Talk:Romani people/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

"Roma/Romani people" vs "Gypsies"

"Gypsies is more common than "both Roma and Rroma people" and according to Wikipedia policy, the title should be the most common version.

That's not a complete comparison though. "Roma" would also return lots of hits, although we're then faced with the issue of the Italian name for Rome being the same. But the point stands that comparing "Roma people" to "Gypsies" isn't comparing like with like. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Which wikipedia policy? The imaginary one in your head, or this one? Here are three key points from that policy page (please take special note of the third one):

  • Self identification: When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use.
  • Some terms are considered pejorative, or have negative associations, even if they are quite commonly used. Even though people may use these terms themselves, they may not appreciate being referred to by such terms by others (for example, faggot, nigger, tranny). Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term — a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders.
  • Roma is preferred over gypsy.
55% of Romanians (not Roma) consider that the term Roma is wrong and the corect term is Tsigan (Gypsy).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomád Terv (talkcontribs) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC) --> --> --> --> --> -->

So, considering the actual wikipedia policy specifically contradicts your argument, please stop. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

1.Germans don't call themselves germans, but "Deutsche", Albanians don't call themselves albanians but "Shqiptarë" the jews don't call themselves jews but "Yehudim", hungarians don't call themselves hungarians but "Magyarok", thus the " the terminology in english wikipedia is that which is most used in the english language ".
2.Gypsy is by far the most used term in english language by both the media and the academic and encyclopedic sources and cannot be included in the same category with Faggot, Nigger, Tranny . The word gypsy is considered peiorative by only a very little minority of this ethnic group thus being in contradiction with the majority.
3.Roma cannot be preffered over gypsy for the very simple reason that Roma is a sub-group of the gypsies, this means not all gypsies are Roma.Rezistenta (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding that second point of yours, where's your evidence for this? Sure, a lot of Roma do call themselves "gypsies", or don't mind that term, but it is definitely considered pejorative by a great many Roma. Otherwise, why would organizations like the Voice of Roma use that term, instead of calling themselves the Voice of the Gypsies? Sorry, the article already covers these issues with far greater care than you've shown here. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
My evidences are the number of hits per name, the most used name in english language is Gypsy, if the term was peiorative I guess it wasn't used by the media and by the academic and encyclopedic sources. The term itself is not pejorative. For example, grade school buys routinely insult others by calling themselves gay, but that doesn't make "gay" as a term referring to homosexual men an insult among society at large, similarly for expressions such as "to jew someone down". Organisations like that which you mentioned earlier use Roma for the same reasons why it was introduced in the first place by noumerous organisations and foundations sponsored by one man,George Soros . You're sorry for what? for not knowing to explain the etymology of the termn, and trying to impose it over a historical and much more known and historical linked term? Rezistenta (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Rezistenta, Your Google test is not applicable as "Roma People" is "Roma" set with a necessary qualifier "people" (presumably to avoid references to Rome and some tomatoes) yet will not register genuine use of "Roma" or "Romani" which in most cases will appear without the qualifier. (and "Gypsies" alone may be full of hits from Sonny and Cher lyric pages?) "Roma" is the correct term as per Britannica which is more reliable in this context. István (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place to debate a Wikipedia policy. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't debate any wikipedia policy, I read the articles and I follow the actual examples... Rezistenta (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I really think it would be best if we stop fueling this debate any further. There are clear and specific wikipedia guidelines on this issue (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)) so any further discussion seems to be a waste of time. Rezistenta, if you want to call in arbitration, you are more than welcome to do so. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Rezistenta is right. As long as the term "Gipsy" is more often use than the term "Roma" (or something like that), we shoult use the denomination "Gipsy" in order to handle according to Wikipedia rules without making exceptions. --Olahus (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the policy pointed by TheMightyQuill says that we should use here the name preferred by the given ethnic group. So, the dispute here should be about whether Roma prefer to be called Roma or Gypsy (in English, I mean). Of course, the article must mention that Gypsy is the main word, still, but that's another matter. So, do you have sources on how Roma/Gypsy prefer to be called? My favorite example are the Gypsy Kings, which obviously prefer to be called Gypsy. But artists may be an exception. Dpotop (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's only part of the issue. The other point from the policy is also important:

  • Some terms are considered pejorative, or have negative associations, even if they are quite commonly used. Even though people may use these terms themselves, they may not appreciate being referred to by such terms by others (for example, faggot, nigger, tranny). Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term — a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders.

So even if Gypsy was the most commonly used, because a significant number of people find it offensive, we are to go with the more neutral term, Roma. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Gypsy" is both neutral and common, so if you think that you are right you have to prove us that "Gypsy" is neither.AdrianCo (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly you dont mean neither - a careful reading of the policy reveals that the most common name may be excluded in favor of a less common name if the most common name is considered pejorative. "Roma" is favored over "Gypsy" not on common use criteria but because "Gypsy" is considered pejorative (as per a.m. reliable source). AND...(can't let that rhetorical sleight of hand pass unnoticed) the burden of proof falls upon one advocating a change - i.e. not upon those who accept "Roma/Romani People" as the preferred name. István (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Well ok. We all agree that some people call "Gypsys"/"Romas" as Gypsys. So you say it`s pejorative. So how come it is us that should come with evidence when it is you that should have done this from the first place! I mean...the only "reference" was a webpage from geocities. I don`t find that a "reliable source" you?! AdrianCo (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No, The MightyQuill is quoting Britannica, which says that "Many Roma find the word Gypsy pejorative" (beware, "many" is a weasel word). Dpotop (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
To AdrianCO: From my experience it's useless to discuss these issues. These "minority rights" guys are the same that imposed in the US the changes "negro->black->afro-american->african american". Of course the african-american minority remains discriminated, but the minority rights organizations justified their existence. Note they don't even care that these guys are calling themselves "Gypsy" or that this is the majority usage. And in the end, this entire discussion changes nothing: Just saying rom instead of gypsy won't change the prejudice against them. I suggest leaving them invent their new language. Dpotop (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
But from what I know Britanica isn`t a very good source...wasn`t wikipedia greater the it?! Furthermore they say "many" not "most". And`s still a second hand source. AdrianCo (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
1) Britannica (despite its limitations) is as uncontroversially WP:RS today as it was in 1911; 2) "Many" in this context means it exists and is noteworthy, whereas "most" (a majority) is not required by WP:NCI; 3) Our sources are required to be "second-hand" i.e. external (surely you mean "second-hand" in a different context? What then is first-hand?) István (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Istvan, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian are dialects of the Romanian language. Though, in Wikipedia, in the title of article of those idioms, they are called "languages", not dialects: Aromanian language, Meglenoromanian language, Istroromanian language. As you can see, the opinion of E.Britannica is irrelevant for Wikipedia. So, therefore, I insist to handle in the case of this articles according to Wikipedia rules without making exceptions. The name of the article must be changed into Gypsies, because thes term ist not just elder, but also more often used in English.
And according to the "pejorative perception" of the term "gipsy" by some (or "many") members of this ethnic group, we must proove first that most of them do have this perception.
You see, dear Istvan, the Croatians are a catholic people who live in the western Balkan region, mostly in Croatia and Bosnia. The Croatians don't feel sentimentaly tied with the Balkans. They even perceive as pejorative to be denominated as "balkanians". But, because they live in the Balkans, they are Balkanians, weather they like or not to be called as it. --Olahus (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
To Istvan: 1) see Olahus`s comment 2)can you prove that there is a greater number that preferes "roma" as a translation?!...look: romanianas are called as "vlahs" in the Czech Republic as a "bad thing"(or Poland, don`t remeber quite well now); however the VAST majority of people from Walachia take pride in being called "vlahs", so there is no problem, I think it`s the same thing`t not pejorative for us, so it`s not pejorative in english! 3)in this case I see first hand as a scholar reserch. AdrianCo (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I tink, the article shold be renamed into Gypsies. They are rules in Wikipedia and we must respect them. I suppose in this case the point of the user Rezistenta. --Feierabend (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's move it then to Gypsies. Marc KJH (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC) one seems to have noticed this, so I just thought I might point it out: Gypsy is a disambiguation page, and Gypsies is a redirect to that. --Kuaichik (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
An Administrator should redirect it. Marc KJH (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
As it can be seen in "Gypsies" disambiguation page, not all Gypsies are Roma, this page is about gypsies not only about Roma people Rezistenta (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
In most (english-language) contexts, the phrase 'Gyspsy' indicates a traveler, carnie, fortune-teller or nomad, not a member of a specific ethnic group. It is for that reason that the page Gypsy disambiguates to multiple pages and (aside from political correctness) why we use 'Roma' instead of 'Gypsy' for this article. I oppose a move on all grounds. The Myotis (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You're wrong. "Gypsy has a racial definition - for a people originating in north-west India who left in the first millennium AD, mainly heading north and west and spreading to most parts of Europe by the 16th century." BBC NEWS UK You oppose to something based on a mistaken belief thus your opposing arguments are not available Rezistenta (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC) and when do we move it?AdrianCo (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This way: Wikipedia:Requested moves One should make a request. Marc KJH (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The point isn't that it has a ethnic definition as in that most people do not use it that way. If anything, that article supports my view (e. g. Gypsy, when spoken, does not refer to a specific ethnic group) and so the argument that common name should be the article name is largely nulled, being that the common name is so indiscriminately assigned. Also, it is a bad idea to requests a move without consensus, unless it is your goal to irritate the mods.The Myotis (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Gypsies invented this words like Roma and others to create an confusion with Romanians that are latins and came from Daco-Romans and have nothing to do with nomad gypsies —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move: Roma people -> Gypsies

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No Move. Húsönd 20:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


As per above. Marc KJH (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree with this. Groups representing Roma people, such as the European Roma Rights Centre, use "Roma" rather than "Gypsy". Furthermore, some consider "Gypsy" to be offensive. Roma is used by the BBC, the IHT, New York Times, Encarta, Encyclopædia Britannica, the UN, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
We already talked about this, if you repeat the same thing over and over again it does't make it more reliable, the arguments presented in favour of moving Roma to Gypsy are much more supported by the facts Rezistenta (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're referring to your Google search, you're not comparing like with like. See my comments above. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
BBC tells them gypsy not Roma Here Rezistenta (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The BBC tend to use "Gypsy" when referring to travellers in the UK, and "Roma" for the ethnic group. Search for Roma on their website and you'll see. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Read the article, don't throw words in vain . Quote : " Gypsy has a racial definition - for a people originating in north-west India who left in the first millennium AD, mainly heading north and west and spreading to most parts of Europe by the 16th century."

read the discussion upper in the page, this aspects were already discussed Rezistenta (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read it. It may have a racial meaning, but that does not mean that it is the preferred term, nor does it mean it is exclusively used to refer to Roma people. You may want to take a look at this book. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The people already decided to move it. Marc KJH (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Who are "the people", and on what basis have they decided? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you're not on that list. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The majority decides. Marc KJH (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I could also recommend you a few books to read but still this aspects were already discussed upper in the page, come with something new if you wish to continue this debate. Rezistenta (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I've read the section above and I don't find any convincing reasons for a move. Do you have anything to support your case other than the flawed Google comparison? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you're not willing to accept the reasons. There are 4 archives to be read. You haven't so far read them. Spend some times reading them again and again. This article will be moved, despite you're against it. Marc KJH (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many reasons for moving this article, I will make a short summary for you :

1. This article is about Gypsies, not about Roma, not all gypsies (e.g. from Eastern Europe) are Roma
2. The term Roma has no historical affiliations with this ethnic group (as can be seen in etymology section There are no historical proofs to clarify the etymology of these words, they were known untill the late 90 by the term "gypsies" the whole world knows them by this term,
3. This term creeates confusion with other ethnic group with a similar name which in contrast with gypsies are historical linked with the term Rezistenta (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My reponse to point 1 would be that we should instead make this article about Roma people and move anything about other groups to the relevant articles. On point 2, I don't think we should be naming articles based on what the term used in the late 1990s was, but rather on what the term used today is. On point 3, isn't this what Template:Otheruses templates are for? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

1.I'm sorry but you're responses are inconclusive, according to the content, this article it's about Gypsies not about Roma. If you wish to make an article specisely about Roma you are more then welcomed.
2. As shown above, gypsy is still the more spreaded ethnonim for this ethnic group
3. Why using a term with no historical affiliations to this ethnic group and replace a correct and more spreaded one  ? Rezistenta (talk)

Just to focus on point 2 for a moment, what's the evidence that Gypsy is the more frequently used term? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of hits per name and the mentioning of such phrases like e.g. (Roma commonly known as Gypsies) in very popular encylopedias, The name Roma asignated to gypsies rarely comes without the much more spreaded and alternative name, "gypsy" Rezistenta (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, well as I've already stated several times I think your Google comparison is flawed. I'm not arguing against noting that the Roma are often referred to as Gyspies, but surely articles that state that Roma are commonly known as Gypsies do so because they use Roma as the title? Anyway, I sense that this discussion is going nowhere, so why don't we just have a simple vote? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only that this page shouldn't be called Gypsies, but it should be returned to the previous name of "Romani People" because this page is about the Romani People.

1. This page should not be called Gypsies because the term gypsy refer to various nomadic people, not only of Indian origin; and when it comes to those of Indian origin, it is also used for the Dom and Lom (Posha) ethnic groups that are distinct from Romani.
2. This page should not be called Roma People because Roma are just a branch of the Romani People, the largest, but nevertheless not all Romanies are Roma.

