From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Romani people (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romani people, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romani people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cringe-worthy introduction[edit]

As an endogamous culture with a tendency to practise self-segregation,[citation needed] the Romanis have generally resisted assimilation with the indigenous communities of whichever countries they have moved to; they have thus successfully preserved their distinctive and unique culture.

It really speaks volumes about what demographic edits Wikipedia that an uncited paragraph that implies that Romani discrimination is partially their own doing was allowed right on top of this article. Oh no, that's not what it directly says, it's much more sophisticated than that. We just wanted to somehow add an uncited paragraph right on top of the article that somehow places the responsibility of segregation partially on the Roma. It's just an amazing coincidence that this uncited piece of information that slightly relieves the responsibility of dominant cultures was placed right on top of an article on an incredibly sensitive topic. I removed it, by the way. Find a citation or don't bother including this information at all. If it's such common, well-supported knowledge, I'm sure you'll have no problem finding corroborating evidence. Betina (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that every conceivable interaction between a designated Victim group and the majority is a form of oppression, inclusive of both assimilation and self-segregation. 00:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCA3:460:E038:355F:9661:5DB6 (talk)

Taviyamato's trolling[edit]

"Gipsyes steal , rape and murder , They come from Pakistan , not Romania , as they want u to believe . Biladen was also a gipsy . "

Do you agree that we should not accept user Taviyamato delete all text and replace it with racist bullshit? What solutions do you propose, other than cold reverting of the text or ban? Perhaps the text should contain a section called "Types of prejudice in comtemporary society" or "Criticisms or Roma people" or "The political solution and its weaknesses"? The bigger problem of ours is, it is obvious that when Taviyamato spoils the article like this, he feels that he has been made to lose his voice. It is not good for constructive spirit. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Legends backwards[edit]

The legends are backwards I think. The legend says the Roma stole one of the nails that was to be used for Crucifixion, so Jesus feet nailed together with one nail not two. The thief became blessed and became the father of the Roma. Legend here says opposite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roma Ever (talkcontribs) 01:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

--The one that I heard just recently when I was in Harghita county, Romania, was the opposite of the one you describe (it's no longer on the article, so I can only surmise to what you are referring.) It portrayed the gypsy thief in a negative light. Kari marie 17:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tolerance of Antiziganism[edit]

I think mention should be made of the 'acceptability' of anti-Gypsy prejudice in Western Europe. I myself live in England, a country that takes anti-discrimination against ethnic minorities very seriously, to the point of absurdity at times (e.g. witness the awkward spectacle of someone wandering which is the 'correct' term to use for group X). However, prejudice aginst Gyspies is in many places condoned, accepted even (as anyone who has seen the type of vitriol present in the right-wing gutter press can attest to). It is an hypocrisy that I feel extends across Western Europe, where Gypsies are less of a presence as in the East.Sdrawkcab 18:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)sdrawkcab

I'm half French, and it's the same thing there as you say it is in the U.K. I will say that there are certain agencies that do work hard to help Gypsies integrate into the community, and good on them for that. But for French society in general, antiziganism seems to still be a perfectly acceptable prejudice. (It never fails to amaze me how subjective bigotry can be. Hate the Jews, you're a fascist. Hate the Arab and African immigrants, you're a racist, but an acceptable one in quite a few circles. Hate the Gypsies, and you're pretty much a regular citizen).
American friends who studied abroad in Belgium told me the situation is also the same over there... and the further east into Europe you go, the worse it gets. I don't even want to imagine how they have to live in Russia or Belarus... (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Updates; this is a good thing. This, somewhat less so. Though it illustrates your point. They're Gypsies, who cares, you know...? (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Boi if u dont[edit]

What about the song gypsy woman which uses the adjective gypsy as an insult. Is that an example in pop culture. I have only seen it mentioned by gypsies on youtube complaining in the comments so far though, I have not seen it in the media. Enigmama 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)enigmama

Especially in American society, the word "Gypsy" describes a profession or lifestyle, not the Roma people. Use of the words in this context are not meant to disparage any minority or ethnic group, and any insults implied or taken are out of context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrector703 (talkcontribs) 16:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Jrector703 (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Meanderings[edit]

Interesting parallel with the Jews - small minority plus lack of assimilation = prejudice. But are there any counterexamples? However, it is not credible to fail to discuss Roma attitudes toward the gadja that may enable a criminal subculture. I know from visits to Romania and Italy that theft, badger and confidence games played by Roms are far from rare.

