is simply not relevant here. On the other hand, your arguments may be useful at Turkish Wikipedia, so you could try raising them there. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What ever happened to WP:COMMONNAME?

WP:COMMONNAME says that topics should be referred to by their common name and the common name like it or not for the Romani is "gypsy". I appreciate that some people use the term gypsy as a slur but some people also use the term "Jew" as a slur that doesn't change the fact that most people, including people meaning no insult to gypsies, use gypsy as the predominate term for this people. Thomas Norren (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need for new sources for estimates

I have noticed this in respect to the data for Romania, but I tnink it might be related to other Coutries estimates.

The source given was https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/roma-eu/roma-equality-inclusion-and-participation-eu-country/romania_en which does give the procentage of 8.32% but the 2022-2027 report does not, it only reports that the number of Roma might be heigher than the official number (the official number is that of the 2011 cesus). The 2015-2020 report does sight a number in respect again to the 2011 census--this on one had would be outdated numbers--but the source for this number is missing. Only in the 2012-2020 report we can see a sorce for the number being given: An EU framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to, which if if looked up, gives the source to a retracted EU commision page.

I have tried to look up for better sorces for an up to date maximum estimate number, but the best I can find is this recent article https://m.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/politica/partida-romilor-acuza-rezultatele-recensamantului-si-spune-ca-300-000-de-romi-nu-au-fost-numarati-2199963 which suggests the official data is down by 300 000, which would mean, I think 4.56%.

2020DiGrande (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DiGrande It’s not secret that Romania’s census severely undercounts the Romani population in the country. In addition to the 300,000 Roma purposefully left out in this recent census, that figure does not take into account the very high number of Romanians of Roma or mixed Roma descent that do not declare themselves Roma because of the high social stigma associated with being Romani in the country. An official estimate by the EU is the most accurate representation of what the actual Roma population is in the country, not just adding 300,000 to the census numbers, that’s just Wikipedia:Synthesis and goes against wikipedia policy. For an official population estimate to be considered “outdated” you’d have to prove with sources that there has been a significant population shift in the Roma population in Romania that would cause such a drastic shift. The EU estimate is still the most accurate estimate of Romani people in Romania due to the great social stigma and institutionalized racism in the country that was addressed when creating the estimate. TagaworShah (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look man, I have nothing against putting up an estimated higher value. I am aware, the numbers are most likely higher than the official data for the reasons mentioned by you. But I would like some actual reliable and up to date numbers on it. The source I provided I think it's a temporary fix, it does give an estimate 4.56% and it has an actual organization behind it that did some counting.
Now, EU's Commission's numbers are problematic in multiple ways, for once it uses this in reference to the 2011 census. And on the other hand as I pointed out, it is not clear where they got those numbers since the citation for it is missing or it literarally circles back to the webpage. To not speak it also references the 2005 World Bank study which puts the number at 970, 000, half of what they propose... Really Dubious. So no, it doesn't seem like the Commissions are the best estimates.
Again, I encourage you, if you really are interested, look up for actual studies on the matter with some real counting behind them if there are that do actually give a good estimate and well is reliable, not guess work.
That's what I would like actual data. DiGrande (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DiGrande The source you provided is not “actual data,” it’s an estimate by Nicolae Păun (politician) of the Roma party saying that he believes that more than 300,000 Roma were left uncounted in the new census, it is not a comprehensive analysis like the one provided by the EU. The EU estimate is the most recent of its kind and the one with the most accuracy and reputation, it’s is undoubtedly a reliable source and it’s actually more recent than most of the other sources for population data in the article, there is no reason why it should not be used in the article. The claim that they don’t use “actual data” is unsubstantiated and not supported by any reliable news source. TagaworShah (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said I do consider it a temporary fix, it's not really data. But tehnically what you said is not the claim is that APRPE (the Association Pro-European Roma Party) has made a paralel counting and they came up with 300k or more; that's what the source claims, if you read more than the title.
On EU Commission's estimates, I think I explained enough in the previous comments why it's actually an incomprehensible Analysis, with well ... numberes pulled out of the air and citing studies that actually give vastly different estimates than it.
If you want, you can remove the roma party's estimates, or add some new ones that atleast say on what they base the estimates--and hopefully in time an actual study will be made and we could cite that--but not the commission's since all it's got going for it is "it's the EU commission, they must be reliable" when under close examination they are not on this matter. DiGrande (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DiGrande Unreliable according to who? Your own original research? Just because a source seems unreliable to a non-expert does not mean it is, you don’t know or understand their methods of estimation and approximating the Roma population, yes they cite estimates that give different numbers, that is normal, they did their own original research and found this estimate, they are professionals and have a high reputation for accuracy, you’re going to need a lot more than empty accusations to deem this source unreliable. TagaworShah (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) Ok, well if they did, as you say, their own research? Where is it published? They don't offer any explanation at all on where exactly they get their numbers.
2) Why do you presume I am a, as you say, a non-expert?
3) No, they are the EU commission, they are a govermental institution not a research one. So, uh, why do you think they have a high reputation for accuracy? DiGrande (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) It’s published in their report, they don’t need to give you a step-by-step explanation of their methods for it to be reliable, review the Wikipedia guidelines for what constitutes a reliable source.
2) Wikipedia editors are not experts, doesn’t matter who you are, here you are an editor not an expert, you can’t give your own original research on a topic, it’s not allowed.
3) Because they do, their estimates are widely cited by reliable sources, which by Wikipedia guidelines means a they have a reliable reputation for accuracy. TagaworShah (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1)Idk if you read the guidelines on reliable sources, but well, the Commissions source fails as a secondary source since... they don't cite a primary source on the numbers given. And it fails as reliable scholarship since the numbers are just pulled out of the air.
2)There is some misunderstanding here, what I've did here wasn't "original research"... I've just checked the sources and saw they are unverifiable.
3)Well so you mean like reliable by association? As in "many other sources from them were reliable, so even if this one cannot be verified, we should let it slide," is that what you mean? DiGrande (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) PLENTY of reliable sources do not cite other sources, this is even covered in the guidelines, almost every single reliable news article from places like the New York Times, Washington Post etc. do not have a bibliography, that doesn’t make them unreliable. These numbers are not “pulled out of air” they are an estimate given by experts.
2) You said the source was unverifiable because they were just making numbers up, who are you to make such a claim? Do you have any reliable sources that state the EU commission just makes up their estimates?
3) No, reliable sources citing this source in their work is a measure of its reliability, again that also comes straight from Wikipedia guidelines. TagaworShah (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1)The numbers used here for statistics, so they should be verifiable; again they are not, you can't know where those numbers came. And well in this case we have nameless "experts," may remind you no source, no expert, no anything is cited behind this numbers, not even of the people writing the report. I am sorry, but you are just asking us to have faith.
2)"Made up" was hiperbaly, yes, uh... what you called "original" research is just checking the source, it either has an empty citation, or it cites back to the webpage. The numbers don't come from anywhere.
All in all, I am not changing my mind on this, I suggest maybe looking for a third opinion. It seems very clear to me why we shouldn't use the Commissions source for the reasons outline here. DiGrande (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, that's the way verifiability and the assessment of a source's reliability are handled on Wikipedia. If you are opposed to this, if you think that WP:V and WP:RS should require the sources used here to cite their sources or else not be considered reliable here, then the place for you to launch that debate is at the talk page of one of those pages. The talk page of an individual article is not a place for that debate. This is the place for discussions that involve applying the guidelines as they exist. Largoplazo (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romani_people&oldid=1183011917"