Not only that these forever tryings to hide the Romani People term are ridiculous, but they are also against the Wikipedia policy. I'm not even voting here for the reasons above. AKoan (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please add my vote as it all seems too confusing and long winded. I am from a Romani family which I feel gives me certain preference on this discussion as it is about my people. I am not ther best in reading and writing but my experience on the matter is probably more important than many. My vote - I am very Strongly against the use of the word Gypsy - Gypsy is considerred an insult amongst my family . I am for the use of Roms - Romane / Romani people. Against Roma people as this term is grammatically incorrect. --many thanks - Tsigan —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


  • Strongly agree as shown in all 4 archives full of debates regarding this aspect Rezistenta (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree move discussed above. AdrianCo (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This is totally absurd. However, since you're putting up this phony "vote", my vote is: Strongly oppose. "Gypsy" is not and will never be an encyclopedic term for this article. Apparently it's the same small group who're trying to push this through. Feh. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry that you think the vote is phoney. As you can see, I oppose the move too but thought a vote was necessary to show that it is widely opposed. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    (ec)Mind holding your tongue, Mr. Anonymous? We would be all grateful. Your anger is more likely more productively used in trying to write serious argumentations, rather than attack those who disagree with you - that I can guarantee from my experience. Good luck, but please, avoid making such unhelpful remarks in the future, ok? ;-) Snowolf How can I help? 19:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Opposed to this BIG PANDORA'S BOX for two reasons: 1. Not only is "Gypsy" OFFENSIVE to some, breaking WP:NCI, but also 2. "Gypsy" in common English usage, has a much broader scope of reference than the subject ethnic group, and any article named "Gypsies" must then also include references to travellers, nomadics, etc, AND separately those who have adopted a certain lifestyle or fashion (and good luck defining that lifestyle and fashion, btw). This page already struggles to define its own encyclopaedic boundaries - renaming it "Gypsy" would be both unencyclopaedic and chaotic. István (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the same reasons that Istvan stated. Asarelah (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree move In favor after reading discussion above. StereoDevil (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Voting is evil. We don't make editorial decisions based on "majority rules". We make decisions based on a consensus interpretation of our core content policies. In this case, consensus is not entirely clear, and this "vote" is far too small of a sample to be at all meaningful. For an important titling question such as this, larger community participation is required. This discussion should be advertised at a village pump, and I'm leaving a note at WT:NCI

    Additionally, we're dealing with a question more nuanced than Move vs. Don't Move. The scope of the article is called into question in this discussion - should the article be about the Roma people exclusively, or about the various peoples who have been called Gypsies?

    Perhaps the best solution is a combination of the two: one article on the Roma people, similar to our articles on other ethnic groups, and one article on Gypsies, which describes the history of the term, and explains how it has been applied historically to the Roma people as well as to others. The latter article could also deal with the more recent controversy in which the term is seen as offensive. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree move, in order to resepct the rules of this encyclopedia. --Olahus (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Gypsy can refer to Roma people, it can also refer to travellers in general. I am also uneasy with 'visability' being used to justify a move. We don't need to whore ourselves to search engine mechanics. Gypsy on its own would likely need a brackets disambiguator, current title does not and appears to conform to some of the guidelines. Narson (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even if no one found the term "gypsy" offensive, it's still a rather slangy and colloquial term unsuitable for describing this particular ethnic group. K. Lásztocskatalk 22:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Why was this article moved in the middle of the discussion? // Chris (complaints)(contribs) 23:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No idea but thanks to User:Lucasbfr it's now back. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support moving to something else than Roma people Seriously, how are the people from the city of Rome (considering in all latin languages the name of the city is Roma) supposed to be called then? I Believe that having what is decided the most-pollitically-correct and in paranthesis the best known version is by far the most productive. It is INFORMATIVE and does not offend either the group of people it describes (i.e. introduce name of the article here), nor the people that might be confused with (introduce name of the article here). Nergaal (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    That's a perfectly valid suggestion, but moving the page without discussing it first wasn't helpful. It now can't be moved back because there is a redirect in its place. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    Um... "Roma" and "Roman" (the English adjective for someone from Rome) are not the same word. In my experience these people are called "Roma" or "Gypsy", depending who's talking or where I'm reading. I've never been confused about "Roma" versus "Roman". -GTBacchus(talk) 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong (see below) oppose. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)#Ethnic and national identities Roma is preferred over gypsy when referring to the ethnic group, although the terms are not always synonymous. Those that I have known have consistently called themselves Romanies (singular Romany) and have regarded gypsy as offensive. Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose for many reasons, but here's one: if we really needed to move this page, don't you think we would have done it long time ago? I haven't seen a single editor who has edited this article before this year support this move. Doesn't that perhaps tell you something? --Kuaichik (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "gypsy" is more synonymous with Irish traveller in the UK (pop. 61 million) than Roma people. I'd think this would apply in other places too. Sceptre (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - This is silly and has been discusses for ages on this page without any alternative results. Wikipedia policy has, by name, specified Roma as the appropriate term. The Myotis (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree, changed my previous oppose vote to strong oppose. Andrewa (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose, possibly the silliest vote I've seen on Wikipedia. The suggestion to move an article from the name used in any encyclopedia to a derogatory term border on violating WP:POINT. I note in passing that no non-Romanian user seems to support the move. JdeJ (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) and encyclopedia links shown by User:Cordless Larry (esp. Encarta and Britannica). Callmederek (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Vote (continued, pasted from below)

  1. Strongly agree - I strongly agree to move the article towards Gypsies (Roma people) Marc KJH (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you listed that suggestion at Wikipedia:Requested moves? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There have already been a vote, you've lost (not that it would matter). Now get over it! AKoan (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Why are you starting a new vote section? What's wrong with the one above? And I would also suggest you take a look at WP:CONSENSUS - just because some people agree with your point of view does not mean that you have achieved consensus for something as controversial as a page move. // Chris (complaints)(contribs) 16:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
We'll see the results. Last time it wasn't proposed an alternative, now there is. Marc KJH (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose There's already a vote about a move in progress and this suggestion is even worse. If Marc KJH is unable to realise that offensive terms are not to be used as the titles for Wikipedia articles then that is, frankly, only his problem and nothing that need concern others. JdeJ (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment IF Mark is offensive, that probably that`s becasuse I he was called an "Idiot" just for suporting the move...(togheter with other users). The user that made the statement was not punished, and probably should not be on the first mistake, but then he said that he stood by his words....Anyway, I myself am still a bit frustrated that no apology was given, so please be civil, stop calling names and all...than you may get the treatment that you would like to have in a project such as this. AdrianCo (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - a complex issue. Actual Romanian Gypsies I've spoken to in the last couple of years - people who are secure in their separate ethnic identity and not trying to pass for Romanians - freely referred to themselves as ţigani. Their language they called romanes, but their ethnicity, ţigan, so I think the assumption the term is automatically offensive is off the mark. Not only do the great majority of Romanians use that term, but so do quite a few self-respecting Gypsies. On the other hand, for better or worse, the media and scholarly works have strongly come to prefer "Roma" in recent years, and we can't ignore that. So I think the status quo should stand until and unless a more convincing case is made for "Gypsies", but we can revisit the matter in the future. Biruitorul (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment You've said nothing new. There are Rromanies that find the term 'gypsy/tigan' offensive and there are others that don't. In this case the Wikipedia policy it is not to use the term. It is a simple problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKoan (talkcontribs) 10:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC) . I made the comment AKoan (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I could support a move back to Romani People, but lets finish the business at hand here first. Furthermore, I agree that there should be a definite moratorium on this particluar question (Roma>Gypsy) for a few months. István (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
No, we should not finish the business at hand here first. The move from "Romani People" to "Roma People" without a discussion was against Wikipedia policy since it was a very controversial title. That is the problem, not the move to "Gypsies". What is this, they move it from "Romani People" to "Roma People" and then from "Roma People" to "Gypsies" so that they have what to negociate??? AKoan (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a survey/straw poll count. It is not binding. It tries to approximate a solution like WP:NCI#Ethnic and national identities's WP:IMOS#Derry / Londonderry with special attention to WP:PNSD#Deletion, moving and featuring in an effort to present an estimate of community opinion on WP:RM#2008-03-23, which will soon become backlog. It starts with Talk:Roma people#Survey's first edit on 2008-03-23 and ends with its last edit on 2008-03-27

Strong Agrees: 2 + 0 anonymous
Rezistenta, Marc KJH
Agrees: 3 + 0 anonymous
AdrianCo, StereoDevil, Olahus
Neutrals that lean towards Agrees:2 + 0 anonymous
Snowolf, Nergaal
Neutrals that lean towards Opposes: 4 + 0 anonymous
GTBacchus, Lucasbfr, AKoan, Biruitorul
Opposes: 8 + 0 anonymous
Cordless Larry, István, Asarelah, Narson, K. Lásztocska, Sceptre, Callmederek, TheMightyQuill
Strong Opposes: 7 + 1 anonymous
ILike2BeAnonymous, Chris, Andrewa, Kuaichik, The Myotis, JdeJ,, thecurran

NB: It's hard to check this and write it at the same time, so I may miss the mark a little but here it comes. Registered Users:

Strong: Agree < Oppose (2 > 7)
Medium: Agree < Oppose (3 > 8)
Weak: Agree = Oppose (0 = 0)
Neutral: Agree < Oppose (2 < 4) NB: Neutrals are subjective.

Anonymous Users:

Strong: Agree < Oppose (0 = 1)
Medium: Agree = Oppose (0 = 0)
Weak: Agree = Oppose (0 = 0)
Neutral: Agree = Oppose (0 = 0) NB: Neutrals are subjective.

In an AFD vote, usually only the strong, medium, or weak positions of registered voters are counted. In none of those three sections did Agree achieve majority. Including neutral and anonymous positions creates 5 more sections, in none of which did Agree achieve majority. I will report that the participants of this straw poll, in general, opposed the requested move report on WP:RM#2008-03-23 where I think further discussion should continue. :)--Thecurran (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

An Etymology Theory

The concept Romanies is abused by the Gypsy activists (I mean by that not ethnic Gypsies, but political minded activists who hide a political agenda). During the ancient times, Romania meant the Roman Empire, and because after Diocletian (around year 283) the empire moved its center of power in the Balkans, the Eastern Roman Empire was synonymous with Romania. Therefore, all citizens of these society (starting with Caracalla, the emperor who empowered all free living human beings in the empire to call themselves roman citizens) were Romans. Greeks called themselves, romaioi, jews called themselves romaniotes, etc. The Gypsies came in this part of the world about the year 1000 where called by the Romaioi, Atsinganoi. Later on, some groups, who lived in the proximity of the latins of the Balkans, the vlahs, or the romanians (calling themselve also ruma, rum, aromanian, arman which created the patronim Armani) starting calling themselves ruma/roma.

Dear, what are you trying to tell it's a lie : "Later on, some groups, who lived in the proximity of the latins of the Balkans, the vlahs, or the romanians (calling themselve also ruma, rum, aromanian, arman which created the patronim Armani) starting calling themselves ruma/roma". This theory resembles very much with Roesler's theory. In this, Roesler says that the Romanians have imigrated in Transylvania after the Hungarian conquered this land, to justify their revenication about this land. It's very well known that the Hungarians are denying the Romanians right over Transylvania. The Romanians ancesters are the Dacians and the Latins from Roman Empire, even you don't agree with that. And the Romanians are calling Romanians not ruma, rum. The term Romanian it's older than the term Roma, Romani wich is trying to apoint the Gypsy etnics. The Romanians lived allways in Romania (Dacia) wich it's not in The Balkan Peninsula. So learn more geography and History. For all bozg...s, stop denigrating Romanian people. The stygmate what are you trying to put to the Romanians doesn't fit to them. The Romanians are called vlahs in Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomád Terv (talkcontribs) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC) --> --> --> --> --> -->

In 1949 Tito, who tried to control Yugoslavia through a divisive policy, founded the first a "Roma" political activism. From that moment, the "Roma" activism was entrenched in the leftist (communist) camp, being financed and stimulated by leftist ideologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"Roma" is the name the gypsies now prefer for themselves, however historically inaccurate it may be), was immediately picked up by the left-wing European media (see e.g. the Guardian’s "UN Report says one in six Roma is starving", 1/17)
As a people (or, more accurately, a collection of disparate groups) originating in India’s Gujarat, gypsies were the camp followers of Mongol invaders of Eastern Europe in the 13th century. Once within the Byzantine Empire, they adapted the Byzantine self-defining term of Romaioi ("Romans" in Greek), given Byzantium’s claim to be the direct successor of the (Eastern) Roman Empire. Hence today’s historically absurd self-definition as "Roma." Source 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Rezistenta (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
There are many theories related to the etymology of Rrom/Rroma/Rromani including this one advanced by the Romanian Michael Radu. However Rromanies started to use the word Rrom for themselves in the past, this doesn't change the present situation. AKoan (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Michael Radu is an American political scientist and journalist born in Romania, he is not Romanian. He is Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Rezistenta (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, he is just born in Romania... AKoan (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he's gypsy ethic from Romania (Romania comes from Romanians, not from Roma, Romani, Romanies, etc... bullsh...t). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomád Terv (talkcontribs) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC) --> --> --> --> --> -->

Roma people in Hungary: 8-10%

(Roma people means Roms people - should be Romani people) - —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 29 July 2008

the appalling social and economic situation of the Roma, who account for between 8 and 10 percent of Hungary's 10 million people that means 800,000-1,000,000. --Marc KJH (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I would imagine that there are quite a lot of estimates floating around though. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This was in response to [4] Now there are references. Marc KJH (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. You should probably add a reference to the figure in the table to stop it being reverted. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Done. Marc KJH (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not 8-20 percent? Do they all have identity cards? I believe not. It's posible...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomád Terv (talkcontribs) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC) --> --> --> --> --> -->
Can someone do me (us) a favor and extract the part of that PDF that's relevant and post it here? I tried to download the damn thing, and after about 6 megabytes, Adobe Reader gave up and said the file was damaged or corrupted somehow. How can people post such gargantuan documents in good conscience? There ought to be a warning label attached to them. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The 8-10 per cent figure comes from here, which isn't a PDF, so I presume you're referring to the DEMOS document. It states: "In the general census of 2001, 189,984 individuals claimed to be ethnic Roma. Experts and Roma organisations put the number of Roma living in Hungary between 450,000 and 600,000". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Where are the archives

Why aren't the archive links working? Rezistenta (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the page has been moved (without discussion). Cordless Larry (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No, the archives didn't worked also before that, that's not the reason, we should fix this in the future Rezistenta (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You can access them at Talk:Romani people/Archive1, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It's probably due to double redirects. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok now it's fixed, thx for the cooperation Rezistenta ::::::(talk) 23:37, 23 March 2008( UTC)
I have moved back the article to Roma people since it seems not to have consensus. -- lucasbfr talk 23:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You shouldn't. It's more consensus to move it not to stay in present form.Marc KJH (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There was consensus to move it to Roma people (gypsies)? No one was even proposing that! Cordless Larry (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I move it to Gypsies (Roma people) This can be a good compromise. Marc KJH (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you can't just move it without agreement. I'll request for it to be moved back again. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
More people support this version. Sorry. Marc KJH (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The vote above seems to suggest otherwise. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
People should at leas learn how to count before coming here. AKoan (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course it does. This is a unilateral move and should simply be reversed. Andrewa (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Marc KJH is now accusing me of vandalism at User_talk:Cordless_Larry#Test. Very grown-up! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks User:Jeepday for moving it back. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Who changed the article from Romani to Roma in the first place? That was vandalism, too! AKoan (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, could someone please fix the archives? A huge (and I think I could say a very important) chunk of the previous discussions is currently missing. They can still be accessed, sure (via earlier diffs of this talk page), but it really would be nice if someone could fix this. Whether that means putting the archives back or putting some of the formerly archived information on the main discussion page, I personally think either way is fine. --Kuaichik (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There are links at the top of this page to them. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I know, but they're not the right ones! Can someone please fix this? --Kuaichik (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've had a go but there seem to have been parallel discussions going on. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How dare you call my people "Gypsy"!!