Apropos of nothing the "King" of the Gypsies - according to Peter Maas - is buried in my old home town of Union, New Jersey. According to Maas' book The King of the Gypsies, if the "King" wanted to eliminate a rival he would have someone accuse the rival of some fictitious crime and get a half dozen or so of his relatives to swear the guy into prison. Much safer than killing him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure there are counter examples - For instance: small minority + almost complete assimilation = prejudice, in the case of Jews in Germany and Hungary in the 1930s. And no, Roma committing crime is not responsible for antiziganism. In Romania and Italy, men are likely responsible for a massive majority of the crime, especially violent crime, but they aren't man-hating cultures. Racism looks for excuses to make assumptions about a whole group of people - it isn't caused by the target. - TheMightyQuill 15:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to disagree:Misandry —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the article needs a lot of expansion on modern antitziganism, they are by far the most discriminated group, and the group with the biggest prejudices against them in the whole of Europe. It's not really just CE Europe, it's everywhere from Italy, to Spain to the UK to Romania etc.. and it's often at a very high level. While after WW2 anti-semitism has become a big tabu in european countries the similarly persecuted roma people, due to their lack of political power, have continued to be viewed much in the same way. I think the difference is really striking. And yeah, the guy above is a racist, i'm romanian too, do you know roma used to be slaves in our country until the 19th century, and they're also called "colored" or "crow" in slang ? Sounds familiar ? --Helixdq (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Source doesn't match text[edit]

> In July 2008, a high court in Italy ruled that antiziganism is an acceptable practice "on the grounds that [the Roma people] are thieves."

This line is extremely misleading. The defendant's position in this case was that Roma people are thieves. This line suggests that the court itself adopted that position. According to the article, the court ruled that the defendant's words demonstrated racial prejudice rather than racial superiority or racial hatred and therefore did not violate the law.

In other words, according to the court, "X people should all be killed" is illegal speech, but "X people are thieves" doesn't rise to the level of illegal speech.

The source article does not support the wikipedia rendering.

Haskellguy (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

CItations from the article:
  • Italy's highest appeal court has ruled that it is acceptable to discriminate against Roma on the grounds that they are thieves.
  • His dislike of them was "not therefore based on a notion of superiority or racial hatred, but on racial prejudice". Kenshin (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Kenshin, you're right, the article does use that language, but it's a very poor sentence structure that wikipedia shouldn't replicate.

One problem is this distinction:
"It is acceptable (to discriminate against Roma on the grounds that they are thieves)"
"It is acceptable (to discriminate against Roma) on the grounds that they are thieves."
The first rendering tolerates despicable behavior, while the second very nearly endorses it. There may be a language issue, if someone isn't a native English speaker this could be a subtle point.

Haskellguy (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, when we put the text "on the grounds that [the Roma people] are thieves." in quotations, who are we quoting? We are actually quoting the source article. But the wikipedia rendering would suggest that this language was actually in the official court ruling.

I'm not sure that the court ruling by itself even qualifies as notable material. I would suggest instead focus on the actions that lead to the charges being made.

Haskellguy (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the reason invoked by the court for the ruling is important. Kenshin (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. What exactly is the reason. by your reading? Haskellguy (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"not therefore based on a notion of superiority or racial hatred, but on racial prejudice". The court thinks that "racial prejudice" is OK. Kenshin (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the court thinks that racial prejudice is *legal*. Laws such as this one are typically targeted at hard right-wing hate groups, but this guy is merely a garden variety scumbag.