I am from a Romani family and my family find the title "Gypsy" very offensive. The title is short for Egyptian which in todays time we know is definetely not what we are. I thought we lived in a time of political correctness. I can understand gypsy being directed here but to actually have it in the title. Please remove the word from the title as surely this is wrong. Tsigans / Cigans is acceptable as this is a title used by many Romani groups themselves. signed "Chavo" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In view of this, perhaps you want to cast your vote above against moving the article to "Gypsy". (Probably not going to happen, but would be good to register your opposition.) +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
For real gypsies it's not shamefull at all to be called gypsies. Marc KJH (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess the "Gypsy kings" are not from the same ethnic group as you are. Dpotop (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of them are more Gypsies than others. Marc KJH (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Nobody said that there are not Romanies calling them self gypsy, especially in the music world, but that changes nothing of the things said above. AKoan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
How doesn't this change nothing? If this a peiorative term I think they would't call themselves by this name, it does change the things, it makes some your statements look like a BIG LIE. Rezistenta (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you at leas understand what i've said? There are many Romanies that find the term 'gypsy' offensive, but there are also others that don't, like the Gipsy Kings. How did you contradict me? AKoan (talk)
If Rumanians want to come into the EU and want to be recognised as good Europeans then they should recognise the English language. Rumanians - not Romanians as this confuses them with the Romani people and the Western Europeans speaking languages such as English have recognised as the word Romani for hundreds of years. Rumanian with its spelling instead of Romanian is also a word lasting along time. A(talk) 20:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually many people that try to call themselves "gypsy" are just plain old travellers and don't even have "Romani" blood. This especially the case in the UK and the United States where normal European travellers are looking for an identity. The Gitanos of Spain call themselves Kale or Gitano / Cigano (from Tsigane). Gipsy Kings only used the word "Gypsy" to recognised of their background to the universal market. The name is probably more to do with marketing their music as opposed to a name they use amongst their own people. Signed 'Chavo' —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You will find Roma, Romani very offensive term in 15 - 20 years like Gypsy. It's like an old proverb that says : "the wolf canges his hair, but not his habits". Perhaps, later we will call them Hungaros. Like it? You deserve it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomád Terv (talkcontribs) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The word Romani has survived over a thousand or so years being passed down all the way from India. The term Gypsy has only been applied to the Romane people since they have been in Europe. There is a rap group called NWA which stands for Niggas with Attitude. As Europeans branded Africans as Niggas and as some music group calls itself Nigga, does this mean we can have a page on Wikipedia titled 'Niggas'???!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Maybe so, but Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, this Wikipedia is foul of subjectivities. To understand, why Romanians don't like to be confused with Gypsies read this : But, if Wikipedia is made of subjects like you, that means there is place for one like me. Respect me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomád Terv (talkcontribs) 19:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that was one of most racist blogs I have read recently.--Jahilia (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


This article appears to have been moved from Roma people to Gypsies (Roma people) without consensus for the move, by User:Marc KJH. I have restored it to the original version. Jeepday (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I notice that the user id in question has only existed for a short time, has been accused of being a sockpuppet, and has already been blocked once for violation of the 3RR. Andrewa (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to User:Zzuuzz for protecting the page against further moves as well. Sad that it had to happen though... Cordless Larry (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Also the people who changed Romani into Roma and than Roma into gypsies should be considered vandals here. AKoan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Mark has been checked, and his id is alright, so what`s the problem with him, that he once broked the 3rr rule??? Come on, almost all editors make that mistake. AdrianCo (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
True, but he also moved this page against consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I also see that a lot of people agree with my move. Marc KJH (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"a lot of people agree" is not a consensus. It wasn't even a majority. AKoan (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment from a gypsy point of view

being a gypsy myself I must say untill few years ago I never heard about the term Roma or Romani for our group, the new term is certainly not pushed by us but more probable by others, we use the term cigane or tsigane to desigante ourselves not roma or romani .. I wanted to clarify this because I see many untrue things probably commented by non-gypsies (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Just curious; what part of the world are you from, if you don't mind? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Europe (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Mind narrowing that down a little bit? Europe's a big place, especially culturally speaking. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Eastern Europe, Bulgaria form a region called Dobrich, why is my location so important ? (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Important? Don't know; I'm curious, but it may be relevant; different places have differences in how the local Roma population identifies themselves. By the way, I haven't been there, but I've been to Varna, so I have some familiarity with the area. (I've heard, and danced to, red-hot Roma musicians at Koprivshtitsa, for instance.)
So you're part of Dobrudzha (spelling?), correct? To me, one of the most fascinating parts of Bulgaria (at least musically speaking), because of the mixing of Bulgarian and Romanian influences. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You may be a 'gypsy' dude, but you surely are not a Rrom AKoan (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's interesting... the Romanies I have known wanted to be called that, but talking among themselves they called themselves cigane as you say. But not to outsiders. Andrewa (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually knew that but I wasn't so sure untill now, now i'm 100 % positive that they aren't using the term Roma/Romani or whatever Rezistenta (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that User: has now been permanetly blocked as an open proxy. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess someone is playing hard not to move this article. Someone is double here. Marc KJH (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The IP seemed to be supporting the move though. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
So someone is playing hard to move the article. AKoan (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The word Rom means 'husband / respected married male' and his wife is a Romni in most Romani groups. Some Roms may call themselves Tsigane as a racial group but never "Gypsy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so maybe someone forced the Gypsy Kings to call themselves Gypsy? I know my argument is a bit nauseating after so many repetitions, but so is the oppinion repeated above. As concerns the argument "We should call them Rom because men call themselves Rom because it means respected married male", well, it has nothing to do with our naming argument here. After all, we call an English man English, not Husband. Dpotop (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
"Gipsy Kings" it's a name that some manager gave them so to make appeal to the romantic image of the "gypsies". They didn't even spell it correctly. Iberian Romanies don't even have "gypsy" as an exonym, but "gitano". Same thing with "Taraf de Haidouks/Band Of Gypsies". I don't think that the members of the taraf even knew the word "gypsy" before (or haidouk for that matter). AKoan (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Your argument is again fallacious. You somehow claim that a Spanish band would never choose an English name by itself, because... it is not a Spanish name. It's obvious that no Spanish guy would know how to choose an English name. :):):)
However, they assumed the name, and everybody knows why: Because Gypsies (and not Roma) are well known around the world for their music. The word "Roma" is also promoted by NGOs in Romania and France instead of the traditional Tsigan/Gitan, but somehow the music is still called Tsigan/Gitan. It's only when talking about poverty and crime that Gypsy/Tsigan/Gitan is no longer acceptable. Dpotop (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
And since your are proudly correcting other people's spelling, here are some informations to improve your culture:
Not here in North America it isn't; I've never seen "gipsy" in print here, but see "gypsy" all the time. Maybe in Europe it's common. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This is "English" Wikipedia, not "North American" Wikipedia. Please, next time check your facts before questioning other people's spelling. Dpotop (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think ILike2BeAnonymous was suggesting that we go with the North American usage, but was simply pointing out that there may be differences between American and European spelling of the word. In the UK, it tends to be the case that tabloid newspapers (especially The Sun) use "gipsy" (i, lower case g) (see here), whereas the broadsheet press use "Gypsy" (y, upper case G) when referring to Travellers (see here) and Roma when referring to, well, Roma (see here). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think ILike2BeAnonymous was quite clear in saying that "gipsy" is an incorrect spelling, and that statement was used with a deogatory sense (hence my reaction).(actually, it was AKoan) Your explanation, however, is interesting. Are there sources which we could cite on that? Dpotop (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Where in the world do you get that? Please re-read what I wrote; I said nothing about "correct" or "incorrect", but merely pointed out that "gipsy" is not used here in North America. Your poor reading comprehension throws your ability to edit this article logically or objectively into doubt. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
My sincere apologies. It was indeed not you, but AKoan. I strike my false affirmation. Dpotop (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the links I provided could be used as examples, but I'm not aware if anything has been written comparing usage of the terms. I'll see what I can find. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I can find plenty of examples, but nothing analysing the use of different spellings/capitalisations. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • the Gipsy Kings originated in France, where their parents were living after fleeing Franco's Spain. So it's still a Spanish Gipsy tradition, but the guys were raised in France, and maybe learned some English at school.Just like the Romanians from the Taraf des Haidouks. Dpotop (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If the word 'gipsy' is as common as you say why did you use 'Gypsy Kings' until now? And if they learned the word 'gipsy' at school (did YOU learned the word 'gipsy' at school?) this doesn't change the fact the the word 'gypsy/tzigane' is used in the music business for commercial purposes since there is a market for 'gypsy music'. And the fact that Romanies in the music business don't find the term 'gypsy' offensive doesn't change that fact that others do. AKoan (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. good thing you don't make demeaning comments on others any more. Now, I would be curious to know during which class, in your school, did you learn the word "Gypsy"? Is there some standard reading in the USA covering this word? My English classes did not include it. Like many others (a majority in the world, I presume), I learned this word from literature and media. Fortunately, there are more things on this world and I know more things than those taught to me at school. And I learned that word as "Gypsy". Now, in Britain and elsewhere it's sometimes spelled as Gipsy (see above comment) and before you came with your demeaning comment I didn't even pay attention to it (there are other words spelled in various ways, especially in a multi-cultural environment, such as the one in which I live). Given that several respected dictionaries say "Gypsy=Gipsy=Roma", your arguments are... tiring. Dpotop (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You are the one who brought school into discussion. And don't take it personal.
Legend has it that one day a particularly enthusiastic fan asked their name. She commented that since Reyes means "kings" and because they were Gypsies, they should be Gypsy Kings. The name stuck, altho was misspelled Gipsy, with the "i" instead of "y" - taken from It was an American fan that suggested the name 'Gypsy (Gipsy) Kings' and it was Stephane Karo that gave the name 'Taraf de Haidouks/band of Gypsies' to the lautari from Clejani. AKoan (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Romani people and vandalism

This article should be called "Romani People" since it's about Romanies, not about "gypsies", nor just about Roma (as a Romani branch). The term "gypsy" it's incorrect and also pejorative for many, the term Roma only refers to the eastern Europe Romanies.
The Wikipedia policy it's clear and the term proffered by the ethnic group itself should be used. Nobody can't impose another term to an ethnic group. Thats the most ridiculous thing ever. It doesn't matter the the Germans call them self Deutsch. IF THE GERMANS WOULD ASK than the article about Germans should be called Deutsch.
There should be distinct articles for gypsies, Roma and Romani people since each of these terms denote different things.
The users that moved "Romani people" to "Roma people" and "Roma people" to "Gypsies" are both vandals since the firs move was even without a discussion and the second without reaching a consensus. So the article should not be reverted to Roma people but to Romani people. AKoan (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The page was moved by Bogdangiusca the Administrator, he is not a vandal and Roma is alot more used then romani by academic and encyclopdic sources, Rezistenta (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
it doesn't matter that he is an Administrator, the page should have been moved after a discussion where a consensus was reached. AKoan (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)\
it does matter, when the page was moved from Roma to Romani it was never made a poll about this, take your toys and go play elsewere Rezistenta (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Man, you are funny. He shouldn't even make a poll, the move should have been discussed and a consensus should have been reached. AKoan (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
well this didn't happened... Rezistenta (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
exactly... AKoan (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's move it to Tsigan since Webster calls them like that. Marc KJH (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting suggestion, but against WP:NC. Very few English speakers would have heard the term, the terms in common use in my experience are Romany (or Romani I guess is the same word) and of course Gypsy. I'd guess this is due to the Romanies often keeping to themselves. When I've been speaking to them, they'll use the word "tsigan" and then, realising I'm an (invited) part of the conversation, say something like "that's our word for the Romany people". Andrewa (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"Let's move it to Tsigan", "Let's move it to Gitan", "Let's move it to Bohemians".. give it a break will you, the article it's not going anywhere:) AKoan (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

English Romanichals refer to the "Roma" coming into England from Eastern Europe as "Roms". Roma translates into the English language as "Roms". Roma is the Romani way of spelling Rom as a plural. This article is in the English language and not Romani - —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 29 July 2008

Stupid dispute

Indeed, I think this whole dispute is silly. On one side one has "minority rights" guys that would not accept "gypsy", and on the other you have guys that won't accept "roma", even if it's used by a sizeable part of media nowadays.