The law had to set a standard at which anti-racism concerns exceeded free-speech concerns. The court did nothing more AFAICS than make a judgment call as to whether the specific case rose to the standard described in the law. (In the United States, for better or for worse, such a law would have been blatantly unconstitutional. We allow KKK and neo-nazi marches here; no one thinks it's ok, just free speech.) Haskellguy (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the court thinks that racial prejudice is legal. You can put this form in the article if you want. But I don't see anything that indicates that the court put in balance hate-speech vs free-speech. By the way, what is the difference between "racial prejudice" and "racial superiority"? Kenshin (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The notion of a balance between hate-speech and free-speech is my own interpretation, I admit. How could there possibly not be a need for such a balance?

I will try to answer your question to the best of my understanding, in the hope that this will aid the discussion, and with the concern that the discussion should not wander too far off topic. But really we might need someone fluent in Italian law to break this down for us, since the original terms used would certainly have been Italian terms that might not only have different connotations in Italian, but that also might have an even more specific or quirky definition in italian law.

Racial prejudice is any belief, usually pejorative, about a person based only or mainly on that person's race. (This is hard to define because there is little biological boundary that captures people's intuitive notion of race, i.e., race is socially constructed). So if you tell me that person X belongs to race R, and I assume that they are ugly, or smell bad, or are less intelligent, or good at math (examples that I've encountered in my society), then those are racial prejudices.

Racial superiority is some kind of notion that "my" race belongs to a biologically or divinely superior class. "My" race is distinct and pure and needs to be protected from inbreeding with other races. Among these circles you'll hear arguments along the lines that other races were fathered by Satan, or have a thousands-year-old agenda to take over the world, or even that other races don't have the same internal organs or are somehow a different species. Typically the superiority of "my" race would be self-evident had it not been betrayed and weakened in some way by its leadership.

Haskellguy (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is true that there is a difference between "racial prejudice" and "racial superiority" (a difference that is hard establish exactly). "Racial prejudice" does not necessarily mean "racial superiority", but usually it does! Besides, the present day racists have leaned how to promote racial hate without using explicit racist expressions.
The journalist might not interpreted perfectly the judge's words, but it is for us to do that? Kenshin (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not sure that you're really understanding my complaint. I feel that there was some reckless wording in the article that wasted my time by making me fact-check a claim that was outrageous even beyond the very considerable actual and legitimate outrage of the subject matter. I made an edit that completely addresses my concern. Do we still have a disagreement over that actual content of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haskellguy (talkcontribs) 03:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I have put the paragraph from the article. Now the source definitely matches text. Kenshin (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
That works. Haskellguy (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic or behavioral issue (New Jersey law)[edit]

I recently edited a section of the article to remove a misleading piece of information on New Jersey's "Gipsy Law". Though the text did match the source, the source itself was misleading. The "Gipsy Law", which supposedly prevented Roma from owning property in New Jersey had no connection to the Roma people whatsoever: it was designed to discourage bands of vagrants, carpetbaggers, and itinerant criminal gangs from residing in New Jersey. This is a commonplace misapprehension of the term "Gypsy", but not an example of bigotry towards the Roma people. But the point is that I was removing extraneous information, I wasn't sure on how to cite my source, but it should be noted the source at the bottom of that paragraph (reference 120) also justifies the removal of the Gypsy Law paragraph. Jrector703 (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well the problem with this approach is that we can then remove all historical issues from the text, since none of the historical laws were primarily aimed against Gypsies as ethnicity but rather as itinerant groups of people (especially in the feudal times when peasants were tied to landlords and land). Accepting what you write means that essentially whole part about pre-WW2 history of Gypsy issue can be removed from the article.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The article is about Antiziganism: hostility and prejudice towards the Romani people. European laws, especially in Carpathian and Balkan States, were specifically targeted at ehnic Roma, with little or no connection to their itinerancy. Many were likely identified by their nomadic lifestyle, and "travellers" and other itinerant groups, families and individuals certainly may have been lumped in with Roma in pre-industrial Europe. However, settled Roma, and even Roma who had integrated into non-Romani communities, were all racially persecuted in the same way as Nomadic Roma. It was the Roma who were legally enslaved in the Southeastern Europe, not vagrants or traveling merchants of other ethnicities.
Every other historical issue and example of antiziganism listed in the article: in Bulgaria, the Czech Reublic, France, Germany, the UK, etc; describe specific laws, practices, or mistreatment of ethnic Roma, not merely itinerant groups or "travellers". To say that the misappropriation of the term "Gypsy" in the "Gipsy Law" is an example of antiziganism is similar to saying that the word "Gypsy", a derivative of "Egipcien", shows prejudice againts Egypt and the Egyptian culture; or that the "West Indies" is a reflection of ethnic bias against the peoples of the Indian subcontinent. Does use of the word "slave" demonstrate a racial intolerance towards Slavic peoples? Historical misappropriation of the term "Gypsy" may reflect traditional European anti-Roma sentiment, but saying the "Gipsy Law" is an example of laws or practices targeting Gypsies (the subject of this particular segment) is simply inaccurate; as stated in the source I cited [1]. Additionally, I would suggest that information contained one of the only academic texts on Roma in America trumps unsourced information from two paragraph interest piece on "Wacky Laws" found in a men's fashion and entertainment magazine (the original citation). Jrector703 (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, I accept your argument as regards South-Eastern Europe. For the rest: You list the Czech Republic among other countries. I guess that here you refer to the Czechoslovak 1927 "Act on Itinerant Gypsies", which is often listed among anti-Gypsy laws (I am not aware of any other statute which might be meant). However, (1) the people targeted by the law were described foremost by their itinerant lifestyle and (2) the basis was mostly to provide the local government with knowledge of people's whereabouts in society with tradition of hundreds of years of records on births and peoples' permanent residency (and other issues, such as possibility to enforce vaccination, or taking away of children who were not belonging to the given family). Basically, it fits your description of New Jersey law.
I am not sure about the previous laws enacted by the Habsburgs (as mentioned in the article), but I very much suppose that they were also targeted against rovers and vagrants, although using name "Gypsies" and thus not ethnically motivated. I will look into that closer when I have more time.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I was referring specifically to the subsection on the Czech Republic in this Antiziganism article, which does not mention the "Czechoslovak 1927 'Act on Itinerant Gypsies'". You say yourself it was designed to target individuals with an itinerant lifestyle, not specifically Roma. Antiziganism is ethnic prejudice against the Romani people. If a statute doesn't specifically target Roma, it shouldn't be in this article, which is why New Jersey's "Gipsy Law" should, similarly, not be included. A Czech translator and an academic source on the manuscript would be required to figure out if the law literally translated to "Act on Itinerant Gypsies" or "Act on Itinerant Roma". If it's the former, it's simply a misappropriation of the word "Gypsy" and does not belong in this article; if it's the latter, then it probably does belong in the article, but doesn't affect the misuse of the term "Gypsy" in the "Gipsy Law". The point remains that obscure laws and misuses of a word which with ties to the Romani culture and lifestyle are not examples of racial intolerance of Roma. Yes, Roma are historically itinerant, but this isn't an article about mistreatment of, or prejudice against, itinerant individuals or families. For most of the last millenium, the moneylending industry has been historically controlled by Jews-- To say that the "Gipsy Law" was an example of antiziganism is kind of like saying a 1917 New Jersey Law regarding banking loans would be an example of antisemitism.
I guess in summary, what I'm trying to get across here is that there's no factual or demonstrable connection between the "Gipsy Law" and Roma: in fact, I would be shocked if a single member of the 1917 New Jersey congress had ever even heard the word "Roma". There are more than enough serious examples of brutal and aggressive antiziganism throughout history and in the world today, and it distracts from the truth when you clutter the article with frivolous stories that have no connection to real antiziganism. Jrector703 (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation of discredited academic Ward Churchill?[edit]

Dismissed UC Boulder professor Ward Churchill's description of the relative injury to the Romani in the Holocaust is needlessly provocative and there is reason to be skeptical of his research methods. See his Wikipedia entry:

"In 2005, University of Colorado at Boulder administrators ordered an investigation into seven allegations of research misconduct.[31] On May 16, 2006 the University released the findings of its Investigative Committee, which agreed unanimously that Churchill had engaged in "serious research misconduct", including falsification, fabrication and plagiarism. The committee was divided on the appropriate level of sanctions.[2]"[[1]]