- There is not a "minority" who find Gypsy as offensive. Most Roms do not have a PC and do not speak the English language so are therefore relying on the "minority" to argue their case. Most Roms around the world do not like the term and find it offensive. It is none Romani people who use the term to discribe them or sell them as a people. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 29 July 2008

And nobody proposes the actual middle way, which is to present both names (and others, such as Tsigan) on an equal basis, just like it's done in dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster. Dpotop (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Tsigan works for me too. I think it's very neutral and beside comes from Merriam-Webster which is a powerful source. Marc KJH (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
So you're now suggesting three different moves? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The actual name cannot stand, I hope you realize this. Any new proposal is better than this one. Marc KJH (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The actual name is the one generally used. Marc KJH's behaviour starts to look a lot like disrupting Wikipedia. JdeJ (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the current name is, but beware that any of Roma, Gypsy is OK (there are reliable sources for both). For Tsigan is not so clear, because it's about English language usage. So, I still think this dispute is stupid, and the only issue here is explaining that both names are OK, and why. And then, you make a link and that's it. Dpotop (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

All disputes are stupid in a sense. That's dispute as opposed to discussion. When we discuss things, we learn, and Wikipedia grows. When we dispute things, we refuse to learn, and at best we waste our time.
But I'm still reluctant to allow gypsy in the article name. It's offensive to some of the people described, there are good alternatives, and both our naming conventions and many, many previous discussions have ended up rejecting gypsy. Andrewa (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Andrewa, what do you think of the idea of having two articles, one on the Roma/Romani people, and another on gypsies in general, covering the various ethnicities that have been called "gypsy" and the connotations surrounding that term? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
In a way we have the beginnings of that with the Gypsy disambiguation page. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
And what do you make of dictionaries saying that gypsy is roma except for a figurated sense? Dpotop (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that the way it is now, with a disambiguation page and separated articles for each ethnic group, is the best solution. AKoan (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The disambig page is misleading and WP:OR because it invents senses for the word Gypsy. For instance lists there "Sea gypsies" as if they were Gypsies (and before answering me remember that a Sea lion is not a Lion). Gypsy, in English, is either Roma, or someone with a similar lifestyle. And Merriam Webster points that in the first case you write "Gypsy", and in the second one "gypsy". Dpotop (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
What?!?! This hole discussion exists only because some Romanians (not me) are afraid of being confused with Rromanies because of the name similarity and you are proposing a solution where the distinction is made only by the capitalization of the first letter of a word?!?!?! AKoan (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 :::::For shore you're not Romanian. See, you make just a litke discrimination. You are a nice human right activist. You litle devil... They haven't the right to say? It's bad? In the opinion of human rights activists, if you don't agree with them you are making a discrimination. Nice............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomád Terv (talkcontribs) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC) --> --> --> --> --> -->
This is simply incorrect; at least etymologically speaking, "Gypsy" also applies to those who seem or behave like "true Gypsies". In fact, one of the definitions in my dictionary (American Heritage) is "One that resembles a Gypsy in appearance or behavior". Hence the use of the term in such meanings as "gypsy cabs", "gypsy workers", etc. All of which properly belong on a disambiguation page. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Your approach seems to be based on 2 fallacies:
  • If I follow your argument, "etymologically speaking", a "Sea lion" applies to the sea mammal species that (remotely) behaves like a lion. So, you should create a disambig page Lion pointing to "Lion (feline)" and "Sea lion". ADDENDUM: actually, there is a disambig page for Lion, but the main article is still on the feline.
  • Do you think that saying "behaves like a true Gypsy" and "behaves like a true Roma" are somehow semantically different? Dpotop (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually 'Sea lion' is on the disambiguation page of 'Lion' and so is the rock group 'Lion', although they are not real lions too:) AKoan (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

Does anyone agree that the external links section needs cutting down? I propose deleting any dead links, getting rid of those to NGOs that are locally based in cities (such as Leeds) and just leaving the major national or international ones, and getting rid of some of the resource-type links. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes! And all unsourced and dubiously sourced statements need to be marked with [citation needed] or [dubious ], and deleted after 2 weeks or so. Dpotop (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Roma Homeland in Rajasthan

It is not Roma homeland. Roma in English translates as "Roms" as 'a' makes the word a plural. Therefore by saying Roma homeland we are saying Roms homeland. It is Romani Homeland. If you say Rom's Homeland then Rom's is a reference to a single Rom - correct? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 29 July 2008

Section seems like a complete WP:CRUFT anyway and probably an attempt by some European freak to get rid of Roma people as being discussed here: [5] based on a supposed nostalgic desire that may or may not have been expressed by Roma people. Desione (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a look for sources for this claim recently and couldn't find any, so I agree with you - this should go. 00:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Certainly a section on "Roma interaction with modern India" in place of this section would be more respectable and could be well cited. Removing this section for now. Desione (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it then. Create a "Roma interaction with modern India" section. Would be good. Lihaas (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Romania - different - Roma or Rroma or Gypsies

There's great injustice for The Romanian Nation to use the name Roma, Romani for Gypsies. It's a big confusion. The strangers can say that Romania is the land of the Gypsies. See Romani for Gypsies. This is an aberation. Or Roma. What's that? That's sh...t. Nobody asked Romanians if they agree with that and that's a shame to hide the Gypsies behind the Romanians. Romanian - different - Gypsy or Roma. Unless use the term Rroma for no confusion. I don't care that in English they ended to call Roma. The rules are made by man. Romania is the land of Romanian Nation. The minority of Gypsy Etnie should not use the name of country. How about Francs for Gypsy from France instead French people? Nice isn't that? Or Brits instead British people? Corect? Or Hongory insteand Hungarians? True? Should I continue? Ok. Germa for Germans, Itals for Italians, Spans for Spanish, etc. So Ady from Japan , Tara unde poate iti vei lumina mintea, you in quality of Romanian not as Gypsy or "Rroma" and not Roma, you must watch for interest of your country. It's about identity of Romanians (Rumanians) Nation and not about discrimination. It's about the right to exist with the name in respect. The Gypsies can build their respect with an solid education and decently instead steeling Romanians identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

None of this makes any difference to the title of the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a reflection of your own views and therefore uses generally accepted terminology. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My friend... The Rom or Roma name has nothing to do with Romania - "There is no etymological connection between the name Roma (ethnicity) and the city of Rome, ancient Rome, Romania, the Romanian people or the Romanian language." It is a mere coincidence! Read the etymological section of the article before saying such... ignorant platitudes! The Ogre (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What strange coincidence! In my ignorance, there's almost no difference between Romanians and Romanies. You must listen first very carefully the name and after that you can make the difference. It's very nice to observe in my ignorance that for the first time it was Roma, after that it was Romanes, after Romani and now Romanies. In what language are you writing in this page? I suppose that it is English. Ok, then, why do you decline that words in the Gypsies language in English. How nice, you ignorant. You can do better then speaking lies and acuzing me for ignorance. Let's be clear : what's the image of Romania in Europe? A land that provides Gypsy children to the streets of Europe. So why me, why should I be Gypsy? Only because I'm Romanian, not Gypsy (see confusion Romani, Romanies, Romanes). You can say all the great things, that make a noble man. Romanians are Romanians and the Gypsies are Gypsies. Every people can chose his way of beeing. Romanians have already one (Romania is a country of Romanian Nation; remember the name), so The gypsies can now chose their way respecting the others. See Romanians. Do that and that's ok. Please don't tell me bulsh..ts like English already chosed the name for the Gypsies. You can see the name's variety for theese. Now it's a proces to define theese peoples (the gypsies). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomád Terv (talkcontribs) 05:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Nomád Terv (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Romania" does not disqualify "Roma people". (nor does "Rome") History is full of examples of similarities: Syrian is not Assyrian; Hungarian is not (strictly) Hun; Navajo, Sioux and Comanche are not from India; Prussians and Russians are not related as their spellings might suggest. We deal with such ambiguities with a proper disclaimer (as The Ogre points out above). Could one imagine Cato taking umbrage at some upstart Daccians usurping the hallowed name of the Città Eterna for themselves? Maybe, but it hardly matters; Romania is the name of the country, Rome the city, and Roma the ethnicity. If we need an extra sentence to sort the ambiguity, then write one so its sorted. István (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I like very much your observation. It's very ok. What can I say? I say that you dont deesagree the name Hungaros for Gypsies. It's true? Cause every time from now when I'll write here I will use this therm. I Know that you are Hungarian (after name) and I know very well that ERRC (European Roma Rights Center) is cordonated from Hungary by Hungarians. So asume yourself this duty. Cause you have a lots of duties. The ideea is to not put the identity of Gypsies (Hungaros) to the Romanians. You created this name. Now in all Europe, all the europeans if they see a Gypsy (Hungaro) to the streets of Europe, automaticaly they say it's Romanian beaucause in their imagination is their land. Nice? A Romanian is different by etnie and language to a Gypsy (Hungaro). Romanians did not protest to this problem but they will. Now in all Europe, a Gypsy (Hungaro) from another European country (Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, Spain, France, Germany, England, Irland, Poland, etc.) is identified with a Gypsy (Hungaro) from Romania. Why? Beacause in their ignorance , europeans put the stygmate to Romanians. Which of you have been in Romania, land of the Romanians (not land of Gypsies (Hungaros))? Do you know us? No, you don't. All that you know is the kids with SIDA and the Gypsies (Hungaros). The Gypsies (Hungaros) are a integration problem to all Europe. Let's be clear. A tendence to migrate the Gypsies (Hungaros) to a specified country will not resolve their integration problem. All european countrys have citizens of Gypsie (Hungaro) etnie. So assume your citizens and don't disconsider the Romanians for something that they're not. Gypsies (Hungaros) are Gypsies (Hungaros). For you all imagine this name association for the european nations every time when you go outside, and even in your country. Szia! Good night! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomád Terv (talkcontribs) 22:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Your feeling of injustice that the Roma have a name that is in someway similar to Romanians doesn't change the fact that this is an encyclopedia. Britain sounds like Brittany but we don't change the name of its entry because of that, do we? It doesn't matter what the origins of the name are, the point is that it's the accpeted name and therefore Wikipedia uses it. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean she's not from Britain? ;-) That's a good one - another one even closer is Georgia and Georgia; I don't see the two being too upset at the other. About the renaming issue: remember, there are often two reasons for something: the good reason and the real reason. I believe the above passage (by Nomád Terv) is the best yet description of the real reason. István (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(moved from attempted re-start of identical duscussion in a new section):

Romania - different - Roma or Rroma or Gypsies

There's great injustice for The Romanian Nation to use the name Roma, Romani for Gypsies. It's a big confusion. The strangers can say that Romania is the land of the Gypsies. See Romani for Gypsies. This is an aberation. Or Roma. What's that? That's sh...t. Nobody asked Romanians if they agree with that and that's a shame to hide the Gypsies behind the Romanians. Romanian - different - Gypsy or Roma. Unless use the term Rroma for no confusion. I don't care that in English they ended to call Roma. The rules are made by man. Romania is the land of Romanian Nation. The minority of Gypsy Etnie should not use the name of country. How about Francs for Gypsy from France instead French people? Nice isn't that? Or Brits instead British people? Corect? Or Hongory insteand Hungarians? True? Should I continue? Ok. Germa for Germans, Itals for Italians, Spans for Spanish, etc. So, it's about identity of Romanians (Rumanians) Nation and not about discrimination. It's about the right to exist with the name in respect. The Gypsies can build their respect with an solid education and decently instead steeling Romanians identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomád Terv (talkcontribs) 16:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the responses to your identical comment above. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In the English language Romani for the Romani Gypsy people is recognised. Romani for Romanians is not recognised within the English language - simple. Rumania and Rumanians is recognised within the English language. If you have a hang up then use the latter form of the word - thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

'for Hardless Larry : Dear I'trying to make You understand that I have the right to say that. Others like you don't understand that. So, for every day that this article exists I consider that it's my duty to write those words. If you don't like it shut up and don't interfere in this.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You have the right to say it, but it doesn't mean that we should change the name of the article. This has already been extensively discussed above and the consensus was against a move. You say that "I don't care that in English they ended to call Roma", but this is the English Wikipedia so we go with the establshed English name. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

NT - are you trying to make a point? Why then would you do this [6]? it is contrary to your stated goal of disambiguating the two groups. Please make your points in a more civil and constructive way. István (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, stop this campain about this big lie. You are playing with lifes of milions peoples. Do not make an injustice. Let's say a true: all the Europe doesn't agree with Gypsies habits (with Gypsies majority). So do not make a people guilty (the Romanians) for Gypsy people. Gypsies are cityzens in all European Countrys (Gypsies are living in all Europe and they're not coming only from Romania; see they're history). So, respect them if you have so much equdistance with all their qualities and defects. Even if you don't like it. So..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomád Terv (talkcontribs) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC) --> --> --> --> --> -->
Once again, you've missed the point. Wikipedia hasn't created the name Roma for the Roma people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and, as such, uses whatever terminology exists out in the real world. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again? You're talking about me, but you're so persistent to maintaine a wrong ideea. Let me tell you about one principle : say to a man one thing day by day, even if he don't agree with that, and again day by day, finaly he will change his opinion. Why? Because it's the way we are. So if you continue the popularisation of the term Roma, Romani, Romanies and that's wrong, the people, the others basing on your eronates informations will accept this. Also, read this again to understand, why Romanians don't like to be confused with Gypsies :—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomád Terv (talkcontribs) 21:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point about popularisation but it's not Wikipedia that is popularising the term - Roma is already the term most widely used so that's what we use here. You might want to take a look at WP:NAME on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Romania should go back to writing Rumania which is an alternate English way of spelling it and is also used by Romanians themselves. The only other possible way of spelling Romani is Ramani as the word may derive from the Indic word Raman, but this is not proven. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 29 July 2008


Is there any proof of the claim that Norway forced them to be sterilized till 1977? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see here. I'll add a reference to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Population in India

Are the Banjara Romani? The reference for the population in India specifically says Banjara --Maurice45 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the Banjara are not Romani, though they may be related. I'll have to see where the estimate for India came from; as far as I know, there are no Romanies in India. There are other peoples called "gypsies" in India, but they are not Romani. --Kuaichik (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so I finally found the edit (of an older template) where the estimate for India was added: [7]. I think it's a mistake, but I kind of know the guy who added it, so I'll see whether I can get his consent to delete it. --Kuaichik (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, so I do have his consent, but he says it would be nice if I could add some information about the Banjaras' relationship with the Romani people in the History section. Maybe I'll also include something about that in Ian Hancock and Banjara as well. --Kuaichik (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, now the Romanian guy disagrees with me and has therefore reinserted the population figure for India (if nothing else). --Kuaichik (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did this end up? I've reviewed some of the online resources that are referenced here (footnotes 67, 68, 69) and they do NOT provide any evidence that the Banjara are in anyway related to the Roma. "The Gypsies" book by Angus Fraser on pages 26-30 provides some background to the debate. This section linking the Banjara and Roma should be removed or edited to indicate that the Banjara-Roma link is an unattested claim. --Vickramj (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, source #69 (or p. 13 of We are the Romani people) says: "The Banjara recognise a relationship with Romanies, and sometimes attend Romani functions in Europe, and invite us to their own meetings in India." On the facing page is a photograph of the newspaper Roma-Banjara, which, according to the caption, "recognises the historical link between our two populations [the Banjara and the Romanies]." --Kuaichik (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course the Banjara are not Romani. They do not even know the word unless through Europeans teaching them of the Romani people in Europe. The Romani may have Banjara blood in them but the Banjara do not come from the Romani people - signed Tsigan. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 29 July 2008