Surely there is a more trustworthy academic source for citation purposes...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Ţigancă împuţită"[edit]

President Traian Băsescu made the remark in a private chat with his whife, in their personal car. This chat was recorder with a mobile phone and then made public by the media trust controlled by one of Băsescu's political "enemy". Băsescu never had public discriminating remarks, by any nature (rasist, antisemit, antizigan etc). The picture will be deleted. Unuon, 22 july 2009

The image may or may not be deleted, but certainly not before discussion and consensus. In the meantime and in accordance with WP:CENSOR, the image should not be removed either from this article or from the project generally. RashersTierney (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. But does it could be mentioned that the remark was made in a private environment, not public? And the remark itself, although it may appear to be rasist, a lot of native Romanian speaking persons wouldn't judge in this way. In Romanian language there are some words or expression that could be considered as antiziganists or rasists (especially when translated) but are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unuon (talkcontribs) 17:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the incident and remark were controversial, (thus the protest and accompanying photo). I added the BBC as a source as to how they interpreted what happened, which makes it clear that Basescu was irritated and thought he was 'off the record'. But it is important that what a public representative says or does 'in private' should not be excluded for that reason alone. In many ways how they behave when they think the camera is off is far more important than when they know they're on show. Perhaps a direct quote of the phrase in question and let people make up their own minds whether it was antiziganism or something else? However, the more you attempt to rationalise this issue in the article, the more likely the overall effect will be to draw further attention to it. RashersTierney (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the statement was made in a public conversation, in a private conversation, on the earth, or on the moon, it is a racist statement. The difference between the public and the private speech just shows the hypocrisy of our politicians, which makes it even worse. And, indeed many Romanians make this kind of remarks in every day life because there are many racist Romanians. Kenshin (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusion in the Northern Ireland section[edit]

I think the incident referred to in the section on Northern Ireland is one of discrimination against Romanians (i.e. people from Romania) rather than Romani people (i.e. travelling people) - if I hear no objections I shall just remove the section, as I can't find a more suitable home for it in another article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Those were gypsies, please watch the related news items. Gypsies exist as a minority group in Romania and are not to be confused with Romanians. Cheers Lothandar (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think, in fact, in the infamous episodes of mid-2009 or thereabouts, the people involved were primarily Romani from Romania, so they were both. Ondewelle (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A sentence that doesn't make sense[edit]

"No distinction is made between a few criminals and the overwhelming majority of the Roma population (=criminals)." Centrum99 (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It probably means that all Roma are lumped together. Common racist tactics. Needs rewriting. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


I think the Norwegian section needs to be moved. If the sterilizitions have ended, it's not a current practice. It is likely to have occurred in Sweden too, by the way. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Antiziganism in Italy[edit]

I think the section on Antiziganism in Italy suffers from a one-way bias and tries to round-up sparse evidence to label Italian people and their government as narrow-minded racists, while always portraying Romanis in an immaculate light.

I would start by removing this paragraph:

"On July 3, 2008 it was announced that Italy had started fingerprinting their Romani populations, despite accusations of racism by human rights advocates and international organizations. Interior Minister Roberto Maroni told parliament the move was needed to fight crime and identify illegal immigrants for expulsion, but also to improve the lives of those legally living in the makeshift, often unsanitary camps.[2]"

In Italy fingerprinting is currently mandatory for every citizen requesting a passport (or an ID card), so it doesn't seem "racist" to expect the same treatment for citizens of Romani ethnicity living in Italy (see, use Google Translate for an English version).

I would also remove the next paragraph about the two Romani girls who drowned off in Naples. While a tragic event per se, it doesn't prove any Antiziganic sentiment in the local population, just despicable indifference, but nothing specifically targeted at Roma people.