This article is Geographically challenged

Ok, so we start from the fact that the Roma people originated from Multan. Right, so Multan is in Pakistan, the southern Punjab region of Pakistan. Yet the author of this article fails to mention this anywhere. Why does the article state that Multan is in Rajahstan? I would advise the person to pick up a South Asia map frankly.
And why so many references to "Indian Subcontinent" when you know that Roma people originated from Multan? Do you realise how big the "Indian Subcontinent" actually is? A good 1.6 billion people live there, spread across half a dozen countries.
This article is so geographically challenged that its not even funny. I know a few Indians on wikipedia use the British Raj version of the Indian map so they can call all things Pakistan, Indian, but for the sake of knowledge please correct this. Thank you. --Xinjao (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Yes, sorry about that. In reality, no one knows for sure whether the Romani people come from any one place at all, let alone whether they come from Multan.
I'm not sure who put all of that there (I never actually checked, but of course, it wasn't me! :-D). Note, of course, that this article is by no means written by only one person, so there is no one "author of this article."
I think this is just one of many problems with the current version of this article. But I just might do something about it...--Kuaichik (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yuck. All that nonsense about Multan and the temple with "Jatts-something-Khsatris" was inserted by a banned sockpuppet [8] [9]. Strangely, he provides a reference for this, but I'm not even sure whether the reference says the same thing (I doubt it).
Anyone opposed to removing that nonsense? --Kuaichik (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, speaking of that "Origins" section - it seems (to me, at least) that a lot of the information there is either misleading or (as in the case of the "Jatts-Rajputs-Khatris") total nonsense Maybe these problems can be taken care of later, probably when this page is in a more stable state. For now, though, let me repeat my question and put it in bold print, just in case people failed to notice:

Anyone opposed to removing the paragraphs inserted here? They were included by a banned sockpuppet of a banned user. --Kuaichik (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, heh! I forgot to note that I took out those paragraphs twice, once on May 14 and again the next day. --Kuaichik (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

this is not nonsiense any more than other present theories. Lets be sensible. It is proven that the Roms speak a different root language to the Domari / Ghorbati tribes of Asia so therefore left India completely independent to the Domari / Ghorbati who were probably taken to Persian as musician. The Roms leaving India due to war is a very sensible suggestion. more so than suggestions that Rom comes from Dom even thought the Indian root language is different and the word Rom means 'husband' like the Indian word Raman. It seems too coincidentental that Romano / Romani has its root from Roman which is again very close to Raman. The evidence is more sensible than saying Rom = Dom. Using trades as a means to tie the two together is also of no use as they are just doing trades available at the time whether metal work, wood work, entertainment as is seen with all nomadic people. Is an Italian resturant owner in America related to a Turkish resturant owner because they have adapted to the America market with the same trades? - please get real. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 29 July 2008

Hmm, perhaps you misunderstood me. I was referring to the version of the "Origins" section as it read until last May (the section just before I changed it), not as it reads now. Of course I'm not saying that the Roma "leaving India due to war" is "nonsense." How could I? In fact, I myself believe this (currently, at least).
The original version, which included the paragraphs inserted by a banned sockpuppet, claimed that the Romanies were from Multan. Not only that, but they were the guards of a very specific temple in Multan called the "Katasraj Temple." That is what I am saying is ridiculous. There is so much disagreement regarding the specific origin of the Romani people; certainly, not all scholars in Romani Studies even think that the ancestors of the Romani people came from any one part of India.
Isn't it a bit much to say that they come from a specific city and a specific temple in that city? And why that particular city and that particular temple? Is it not equally possible that the Romanies' ancestors came from Lahore or Srinagar or Jaipur or, for that matter, any remote village in Pakistan or North India? Is it not also possible that the Romanies' ancestors come from many places? --Kuaichik (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

killed "whatever that term means"

In the "origins" section it said the Nazis claimed the Roma "weren't 'Aryan' (whatever that term means)". I cut out the parenthetical bit, dropped the quotes around the term Aryan and linked the word to the Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


The changes are not "unexplained" - the edit summary includes the explanation:

"[...]not backed up by sources" --Kuaichik (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Er...never mind, I guess(?)... --Kuaichik (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of roma people in Hungary

Data on the number of Roma in Hungary is being changed, so I think it should be discussed what are the "real" numbers and what references can be considered as reliable. Timur lenk (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Who are considered Roma in Hungary?

In Hungary, ethnicity is a question of choice. While it is a politically very liberal solution, it can be sometimes problematic. Ways of deciding ethnicity can be asking mother tongue, cultural affinity or ethnic identity, or to ask others (neighbors) about the given persons ethnicity or can be the enumerator's decision. The latter two "methods" use mainly external characters so it can be very offensive to consider someone to be a member of an ethnicity that she or he seems to be part of.

References with numbers

  • 2001 Census[10] The 2001 census had 3 questions regarding ethnicity: Language spoken with family members or friends (Gipsy, Romany, Bea: 53 075 persons); Affinity with cultural values, traditions of the given community (Gipsy, Romany, Bea: 129 208 persons); Declaring himself/herself as member of the given national/ethnic group (Gipsy, Romany, Bea: 205 720 persons)
  • 1993 KSH (Hungarian Central Statistical Office)[11] representative data collection[12] (sample census). Ethnicity was the decision of the enumerator. The persons considered to have "Roma way of life" have a number of 394 000; if we add those considered "transitional" the number will be 450 000.
  • HAS Institute of Sociology[13] sociological data collection[14] Someone was considered ethnically Roma according to the environment opinion. Number: 482 000 persons.
  • Hungary's Strategic Audit 2005[15]: Experts and Roma organisations put the number of Roma living in Hungary between 450 000 and 600 000 (source: István Kemény, Béla Janky, Gabriella Lengyel: Roma in Hungary Between 1971 and 2003. Budapest: Gondolat Publication House)
  • Minority self-government elections 2006[16] Together with the local authority election the election of minority self-government authorities is held as well. Before 2006 this caused disproportionateness since everyone older than 18 (regardless ethnicity) was eligible for voting on the representatives of the local ethnic authorities. For the 2006 elections 106 379 people registered themself to be eligible for voting on Roma self-government Authorities.
  • The New York Times, February 6, 2008 article[17] Title: In Hungary, Roma Get Art Show, Not a Hug. Number: "Roma make up an estimated 8 to 10 percent of the population." No source of estimation included.
  • The Christian Science Monitor, February 13, 2008 article[18] Title: Hungary's anti-Roma militia grows. Number: "[…]Roma, who account for between 8 and 10 percent of Hungary's 10 million people." No source of estimation included.
  • International Herald Tribune, September 21, 2000 article[19] Title: Q & A / Peter Gottfried, secretary for integration : Hungary Vows to Meet EU Criteria by 2003. Number: "[…]the country acknowledges the need for progress regarding its population of 500,000 to 1 million Roma, or Gypsies." No source of estimation included.
  • Romnews, February 9, 1998 article[20] Title: Hungary mayors end see-saw over homeless Roma. Number: "Estimates of their [i.e. Roma] numb ers range from 500,000 to almost a million in the country of 10 million people." No source of estimation included.
  • Habitat for Humanity[21] Title: Habitat for Humanity Hungary. Number: "According to the European Roma Rights Center, about 1 million Roma live in substandard housing in Hungary." Source mentioned, but not specified.
  • European Roma Rights Centre article[22] Title: The Unseen Powers: Perception, Stigma and Roma Rights. Number: "Professional estimates claim the size of the Roma population to be approximately 450 to 600,000." Other number: "Hungary and the Czech Republic are also similar to the other countries in the region in that some Romani civil society organisations would put the figure even higher. […] some in Hungary would put the number of Roma in the country at 800,000-1,000,000, or up to 10% of the total population of Hungary. […] in some cases they possibly illegitimately inflate the data […]" It is clear from the article that this is an estimation and not a number based on sociological surveys with verifiable data and methodology, moreover, the reliability of the data is questioned in the article itself.


I'd be inclined to cite the 205,720 figure from the 2001 census as the official figure and then note that estimates put the number at up to 600,000 per the 2005 strategic audit. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is a problem to indicate more data - the point is the reliable primary reference. The basic problem with estimates is that they are based on some kind of "objective" parameters (skin color, way of life and habits etc.) or in other words, prejudice - however, ethnicity is a very subjective characteristic of a person, not something that can be "diagnosed" by others. Timur lenk (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine too - I thought you were asking for us to pick one of the sources, but using all of them would be better. Although I think the final, voter registration, figure should be excluded since it excludes the under 18s (and presumably people who don't choose to register) and therefore is necessarily not an estimate of the number of Roma in Hungary. It could perhaps be mentioned elsewhere in the article, but not in the infobox. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That's true, the under-18 segment makes up a much higher ratio in the Romany than in the Hungarian population. Voting enthusiasm can also alter the number. Timur lenk (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop modifying the numbers, in all other countries the numbers are not according to the official census Rezistenta (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the way Rezistenta follows is the proper way for editing an encyclopedia. I don't think anyone should give commands to others. Rezistenta's talk page supports my feeling that his/her aim is not to come to a common denominator through dispute. As I mentioned above, there's no such a thing like "real number of romanies" on its own. There are several ways of approaching the question, but the number cited by Rezistenta has no reliable references of any kind. Timur lenk (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
From where this double standard? I've already told you that all numbers from infobox are not based on official censuses but more likely on reality, we all know that many Roma people declare a different ethnicity because of their fear for discrimination . Official censuses are far from the real numbers and if you want we can make it as you wish but then we have to modify the numbers from all countries because we must not use double standards Rezistenta (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
But the figures listed by Timur lenk above aren't just census figures. They come from a range of sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not using any kind of double standard. Did I propose anywhere, that only Hungarian figures should follow official censuses and sociological estimates? The point of my proposal was to use verifiable data. The papers Rezistenta cited give no source information. What is the evidence, that those unsourced data are better approximations that the well sourced data? And again, ethnicity is not something that can be defined objectively. It is not skin color or habits that make one a member of an ethnicity. For example, Hungary had a considerable Armenian minority in the 19th century that has almost completely assimilated into the Hungarian ethnicity. The reason was not fear of discrimination - it was simply integration. Anyway, why Rezistenta thinks that the explanation of "low" official figures is fear of discrimination? Timur lenk (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You have a valid point of view but I'm talking about the most widely accepted and the most accurate approximations from the real numbers. You're saying we should diminish the numbers only in the case of Hungary just because you think some of Roma people assimilated into hungarian society ? Check the above sources ... expecially the second one I think this pretty much clarifies the whole dispute.... Cheers .....
Estimates of their numbers range from 500,000 to almost a million in the country of 10 million people - RomNews Network Community, Budapest / Hungary
According to the European Roma Rights Center, about 1 million Roma live in substandard housing in Hungary, Habitat for Humanity, Hungary Rezistenta (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Rezistenta simply seems not wanting to understand me. "You're saying we should diminish the numbers only in the case of Hungary" - where did I say anything like that? Nowhere. The fact that I checked only the Hungarian figures doesn't mean that I am against the change of figures of other states. Again, my point is to use reliable sources. And again, non of Rezistenta's sources cited above are primary sources, neither they have any reference. Timur lenk (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It's pointless to argue with you... you ignore even the European Roma Rights Center, what more should I say ? Rezistenta (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The European Roma Rights Center gives no reference on the source of the number. The fact that the number is found on a page connected to a Roma organization does not automatically verify it. Rezistenta ignores even official census data, interestingly, only in the case of Hungary. Timur lenk (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Not one single country from that list has the numbers from the official censuses, I don't know what you're talking about Rezistenta (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
If nothing else, the census figure should be given as one of a number of estimates, for all of the countries listed. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The 800 000-1 000 000 figure - repetitively cited by Rezistenta - has no reasonable source. Non of the referenced articles with this figure give any reference to the background of this estimation. Moreover, this article disputes the reliability of this figure, stating: Estimates by Romani organisations have in common with government estimates the following: They attempt to count (or at least estimate) the “real” number of Roma in the country, overriding self-identification (or at least self-identification to the census-taker 5 ), and adding unspecified other criteria. These are presumed to include descent, cultural practices, or other criteria. These efforts to derive a “real” population of Roma legitimately aim to compensate for the evident failings of the census data for matters of policy and resource allocation, and in some cases they possibly illegitimately inflate the data for reasons of heightening prestige (or threat), or other nebulous reasons. However, their common feature is an inability or unwillingness to say clearly what is meant by the term “Roma”. Making such a statement in a European Roma Rights Centre article makes this figure very questionable and inappropriate in an encyclopedic article. Please stick to verifiable data. Timur lenk (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The article indeed is stating the procedure which made the numbers estimates more to reality. Official censuses cannot be taken as real since many Roma people declare differit ethnicity, this is how the estimates are done in all countries, if you delete a raport and a source by European Roma Rights Center I'm afraid I must report you because such behaviour is innapropiate and intolerable . Hungary is not a special case and must follow the procedures of all other countries Rezistenta (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea about the use of Rezistenta's threat with "reporting" me. Facts speak for themselves. For example: […] in Hungary, although the 2001 census documented 205,720 Roma in Hungary, the most recent report by the Hungarian government to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights does not even mention this fact, but states instead that, “Professional estimates claim the size of the Roma population to be approximately 450 to 600,000.” Is Rezistenta going to "report" the Hungarian government for not writing 800,000-1,000,000 - figures even questioned in the article? I cited the reliable resources on which these government figures are based (see above under References with numbers). By the way, Hungary seems to be a "a special case" for Rezistenta - at least this can be seen in his/her resistance against indicating verifiable (= census and sociological survey) data. Timur lenk (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Rezistenta, the ERRC report clearly criticises the figures that you're quoting. Not only does it say that they may be inflated, it states "their common feature is an inability or unwillingness to say clearly what is meant by the term "Roma"." Cordless Larry (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That's because the people known formerly as gypsies don't have a clue about the newly invented name for them, and like I said the procedure of estimating the real number of this populace is the same everywhere, or do you think in Hungary it's special case ?STOP ERASING EUROPEAN ROMA RIGHTS CENTER RAPORT FOR GOD SAKE !!!! Rezistenta (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but what kind of argumentation and tone is that? Please study netiquette on use of ALL CAPS. Yelling does not replace arguments. The name “Roma” is of Romany origin, the Roma (or, in your words, Gypsies) refer to themselves as “rom” in the Romany language - it is clearly described in the article. The sources stating a population of 1,000,000 Roma in Hungary give little or no info on "the procedure of estimating the real number of this populace". Again, please stick to verifiable data. Thank you. Timur lenk (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you the reason why you're feeling sorry for? actually in the etymology section the article cites " There are no historical proofs to clarify the etymology of these words " which means it cannot be stated if they are or not of "Romany origin" . Additionaly you can find the word "gypsies" at the top of the article but probably you were busy playing the innocent card and it may have slipped you. If European Roma Rights Center is not verifiable data I don't know what else could it be verifiable data, furthemore there are many links which come to streghten the European Roma Right raport conclusions. It's obvious that your apparently polite comments are hiding racial preconceptions, and judging by your fierce opposition to include the real numbers emphased by several indisputable sources means you’re presuming that being of Roma ethnicity is something blamable. I want to remind you that all races and ethnicities are equal and your insidious suggestions and assumptions are close enough to pass a very thin line towards Xenophoby and Racism and it’s very sad that someone may think in such shameful and unworthy manner in the year 2008. Rezistenta (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The previous comment was a desperate attempt by Rezistenta to satirize respect for ethnicities other than his own, not to mention rationality in general. If only he were capable of repeating those last two sentences to himself. --Kuaichik (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The European Roma Rights Centre is not a Scientific Institution - and even if it was that, it would not mean that figures published there should be accepted without doubt. Figures should be used if they are verifiable, that is, well supported with data source and methodology. Figures regarding Roma population in Hungary currently cited in the article are well sourced. The figures Rezistenta prefers are questioned even in the ERRC article.
  • Rezistenta stated "the people known formerly as gypsies don't have a clue about the newly invented name for them", but the first sentence in the Etymology section states "Most Roma refer to themselves as rom or rrom, depending on the dialect."
  • I am not going to take part in personal attacks. My "apparently polite" tone is rather the standard than Rezistenta's, I guess. It is enough to throw a glance at this. "Le style est l’homme même" Timur lenk (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Quelle belle ironie, quel humor.... applaudissement !!! . Actually the situation is very simple : all other countries have exactly the same type of sources and since the article is not taking in consideration the official censuses how could anyone verify their accuracy ? Maybe we're all noobs and you know some socio-demographic procedures unknown to the civilised world and you want to share them with us. The numbers for which I gave alot of vefifiable and encyclopedic sources have the same same amount of credibility like the sources you gave, the difference is that the methodology from your sources are official censuses which in all others cases are not taken in consideration. For the moment I don't have time for such a childish dispute but be sure the neutrality will be respected in this article. Au revoir Rezistenta (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I had to refresh the link to Rezistenta's Talkpage archives in my above comment since - surprisingly - it has been emptied. Timur lenk (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my last comment here. --Kuaichik (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(Cut and pasted here from below as I didn't know about this discussion): I'm removing, a governmental site exclusively dealing with Roma people. László Hablicsek himself says his study is not neutral, because the author is involved (see page 4, bolded in Hungarian).