As a refutation, please check this article and associated pics ( in 2009, on another beach near Naples a local man died in the same circumstances as the two girls and his body was left unattended on the sand for hours, while bathers continued swimming and basking in the sunshine. Again, there was vast condemnation of the bystanders' behaviour, but in this case the victim himself was Italian. So, what can we conclude from these episodes? Maybe something about those sunbathers' attitude towards death of fellow human beings, but nothing about antiziganism.

The following paragraph seems to be redundant:

"In September 4, 2008 the European Commission said Italy's census of illegal Romani camps does not discriminate against the Romani community. They said the census is in line with European Union law. An analysis of an Italian report on the census showed it did not seek "data based on ethnic origin or religion," said Michele Cercone, spokesman for European Justice Commissioner Jacques Barrot. The controversial fingerprinting programme has the sole aim of "identifying persons who cannot be identified in any other way," he said. The fingerprinting of minors was only being carried out "in strictly necessary cases and as the ultimate possibility of identification," Cercone said.[43][broken citation][44]"

It is not about antiziganism, quite the contrary: it justifies the Italian government stance on fingerprinting, so it negates the initial paragraph about racist fingerprinting. By getting rid of both parts we can make the whole section more readable and consistent.

The paragraph below is just a personal point of view, sympathetic to Roma people, but without any substantial and verifiable fact:

"In Italy, the government recently tried to blame the Romani population for crimes that happened in large cities[citation needed] and has claimed that there is a Roma Emergency. Marco Impagliazzo, president of the Community of Sant'Egidio human rights organization said: There is no national emergency ... What is an emergency is that in the 21st century the life expectancy of a gypsy living in Italy is under 60 years of age.[46]"

No citation is provided for the first part, the person quoted in the second part is wrongly identified (read the linked article), the data about life expectancy is totally unsourced. It should be entirely pruned in my opinion.

An actual crime that sparked vast uproar across Italy was the murder of a woman at the hands of a Romanian gypsy in 2007 (, it was the event that started the crackdown on illegal Roma campsites in the country (just google for "Reggiani Mailat", Reggiani is the victim's last name and Mailat the killer's). Maybe this one can be worth a passing mention.

So, I think that the whole Italian section can be safely reduced to fewer, more consistent, paragraphs. The current version was clearly blown out of proportion.


--Udermu (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

More countries[edit]

There are some obvious omissions here in terms of countries to be discussed. The two that stand out the most in their absence are France and Romania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

gypsies are divided in cast system and gypsies from upper class do not meet with lower class gypsies. They use them for labor , prostitution, and money boroving with big interest. many of the lower classs are drug addicts ( toluene / some of them dont know how many children they have. they live like asnimal. just few of them are normal and they dont meet with the scum from ghettos. they are workers, smiths etc, they are taken like everybody else. people hate the others that just stel iron, money, wood, kill and injure people and when somebody tells the truth then he is called rasist ( how it can bee when they are the same race ??? !( from people taht never seen gypsies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Misinformation in Slovakia section of Antiziganism[edit]

I have deleted an information on 2010 Bratislava shootings , which stated the six victims of that attack were Roma and therefore implicated this was anti-Roma attack in nature. Later, this has been proved not to be true, as only one of the victims were Roma as is also correctly stated in the aforementioned linked article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishqo (talkcontribs) 14:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Stereotypes out of nowhere?[edit]

The first paragraph suggests that it's only due to their isolation that theyre characterized as thieves. Perhaps a statistically higher rate of crimes might contribute to the stereotype (aka characterization of them as a group) that they commit a lot of crimes.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Second that. A recent research (done in 2000 by renowned crime researcher Szilveszter Póczik of the Hungarian Institute of Criminology) proved that over 50% of the inmates in Hungarian prisons are Roma. He performed this research by having over 4000 inmates voluntarily filling a questonnaire. The exact figure was some 54.5% but I am not sure. Now, Roma people make up 1% of Hungary's total population, according to CIA World Factbook, or 8% if you believe the most fat-mouthed Gipsy politicians. Is it really just a stereotype that Gypsies are generally criminals? Do the math and you'll find that every Roma family in Hungary has at least one convicted criminal, and that's only those who are in normal security prisons. (There are three levels in Hungary: "fogház" for petty crimes or first offenders, "börtön" for general criminals and "fegyház" for serious ones. This research was performed on "börtön" level inmates.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Also I'd object including the section about Hungary including the 2009 shootings at all. The trial of the alleged murderers has been pending for years now, and everybody doubts they were the real perpetrators. However it turned out that several of them worked for different intelligence services. It is a speculation that this murder was actually a provocation by foreign agencies to destabilize Hungary. Just like in the 1990s when alleged "gangsters" blew up cars on the streets of Budapest, and it turned out to be a diversion by Slovak secret services. Then their goal was to disrupt Hungary's efforts to join the European Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Second that. A recent research (done in 2000 by renowned crime researcher Szilveszter Póczik of the Hungarian Institute of Criminology) proved that over 50% of the inmates in Hungarian prisons are Roma. He performed this research by having over 4000 inmates voluntarily filling a questionnaire. The exact figure was some 54.5% but I am not sure."

It seems to me that these results only show that Hungary jails a lot of Roma, which is very, VERY different from justifying a ridiculous stereotype like this one in discussion here. Also, the prisoners filled the questionnaire voluntarily, which by no means proves that they were "sincere" in the responses given. Concerning the demographic data that you provided, the standards for census data collection is strongly based in the concept of sedentary residence, that skews the data related to nomadic people into something that doesn't represent their actual numbers. And I believe I would not be the only one here to say that the very racial profiling this article discusses may be the reason to such a high demographics of Roma in Hungarian prisons, IF and ONLY IF the data collected for this study could be validated through any sort of background investigation. All in all, it is the same as saying that, because 80% of Brazil's inmate population is composed of black or mulatto people, all the Brazilian blacks and mulattoes are thieves. Now, do you see how utterly ludicrous this line of thought is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It is equally ridiculous to present the figure as proof of the majority population's racism, yet somehow that variety of presentism prevails. There must be a lot of anti-racist racists comprising the majority. 00:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCA3:460:E038:355F:9661:5DB6 (talk)
Really? I mean R E A L L Y? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

deporting illegal immigrants?[edit]

Why is deporting illegal immigrants antizigansim ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Which part of the text are you refering to? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
He is specifically referring to the Germany section.GuyWithoutAUsername (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
You are right. I've deleted it. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Antiziganism in popular culture[edit]

I generally dislike these "in popular culture" sections (unless of course it's an article on a pop culture phenomenon) since they tend to trivialize the subject and serve as pointless coatracks, but in this particular case, it's especially wrong headed. Basically what you need here is a source which connects each of these instances to Antiziganism. It can't be just someone's opinion that that is what is. In particular that whole Criminal minds section is just plain WP:UNDUE. Bring up a source which says something like "The xyz episode of Criminal minds is an example of antiziganism or something similar, otherwise it's just WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Removing that one, probably whole section should go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and this is still a problem. I'm deleting the Children of Men one, which is the most egregious. AntidoteWasHad (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Need for Wiki Roma/Gypsy integration page[edit]

While it is important to methodically discuss discrimination, prejudice and racism directed towards the Roma the exclusive focus on victimization, the psychology of victimhood are not productive in solving real social issues especially if adopted by an entire population. Apparently, no Wikipedia page exists on Roma integration even though every EU member government as well as the EU itself are making significant efforts to promote meaningful Roma integration. Unfortunately, these efforts, most often than not, are not met enthusiastically by the Roma communities themselves. You can read for example the negative response of the Bulgarian Roma to the EU's plan for Roma integration:

It appears that traditional Roma survival skills whether cultural or instinctive serve to militate against integration. These survival skills and instincts are so deeply rooted in the Roma psyche that any level of integration is percieved as threatening not only at a communal but almost at an individual level. The challenge for the EU and individual governments will be to convince the Roma to accept, what's more, demand integration as the only possible road ahead while fighting discrimination, racism and prejudice at every step of the way.