The European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) is an international public interest law organisation engaging in a range of activities aimed at combating anti-Romani racism and human rights abuse of Roma.

Doesn't qualify as a neutral source for disputed data.

Demos is acceptable (a foundation not exclusively dealing with Roma people), they estimate Romas' number between 450000 and 600000 (page 45).
IHT (European edition of NYT) is a reliable source estimating the number of Roma in Hungary between 500000 and 1 million. But there is also a NYT article talking about Roma "who make up between 6 and 8 percent of Hungary's population of some 10 million". Which means between 600000 and 800000. I'm adding the NYT article.
The Romnews source is not a neutral source, their reliability is also questionable.
The United Nations estimates the number of Roma in Hungary around 600000. Reliable, neutral source, I'm adding it. Squash Racket (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit strange that NYT and its European edition, IHT estimated the number of Roma in Hungary quite differently. NYT says 600000 to 800000, IHT says 500000 to 1 million(!). Can these sources be considered reliable regarding these numbers? What was their source for these estimations? Squash Racket (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're in any position to question the reliability of the IHT/NYT. It's a reputable source, and that's the number they give. Different estimates are welcome, but questioning the NYT yourself is WP:Original Research. -TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not questioning the reliability of NYT overall, but when NYT and its European edition, IHT present very different data and both seem to strongly overestimate this number compared to sources that really carried out a study I think they are questioning themselves. Squash Racket (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem with IHT is that they give no source on their estimates. IHT itself is not a company dealing with sociological or demographical estimations, but they might use other sources. Sociological estimations conducted lately in Hungary give the number of Roma between 450000-600000. There might be other estimations but they are rather supproting politcal aims than based on scientific methodology. And again, there is no such thing as exact number of roma since the definition of the Roma people is not unambiguous itself. (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Re:this - They're "generally a much higher rate"? What does that even mean? That sometimes the police say, "Eh, I'm tired of imprisoning 'gypsies'. Let's go after (insert name of some other minority) instead!"?

No offense intended, by the way. Bulgaria is just one of the countries listed in that report. --Kuaichik (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right that "generally" isn't a great word in that conext. "Roma in Eastern European countries are arrested for robbery at a much higher rate" would be preferable. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Under this term I found "Some authorities[citation needed] recognize five main groups:" a citation is needed. I probably found a relevant article, but I am new here, so would rather discuss it before making changes. So this article has the descriptions of these groups, but it itself has this article as a citation. (Fraser, A. The Gypsies. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1992.)

And I am not sure , which one, we should site, because the later, is not available online. Studentmed (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should cite the book in this case, since it's the original source. It's not ideal that we don't have access to it to check, but the journal article is reputable enough in itself to be trusted to report what the book says. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes I think you are right. I will cite the book there. (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I hadn't signed in when I signed the above post. I have cited the book. Studentmed (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Health of Roma communities

The word Roma means 'Roms'. It is not "Roms communities", it is "Romani communities". - —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 29 July 2008

There are lot of articles in established journals about the health of people living in Roma settlements. I think we should either start a new article about their health or , we should add some information about their health to this existing article. Comments/ suggestions?? Studentmed (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Although it's currently arranged on a country-by-country basis, perhaps a health sub-section could be added under the contemporary issues heading? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest it should have its own heading called " Health issues". (Studentmed (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

Roma religion

The article mentions "indigenous religion". What is the Roma indigenous religion? yokyle (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Though most Romanies are either Christian or (less commonly?) Muslim, they also have retained many religious beliefs, rituals, etc. from Hinduism. For example, in both the Hindu tradition and in the traditional Romani "religion," excessive contact with the outside world results in "pollution" and "defilement" (and because Hindus in British India considered traveling overseas to result in spiritual impurity, the seas themselves were known in Hindustani as kaalaa paani or "black water"). Also, though Romanies typically believe in only one god, there are some riddles in Romani that include a reference to a character called Vayo (i.e. Vayu, the Hindu god of the wind), and the answer to such riddles is always "the wind" (e balval). --Kuaichik (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Just for a reference, "blank water" refers to colour of ocean, not to whatever the above user is claiming. I will attest that Hindus in British Raj didn't wanted to cross oceans, though.--Jahilia (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Really? Huh...but aren't, like water itself? :) --Kuaichik (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Oceans look black... really! (Specially now days with all those oil tankers spilling it everywhere... :) ) Btw, my comment was more linguistic than related to anything else you said, with which I agree.--Jahilia (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The word Roma means 'Roms'. It is not "Roms Religion", it is "Romani Religion". - —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 29 July 2008

Those people who always cry they are not Romani...

So, for some time, especially since Romania was accepted in EU, we have a serious problem in Romani-related articles, concerning the Romanian users and their seemingly never-ending identity crisis. They don't listen to anyone, they don't want to present any serious argumentation, they only resort incessantly to the tactic known in Romanian as ţigăneală. What should we do with them? As if it wouldn't be enough the amount of work pending in Romani-related articles, now we have to waste our time with their desire to make history by all means right here on Wikipedia.

For those who don't know the background of the problem, let's detail its main points. For both Romanies and Romanians, the integration in the modern world meant coping with the imagery of parallel exonyms used by the others, Gypsy, respectively V(a)lah. In both cases, it was promoted the endonym, in order to go beyond stereotypes and bring their identity in the modern world. For the Romanies the naming issues stopped here. However, the Romanians embarked on a series of name-related identity experiments whose results we may see in endless blah on this talk page and vandalisms in the Romani articles. The name Romanian (Român in contemporary Romanian language) itself is a modern creation. Their endonym was Rumîn until a century and a half ago, but they changed it to Român in order to look more similar to Rome, the city of their ancestors. The background was their fear that they are not European enough, an obsession unchanged until nowadays. For someone living in Romania it can't pass a day without hearing integrarea în Europa (integration in Europe), adaptarea la valorile europene (adaptation to the European values), or without being reminded about the popular distinction between Romania and Europe[23][24]..

Not solving yet these uncertainties, now they found another possibility to pursue their habit of ethnic name changes, hence we see this continuous Romanian violence on Romani-related articles. The issue in a nutshell: the Romanians found that the Romanies have a name too close to their new one, unleashing their identity paranoia. The delusion's result: hey, you have a name too similar to my own, what would the others think about me, change yours immediately!

Here I should remind that there are countless names worldwide differing only by few letters, but, unless there is an identity crisis there, nobody gives a damn on their closeness. Everybody knows what they mean, they have enough neurons in their head to make a distinction between how sound Slovakia and Slovenia, Prussian and Russian (as other users said previously). However, we have the Romanian guys here on Wikipedia and also in real life, with a revolutionary vision on such matters. This is something like a linguistic rebellion started by the English word unknown, demanding to be written from now on as un-know-n, with short stops in pronunciation for the two dashes, so that every speaker should never forget its shocking origin and, on the other hand, to replace the word noun with vdhjgrynmhdsfyr, so that to alleviate unknown's fear that noun would violate its linguistic identity. I think it is not necessary the opinion of a linguist or, better, of a psychiatrist to see the mechanisms of such approach.

In this manner, we can see how the Romani-related articles became mostly a Romanian affair. We have represented here the usual types of persons that appear also in real life around this issue. We have Bogdangiusca, the Romanian intellectual Mitică-stlye, the "little Parisian" bearing centuries-old inferiority complexes, always comparing Romania with Western Europe and using, inside the Romanian environment, the "blaming the Gypsy" technique to explain the differences, while outside this environment, the "hiding the Gypsy" technique to appease his fears of lacking Europeanness. I wrote earlier about his work on hiding the cultural presence of the Romanies in Romania. The situation is now mostly the same as one year ago. Without discussion, only with a fallacious reason, he moved this article from "Romani people" to "Roma people". For the same purpose, he proposed for deletion the articles Names of the Romani people, Roma (Romani subgroup). Also I see he started the article Slavery in Romania, using fringe-theories known only in Romania. According to them, the Romanians are absolved of any guilt concerning this historical issue, because the Romanies came as slaves (!) in contemporary Romania. The neighboring populations allegedly enslaved them first and for some inscrutable reasons they gave them to the Romanians. Plus, he is too conceited to talk to Romanies, he does not communicate, only sometimes gives short notices.

He is an administrator, this status making him the local hero[25][26] of the outward Romanian extremists. And he does not mind letting them do the dirty work. Rezistenta, former Adrianzax, the extremist who eulogize Bogdan, is an user who should have been banned long time ago. He comes with conspiracy theories with paranoid scenarios about how the Romanies will take over Romania. However, unsurprisingly, the things he blame on the Romanies can be applied to him, the notion of psychological projection describing well his behavior. He gave countless threats to users who do not fit his agenda, he disrupted the editing process with reverts giving fallacious explanations, Bogdangiusca-style (no need for examples, most of his edits are of this kind), he deleted the talk of other users [27] [28], also he keeps deleting the talk on his own user page[29] [30]. He has no respect for logic and morality, coming with invented words like Domani (in his attempt to change the name of the Romanies), he supports the pejorative term gypsy, but he does not mind elsewhere to say that it is different from Romani [31] in order to hide things.

An old acquaintance of this talk page, Dpotop, is representative for the Romanians going abroad, thus out of soap-bubble of the Romanian society, experiencing the tough reality of the difference between the imagery ingrained at home about the Romanians as one of the greatest people ever and the fact that the outsiders tend to name the capital of Romania as either Budapest or Sofia. "Blaming the Gypsy" technique is an easy solution for such people, making him too ending attracted to this article like a butterfly to a lamp.

Somewhere in the background, is Dahn, the Romanian intellectual with a self-assured worldview, not needing to rely on the Romanies in order to create the Romanian identity or to resort to scapegoatism. Unfortunately he is not yet representative for the Romanian society, inevitably, being the subject of violence from the "resistant" Romanian users.

We had also an episode of the Gypsimpics, the on-going Olympics of Gypsiness from Central Europe. However, here too the Romanians are the bad guys, they are on offensive against the others.

My view is that this Gypsy fixation of the Romanians has gone too far, already it has done many damages in the prospects of inter-ethnic communication, while a good Romanian saying reminds that it is necessary să laşi loc de bună ziua ("to let room for a hello"). What should I say to them? Why your obsession with imaginea României în străinătate ("the image of Romania abroad"), theoretically a very good thing, should be transposed in reality only through the paranoid fears about lacking Europeaness? Nothing good will come from this. It only shows your identity problems. Look at the Spaniards, theoretically in the same position as you, with originally non-European influences, be they Arabic, Romani, Jewish. However, they were self-assured about who they were, they considered these influences as European, who says now they are not Europeans? Moreover, they benefit from the presence of the Romanies there (saying Flamenco is enough). BTW, you too consider Flamenco as European. But in Romania... the authorities bribe the team from Travel Channel to film only the Romanians, but not the Romanies, some days ago the organizers of the Traditional Handicrafts' Fair from Bucharest tried to forbid the presence of the Romani craftsmen, allegedly because they were not registered correctly. It was necessary to fight legally and to prove that the registering happened correctly.

And here what kind of image are you making? Who represents you? This? If you would have been really concerned about your image, you should have been the first to kick out this "Romanian", in order to keep a civilized behavior on Romanian-concerning issues. He is one of the Gypsiest persons I ever saw. Here I want to say that personally I do not accept to be named Gypsy, Gypsy is someone fitting the Gypsy stereotypes. And considering the Romanian activity on Romani-related articles, I invite everyone decide who are the the winners of the Gypsimpcs. I guess that if there would be somewhere willingness on your side to make an U turn and reconsider your Gypsy fixation, you will have some work to do, because I see that the others found your weak point. A weak point that only invites problems. And obviously letting your "resistants" do the dirty work, only adds problems and barbarism.

Look at the Italians, theoretically in the same position as you: if someone googles Romani, rather than Romanians and Romanies it is rather likely to encounter something related to Rome, due to its higher visibility and economic importance. Did they say that the Romanies are attempting to hijack their identity and the name of their Roman ancestors? No, obviously, they are not such idiot. Now, don't tell me that "who are we compared to the Italians and so on...". If you do not have self-confidence, then build it, don't jump on the others. Face your issues, what would your neighbors think about you when they will find out that you put on their shoulders the burden of slavery from Romania? If you feel less visible than the Romanies, don't try to obliterate us. Nothing good will come out of this on any of the sides. Work on your Romanian-related articles to become visible, instead coming here and displaying your cowardness. Do you really expect us to give up? Citing from the personal page one of the faithful Romanian contributors to this talk page:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Benjamin Franklin)

I see that Romani persons started to use the term V(a)lah instead Romanian, as a counterpart to this violence.

As a conclusion, the fact is that currently something is rotten in Romania, namely this Gypsy addiction. The notion of Gypsy is like a drug, "blaming the Gypsy" torpids the pains, gives egoistic satisfactions, makes possible all kind of surrealistic visions of the world. But of course, there is the reverse, a society continuously "high on Gypsy" is incapable to face the reality, the best thing they can do being to hide their addiction. Last year I wrote on this talk page how the Romanian prime minister blamed Romanies for the image problems of the Romanian citizens in Italy. However, at that moment, the cases cited in the Italian media were only about ethnic Romanians [32][33]. Hence, they waited until November, when finally there appeared a Romani case ("Mailat case"), to start the usual scapegoatism, immediately reverberating also on Wikipedia, giving new fuel to the post EU admission violence.

Hopefully, there will appear some ways for the Romanians to face the reality, otherwise they will be only on the losing side (here concerning me too, because I have Romanian citizenship). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Desiphral, please remove the ad hominem from the above - it only impunes your thesis. Bogdangiusca and Dpotop are good editors, certainly not ones which "should have been banned". Although I have also noticed a hypersensitivity to this ambiguity, we must remember that: 1. WP should have less ambiguity ("Romanian" and "Romani" are certainly similar) not more; 2. Neither "Romanian" nor "Romani" are modern inventions, therefore accusation of deliberate misrepresentation are unfounded, especially in this context (seriously, if "Romani" really was invented simply to pass one group off as another, then why not choose instead something like "Germani" or "Belgani") (not that this is entirely without precendent...). Both Romanian and Romani editors have a right to minimize this perceived ambiguity, but not the right to disrupt Wikipedia or create or revise history, certainly not for motives that are quasi-racist or ethnically provocative. István (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
István, just as we, the Romanians, want to protect our identity, the Romanies have this right, too. And that is what we have to do, minimize this possible confusion. But trying to hide the Romani term is not a solution. We can't impose them to change their name and this will not happen (even if we will hide it here). We have to face this possible problem and educate the people about the difference.
The user Rezitenta always had a disrespectful and trolling attitude and in the last few day just as usual. For this reason I have asked him to be banned:
The admin bogdnagiusca may be a good user, but he also acted as a "strong arm" in Rezistenta's biased actions. The most serious was the fact that he moved an article with a controversial title without any discussion:
That should have been done in 3 steps. If I would move now the page from "Roma people" To "Romani people" like he did, I would be right away mocked, but because he is an admin, nobody said nothing to him. So my question to you: are the admins above the Wikipedia guidelines? Are the admins more equals than the common users? AKoan (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I said only about Rezistenta to be banned, considering his history of contributions (even right now he made anther revert without proper explanations) and e-mail threats. Romani is a term in all Romani dialects, it is not an invented word. Now I ask you as an outsider, if you consider less ambiguity, although you were the one who did not mind it previously [34], why should you support the Romanians? Would you like someone come and change your ethnic name? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 18:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, I do not dispute your thesis, only wish you would remove the personal invective that detracts from it. Moreover, I do not "support" the "Romanians" beyond their legitimate right to point out to WP readers that "Romanian" and "Romani" are not the same, and share the frustration of certain users' disruptively taking it far beyond this. But you cannot both make personal attacks AND be taken seriously at the same time. Which is a shame because if one takes the time to wade through the above bloggish morass one sees some very valid points, which alas, are completely subsumed by personal attacks on those taking the opposing view. Practically speaking, anyone making the same points in the future will be more effectively rebutted by reference to these ad hominem-salted passages. who is supporting whom? István (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Does it really worth commenting such absurdities like this Desiphral presented over here ? For the moment I only want to remind him that Wiki does not tollerate PERSONAL ATTACKS and such abnominal behaviour (NO PERSONAL ATTACKS}. Am I the one who removed alot of sourced content who lasted untill now by advocating conspiracy theories and the "bad romanians" ? For the first time I must agree with Istvan, the name Roma (people) and not Romani is forwared by Worldknown Encyclopedias like Britannica. What are you talking about? make a petition and send them to Britannica and Encarta maybe they are also mistaken and you want to make the things a little bit clearer for them . I bet you're from one of those NGO's and you know Dosoftei, Delia Grigore and the whole gang .... You've just compromised yourself with this kind of behaviour Rezistenta (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
See the sources below, by accredited people in this field. Who said to take Britannica for granted? Previously, in a competition between Wikipedia and Britannica, it was found that the latter had more mistakes, this being one of them. Also, where do you see personal attacks on my comment? I commented what happened lately here and you only confirm it, I see that the ţigăneala shows no signs to stop. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 18:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
So Britannica is wrong you are right but you can't bring one single reference supporting what you're advocating . And I don't quite understand what you're trying to say... can you bring one single reference supporting this view ? And spare us all with your Hancock, bring other source supporting the same view, Hancock is not a reliable source since is contested by many scholars and academics specialised in history of Roma people like Yaron Matras, Professor at the University of Manchester . Ian Hancock is not a reliable reference Rezistenta (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, a user has asked me to look at this situation and I have reviewed your changes, Desiphral-देसीफ्राल. Please may you state your sources and references for information in your change, as when you edit you need to state your sources', which you appear to not have done. I have reverted until sources are given. The Helpful One (Review) 19:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Rezistenta's last comment: True, not everybody agrees with Prof. Hancock. For that matter, though, not everybody agrees with anybody, right? Besides, this does not seem to be one of those areas where any scholars refute Prof. Hancock per se - even Prof. Matras uses the word "Romani" instead of "Roma," as you can see here. --Kuaichik (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you saw me saying the name Romani doesn't exist ? Roma and Romani are sinonims and the article showed this before the intervention of Desiphral . Roma is not a subgroup of Romani and Matras is not saying such absurdities. Stop lying and invoking false references which are not supporting the content Rezistenta (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I would also appreciate it if the personal attacks and accusations from both sides would stop. Thank you to István for keeping a cool head.
If Romani is a noun and Romani an adjective, them the article could be called Roma (people) and still be gramatically correct. In this title, the word "roma" is being used as a noun, not an adjective. Text within the article is a totally different issue. The Britannica article only uses "romani" as an adjective "Romani culture," "Romani women," "Romani music," "Romani peoples" - except when used as the name of the language--"Romani"--where it's a noun. As far as I can see, "Roma" is used strictly as a noun. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I find you, the same as István, biased on Romanian side, which is unacceptable. So you have sources showing clearly that only a part of the Romanies are Roma, but you insist to appease the Romanians. You are wrong two folds: on the one hand you are supporting an aggression against an ethnic group, while on the other hand you support something untrue to be inserted in Wikipedia, casting doubts on your editing skills here. It is not the Romanies going to the Romanian articles and working to restore their original ethnic name of Rumîn. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It's funny that you accuse us of being biased toward Romanians, when just a few weeks ago, Some Romanian claimed we were biased toward Roma because we're Hungarian (which, by the way, I'm not). I'm not insisting anything, I just clarified what the Britannica article said. Personal attacks and open hostility toward Romanians will undermine your argument, even among people that agree with you. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Even if some sources use Roma and Romani as apparent synonyms, when one looks at the classification of the various Romani subgroups it appears clear that Roma, strictly speaking, refers only to the Eastern Europe Romanies. See also my last comment here: [35] AKoan (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Who uses Roma and Romani as synonyms? You mean as an adjective? As nouns, Romanies and Roma are sometimes synonyms, but not Romani and Roma. Is that correct? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was Romanies (or Romani people) vs Roma that the question was about. My English has some flows. I don't think that you are biased, but i think you are missing the essence of this problem. Isn't it awkward to use 2 words for the same thing (Romanies and Roma) and at the same time one word (Roma) for two distinct things (the entire ethnic group, and just the eastern branch of it)? AKoan (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not its awkward is irrelevant. What matters is how it's used. Synonyms and homonyms are quite common in the English language, so if that's the case with Roma/Romani, we would just have to deal with it. It seems quite possible that since Romani (the language) hasn't been standardized around the world, even Roma/Romanies themselves may use these words in a variety of ways. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
But it is relevant when it can be confusing. This whole matter started because some Romanians fear of a confusion between Romanies and Romanians. So if a possible confusion is affecting the Romanian side the it should be resolved, but if it affects the Romani side then it is irrelevant? AKoan (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Besides Roma (as an equivalent for Romanies) and Roma (as a Romani subgroup) are not simple homonyms. There is an inclusion relationship between them. AKoan (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're suggesting I'm giving preference to "the Romanian side." Of course confusion should be avoided if possible, but it can be avoided in many different ways. Simply choosing one term over another (if/when both are commonly used) is not the only way to avoid confusion. As for Roma being a subgroup of the Romani, I have no doubt that this assertion has been made by some, and that you believe it, but it's not necessarily undisputed, even among Roma/Romanies themselves. Last time I checked, there was no unanimously accepted Romani government to decide. The World Romani Congress--arguably the closest thing to one--decided in 1970 that the term "Roma" should be used. I'm not saying they are right, or the Romanians are right, or that you are wrong, I'm just suggesting maybe it's not a matter of right vs. wrong. We're not talking about math here. We're talking about a varied culture of 15 million people around the world, most of whom are only in loose (at best) contact with each other. Why would you expect any term to be universally accepted? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
So to clarify the debate: One side feels the terms "Roma" and "Romanies" are synonymous, the other feels Roma are Romanies (but not the other way around).
Since I believe both have references to back up their claims, we're left with two options. A) Choosing one of these two based on which is most common, which is difficult to measure. B) Finding an alternative that satisfies everyone. Does either side of this argument disagree that Romani can be used as an adjective to describe ALL Romanies and/or Roma? If not, Romani people seems like a legitimate compromise. Does anyone have any other suggestions? (Please don't suggest gypsy, as we've been over that many times.) - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
TheMightyQuill, I am sorry if I suggested that you are giving preference to "the Romanian side", I don't think so. In fact you are one of the most rational person with whom I've talked in contradictory on this page. I know that there isn't a consensus not even between Romanies on what term is the best and that is exactly because of the loose contact between various Romani groups. Most of the Romanies in the world are Roma and they have the tendency to use the term for all other groups without knowing that many of those don't use or even strongly reject the term Roma (if you will look on the archives you will see people from other Romani groups saying "don't call us all Roma"). So I don't expect that a term will be universally accepted, but I think we should use that term that is the most correct and logically, and also least confusing. When I've said that Romanian nationalists know that strictly speaking Roma only refers to Eastern Europe Romanies I know what I am saying. Look at what Rezistenta said earlier when they tried to move the article to "Gypsies": "Roma cannot be preffered over gypsy for the very simple reason that Roma is a sub-group of the gypsies, this means not all gypsies are Roma". So he knows that Roma are a subgroup of the "Gypsies", but when he saw that he has no chance to move the page to "Gypsies" he changed his mind and choose the "smallest evil" that of "Roma people" instead of "Romani people". That is also why he "couldn't read" the source that said clearly that Roma are those originating from Eastern Europe.
But in the end, although we talk in contradictory terms, it seem that we agree:) "Romani people" is the best compromise. AKoan (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No it's not the best compromise, roma and romani are words developed from the same root, it's like saying croats and croatians are differit people, if Kale Sinti or whatever are not "Roma" they are neither "Romani" and the article must be moved to Gypsies. And most important is that what you and your friend desiphral are trying to do is absurd because Matras doesn't say such abberations, you are giving sources which are not sustaining the content and i'm afraid we must stick to wiki rules which are very precise regarding this situations . If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research
Finnaly i'm glad someone recognised with half of mouth that name roma and romani are modern etnonims forwarded because of the "Political Corectness" but I must also say Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool for Roma/Romani activists NGO's (from Romania) and that Wikipedia is not politically correct which means only sciencific and universal views are accepted over here.
And if some of the members of your ethnicity don't like to be called romani or roma, why are you trying to impose them this terms ? Do you think you can take the decision for several millions of Roma/Kale/Sinti etc worldwide ?...That they should thenceforth present themselves as “Roma” or "Romani", most of them hearing this terms for the first time in their life ?
The only compromise we will reach is that of presenting encyclopedic references, nothing less Rezistenta (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
(To TheMightyQuill) I think you're right. Or at least, that you're making a valid, constructive argument. --Kuaichik (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Rezistenta, no one is suggesting that the term "Roma" should be removed from the page. We should definitely include a section on "Name controversy" which explains the different sides. There is good evidence to suggest that both terms, "Roma" and "Romanies" are used as nouns to describe all Romani people. The issue isn't which is correct--neither is correct or wrong--but what to use for the article title. Whether Roma=Romanies, or Roma are part of the Romanies, Romani is used as an adjective. So "Romani people" should be neutral, no? What exactly is the opposition to that term? If you don't like any of these but can't suggest any other option besides "gypsy" I'm not sure why i'm wasting my time discussing it with you. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Themightyquill I don't want this article to be moved to gypsies I just want this article to be according to the most used and well-known term in English language beside Gypsy, term which is advocated by unquestionable organizations, banks like European Roma Rights Center, World Bank etc.
Check the number of hits per name by Google News Archive
I'm not denying other synonim names like Romani people or whatever, they were written in the previous version of this article's intro. Altought I have one question: if Rom is the noun, Roma is the plural form of the noun what is "Romanies" , what does it mean ? And yes I support your idea of having a section of the name controversy in this article, so that people can learn and comprehend better the amalgam of these modern names which creates confusion even between the Roma people themselves. Rezistenta (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty hard to prove that "Roma people" is more used than "Romani people" to describe Romani people around the world. As far as I know, largest and most politically active Romani are in C/E Europe, so how can we tell if the word "Roma" is meant to be inclusive of everyone or specifically referring to Roma in Europe. Unless you want to go through all 1000 of those articles that use "Roma", find ones that are clear which definition they are using, and knock out the others as inconclusive.