Eravian (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Capitalisation of the words 'gypsy' and 'traveller'[edit]

The words 'gypsy' and 'traveller' have their first letters capitalised in an inconsistent way throughout the article. I'm happy to standardise this, so thought it worth asking here which is preferred -- I'd be inclined to use lower case. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As with ethnic groups generally, caps are more appropriate. RashersTierney (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I suppose you could also argue that because caps are more common in the article at present, there is an implied consensus towards caps already. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I have not edited the entire document, but I have used capitalization in the Scottish area due to the use of the term "Gypsy Traveller" in the Scottish Government's reports.--Soulparadox (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Biased text - The other side of the story largely missing![edit]

The text is missing all sorts of facts and sources on the reasons of rejection by the non-Roma host populations. I must admit here that I have no resources (time) to find the sources that I read, but I am citing from memory with quite a lot of details. Please note, I come from a region where the Roma population is completely negligible (ca. 0.05%), so "Antiziganism" is not part of our culture. I claim no biased approach.

It may be prejudice to draw any negative conclusions, but it might as well be not. However, a fact remains a fact, and whether we like it or not, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we should present facts (with no comments, of course).

What I read gives the following image:

  • The Romanipen is a set of Roma laws, which prohibits integration. Romas are quite successful in preserving their culture, but this fact is not considered an advantage by the host population, whose culture differs in principles, and which accuses the minority of refusing to work.
  • Romas, however, are not educated in the way their host nation requires, leading to poverty
  • There are countless articles of Roma people refusing to teach their children the language of the host country, which leads to massive unemployment
  • Pulling children out of school as early as at 15 has been reported. Such cases end up in courts, because in most countries school is obligatory till the age of 16
  • The reported losses due to theft in shops in Eastern Europe coincides with the density of population of Romas (standard around 0.8-1.5% vs ca. 3.2% where Romas are more densely present).
  • In regions, where the Roma population is a negligible or small minority, integration is more successful, and more and more Romas are economically successful. Some Romas lead quite successful lives along non-Roma neighbours in the same buildings. Such areas are less "Antizigan".
  • There have been reports of Romas abusing other Romas' illiteracy and lack of orientation in the "western" world. In Poland, a national newspaper reported that local Romani organization received compensation for forced labour during WWII in Deutschmark, but paid Romas the nominal amount in Polish Złoty, which was ca. 50% of the amount, or ca. 3200€ less per person. Several persons of Romani origin were charged with fraud.

Again, I was not bred on Antiziganism, the above are cutouts of what I read here and there, or heard from more than one person in a manner which I would consider "credible". I am not saying that my word is the source, but such facts are missing from the article. Not everything is black and white.

LMB (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The text is not only biased in form but it is also biased in tone. Wish I had time to make it somewhat more independent sounding — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

User:LMB needs to cite sources here in order to make a persuasive case for edits. I see no sources here. CraigBurley (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Also needs to remember this page is not a forum. Please keep comments directly relevant to how specifically the current text might be changed (or not). RashersTierney (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I have edited the section that had a "Personal essay" tag attached to it, as the section was indeed biased in tone and it appeared that the writer used the article as a campaigning tool. I am unsure about the remainder of the contents, but the tone issue needs to be monitored.--Soulparadox (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No information about Spain[edit]

The article should include information about anti-gypsyism in Spain. Actually the firts law against Roma people is not the law mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but a Law of 1499 published by Reyes Católicos, "Real Provisión de 1499, A.G. Simancas Marzo folio 35, 1499" (reference

There were many laws against Roma in Spain from 1499 to XX century. References: - Bernard Leblon, Los gitanos de España.Ed Gedisa 1993. - Antonio Gómez Alfaro, La gran redada de gitanos. Ed. Presencia Gitana, 1993. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmitriqueer (talkcontribs) 13:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Antiziganism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Antiziganism in Sweden?[edit]

I was surprised that there was no mention of Sweden in the article. While I am largely uneducated on the subject, I do know that there's been widespread discrimination against Roma in the past.

Based on my own experience, racism against Roma and middle-eastern immigrants are the most common current forms of racism in Sweden. (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Antiziganism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ (Sutherland, Anne (1986). Gypsies: The Hidden Americans. Waveland Press. p. 86. ISBN 0881332356 ISBN 978-0881332353)
  2. ^