It's possible that Roma IS more common than Romani people, but

  • that may only be because Roma in c/e europe are more common (and it's pretty much impossible to tell
  • it would put the title in dispute, because some people don't think it applies to all Romani people.

Alternately, we could use "Romani people" which

  • may be more common in describing Romani people around the world (it's pretty much impossible to tell)
  • may be less common in describing Romani people around the world (it's pretty much impossible to tell)
  • would avoid bringing the Roma/Romanies dispute to the title of the article.

Ordinarily, I'm all for "most common wins" but there's a legitimate reason why that would cause confusion in this case. This seems like an easy NPOV solution to me, siding neither with Roma or Romanies. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No it's not hard at all to prove they are synonims . Like I showed upper in the page Worldkwown Encyclopedias like Britannica, Columbia, Encarta etc. are refering to all Gypsies when talking about Roma. : They often refer to themselves as Roma, Roma people, commonly known as Gypsies and specialised webpages in synonymy present them as synonims Check Here or Here, etc. Need more "Encyclopedic references" ? Rezistenta (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, that Bartleby article doesn't use the word Roma or Romanies, so I'm not sure why you included that. Second, I agree with you that many people use the word Roma to describe all Romani people world wide (that's how I've always used it) but you can't always tell. If I say "Most Roma in Sofia live in XXX neighbourhood" am I using the term "Roma" to describe all Romani people worldwide or simply those Romani people living in c/e europe? So you can't always tell. And because people writing about Romani people are usually writing about Romani people in c/e Europe, this kind of ambiguity seems common. If you want to go through all 1000 of those hits you found and show how each of them is clearly referring to Romani people worldwide, that's fine. So far, you've got 2? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Firstly yes Bartleby does use the name Roma as synonim for all Gypsies, I'll quote so that you can see better : Gypsies or Gipsies a traditionally nomadic people with particular folkways and a unique language, found on every continent; they often refer to themselves as Roma
Secondly if you dispute even 3 of the World Most Known Encyclopedias the problem may not be on my side don't you think ? Thirdly and I want by all means you to answer to this question directly, what makes you think those wo are not Roma, are not Roma, but instead they are Romani? Since the root from the word "Romani" is the same root as for the word "Roma" how could they be distinct? i't illogical, completely original research and cotradicted by all Encyclopedic references available. Rezistenta (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the Bartleby article, as I really did miss the word Roma there. But it doesn't add to your argument. Romani people do often refer to themselves as Roma... arguably, most of the ones in c/e do... but this article doesn't specify that Romani people everywhere refer to themselves as Roma. It's ambiguous, and I'm going to assume most articles are the same.
Secondly, (and it feels like we're talking in circles here) I don't dispute what your encyclopedia articles are saying. If I did, I'd suggest changing the page name to Romanies. The fact remains that those encyclopedia articles ARE disputed, and this dispute is worth acknowledging. Since the encyclopedia article that you presented DOES make use the term "Romani peoples" you can't reasonably ague that it isn't a perfectly legitimate alternative to "Roma." Your opponents, who believe really Romanies is the proper term, also accept the term "Romani people." That's my whole point, it's a neutral third option, instead of Roma or Romanies. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Skipping the Bartleby part.... I really think we're speaking differit languages. Who is disputing 3 of most known Encyclopedias in the World my friend, you ? Allow me to believe that your personal opinon doesn't weight very much beside such references..and your personal opinion could be very easy framed as Original Research . The second part of your statement altought amuzes me the most, have you read my replies untill now ? Wasn't I the one who was saying Romani people is a perfectly alternative name to Roma people and viceversa ?I think my point was proved and i'm glad we reached a common conviction Rezistenta (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you say that Romani people is a perfect alternative for Roma people, than wee all agree on Romani people. AKoan (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Rezistenta, why are you accusing me of pushing my opinion when I just wrote that I've always used the word Roma to describe all Romani people. I'm not pushing my POV here, I don't even feel strongly about this issue, but since there is a conflict over the name that can be easily solved with "Romani people" I can't understand why you are so (pardon the pun) resistant. You have provided sources that back up your position (Roma = Romani people). Akoan has provided references below for the opposit position (Roma are part of the Romani people). You're both willing to use the term Romani people to suit your definition. If we're in agreement, can we now move the article to "Romani people" without conceding that either you or Akoan is right? Then you can either include both opinions with sources in a section on "Naming controversy." - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Rezistenta, you still didn't tell us why you've changed your mind: "Roma cannot be preffered over gypsy for the very simple reason that Roma is a sub-group of the gypsies, this means not all gypsies are Roma". AKoan (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I didnt' changed my mind Akoan, I'm intransigent. Those who ere not Roma they are neither "Romani" Rezistenta (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
"not all gypsies (e.g. from Eastern Europe) are Roma" Who are those from Eastern Europe? AKoan (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dpotop's response

The last time I expressed a view on this talk page was on April Fool's Day, so I don't understand why my name appears in this extremist rant by User:Desiphral. I also refrained from editing the article itself, exactly because I know to what extremes some pro-Romani NGOs and their representatives are ready to push their discourse. I won't get into technicalities here. I will simply remind this unhappy Romanian citizen of Roma ethnicity that he lives in a country that allowed Roma to live and multiply to a larger degree than any surrounding or Western country. This is true even today: If he does not believe me, I suggest he follows the news of Western countries, especially in what regards expulsions of Romanian citizens and the fact that nobody wants around what the French call fr:Gens du voyage. Now, problems exist, and I never said Romania is the greatest country, etc, which is what this guy seems to imply. So, problems have existed and exist, in particular in what concerns the integration of Roma. However, I think these guys should cut the crap concerning "historical guilt", and "it's your fault we do not integrate". I understand Desiphral would want the entire Romanian GDP, and maybe all EU aid be dedicated to Roma, but this is not feasible. Moreover, this discourse is simply drawing away attention from *the main problem* of pro-Roma efforts, which is the following: What was proved to work on Roma integration is not throwing money to the problem, because such money ends up in the accounts of a few NGOs and mafia leaders. Instead, what works is a slow process of: (1) education, (2) sedentarization, which is a constant in Western culture, not just in Romania, and (3) anti-discrimination education of the majority population. All of these are already on the way. Like in the US for the African-Americans, I would say, except they were already sedentarized. Dpotop (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am almost certain there are people who wish to jump on this argument. In fact, I do not agree with it myself. But before a great big quarrel ensues over this issue, I would like to note that basically, both sides of the discussion have stated their point. I would also like to suggest that, at this point, this discussion is not the most urgent concern regarding this article.
So, can we hold these thoughts for later? --Kuaichik (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Even better, can we remember that Wikipedia is NOT a forum and not discuss our opinions about Roma/Romanian relations here at all? Great. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, in this case you should enforce the rules, such as WP:NPA. FYI, I am not interested in this discussion. And, please, do not indent my edits, I can do it myself very well. Dpotop (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox populations list > collapsible?

That infobox is enormously long, and it's mostly just populations by country. Any way we could make that section collapsible? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to fix here. I've made a request at Template talk:Infobox Ethnic group. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better if we just make that list shorter... to put only the countries with significant Romani numbers. AKoan (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I am a Rom from a 'Rromane familia'.

With respect to the tile 'Roma people' then I agree this is wrong.

The word Roma is using Romani grammar as it is the plural of Rom using the Romani 'a' for grammar. To quote

The word Rroma / Roma is not an English word, but is with Romani grammar and is the plural of the word Rom. In the English language it is ‘Roms’. English mixed blooded Romanichal travellers of the UK who come into contact with the fuller blooded Rroma of the continent have always referred to them as ‘Roms’. It is Gaje (non-Romani) scholars that are now calling them Roma.

The tile should either be Roms or Romane / Romani people.

Using the terminating letter 'e' in the english is not wrong as english has words like 'Cafe' which sound the same. As for being called 'Gypsy'. No Rom calls themself a gypsy unless to gaje.

But Baxtalo

Hello, and te aves baxtalo. Well, I must object to the claim that only gadžikano scholars use "Roma" to mean "Romani people" (even Prof. Ian Hancock says e.g. in the Handbook of Vlax Romani " is from Rajasthan and the Punjab that the Roma originated." A mistake? Maybe, but still!). I'm pretty sure that the claim that "(n)o Rom calls themself a gypsy" is false, too. And this article is not just about "Roms," it's about the Romani people in general. That being said, I also disagree with the title "Roma people" for this article and think it should be moved back to its original title, "Romani people." --Kuaichik (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


It mentions Romani / Romane tribes called Luri.

Is this correct as I was of the understanding the Luri were in Asia and were an un-related Domari tribe speaking a different Indic language to the Roms?

Nah, I think the Luri are a Domari people. The musicians of Indian origin mentioned in the Shah-Nameh were Luri (as you may have known) but almost certainly not Romanies. --Kuaichik (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


The Etymology and also the section on asia and the middle east is very incorrect and unbacked up by any proven facts and needs to be corrected. There is no proven ties between the Ghorbati (Domii) of asia and the Rroma from of Europe. The section refers to Asian nomadic groups as 'Gypsy' even though they have no past connection or mistaken connection to Egypt.

In Ghorbati / Domari they speak a language from a different origin to the Romani language.

Romani for example uses Rajasthani grammar of o on masculine words (i.e. Miro / Muro = my (masculine). Domari uses the typical Hindi grammar of Mera. Romani uses the Rajasthani / Rajputti word Kako for 'uncle' whereas Ghorbati uses the different rooted Indian word Mamun.

Romani words for brother, sister, house, horse & over there are; Phral, Phen, Kher (pronounced like the English word 'care'), Khuro (meaning ‘Colt’) and Othe which are all like modern Panjabi Phra, Phen, Khar, Khora, Othe.

Domii / Domari uses the following; Bar, Beynam, Gar, Gori & Hundar. Compare this to modern Hindi; Bhai, Bahin, Ghar, Gura & Udhar. We can now see that the Romani language uses Rajasthani / Rajputti grammar and borrows from Panjabi whereas Domii / Domari doesn't. Domii / Domari also has three gender where as Romani like modern Rajasthani / Panjabi etc only has two. This shows the two peoples had different home territories whilst still in India as we can see they spoke different languages / dialects. If there is any connection between the two then it goes back further into India as the two spoke different Indian languages and if thiere is a connection then it is still not as yet a proven or accepted fact, hence the article on here being incorrect.

In addition to this the article in the first paragraph says how the word Dom means man and then in the next paragraph points out how the Romani word Rom means 'married man'. Interestingly not all Romani tribes call themselves Roma but just use the word Rom meaning 'husband'. Most do use the word Romani (f), Romano (m) & Romane (p) which are all gender variations of the word Roman. Something else this article fails to point out is the Sanskrit word Raman also meaning 'husband / married man'.

The same way the word Lolo (m) Loli (f) meaning 'red' derives from lala / lali, Romano (m) Romani (f) could derive from Ramana / Ramani. The female equiverlent of Rom is Romni. Both could be short spoken corruptions of Raman and Ramani.

Another thing to take care of once some more serious issues have been resolved :) --Kuaichik (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You are right, the infos about Dom will be put into the article about Dom. But as far as I read I'm not sure yet if Domari has three genders. AKoan (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
No, actually I'm led to believe Domari doesn't have three genders - only masculine and feminine. Note also that the Domari and Romani aren't (strictly speaking) completely unrelated; they are related in the sense of being both of Indian origin. And that -o ending is certainly not limited to Rajasthani; Gujarati and Sindhi have that, too. But again, I get the idea. --Kuaichik (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There should be a completely different page for Gypsy to Romani

To include Romani with the word Gypsy is very politically incorrect as many if not most Roms find this word offensive. The word Gypsy means 'Egyptian' and the Romani people are not from Egypt.

There should be a seperate page explaining the word Gypsy and how it is short for the word Egytian and how the word was mistakenly applied to Roms. It can also cover how many people mistakenly used the word today as an alternative to traveller or nomadic group.

If people then choose to look further into the Roms / Romani people they can link from that page. This way it is not the least bit offensive or degrading to the Romani people. It also covers any arguement with the basic FACTS (which is what this site is supposed to be about). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There is one :) --Kuaichik (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Population section

The infobox lists India with 5,794,000 Romani, more than any other country, but the section of the article on population states the following: "The largest population of Romanies is found in the Balkan peninsula; significant numbers also live in the Americas, the former Soviet Union, Western Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa." India's not even mentioned here. Can someone explain this? – SJL 15:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Or at least, I can try. The fact is, no Romanies are actually known to live in India. The estimate for India is the number of Banjara people, not the number of Romanies.
The Portuguese deported some Romanies to their colonies as slaves, and that included their colonies in India. To my knowledge, however, no one knows what happened to those who went to India, or who their descendants are.
Contrary to the beliefs of some, the word "Romani" is not interchangeable with the word "Gypsy" (or "gipsy," "gypsy," or "Gipsy"). It is true that India has many peoples who are classified as "gypsies" (and the Banjara are certainly not the only such people), and it is also true that the Banjara recognize a relationship with the Romani people. However, though they may be related, they are not actually the same people. --Kuaichik (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
In that case, the infobox should be changed. As someone who knows next to nothing about the subject, the first thing that I noticed when I came to the page was that nearly half to Roma in the world, according to the infobox, live in India. – SJL 03:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I also think it should be changed, but I'm not sure this is a good time to make such a change. Let's just say, that may be a sensitive issue at this point in the history of this article :-/ --Kuaichik (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The Population section will be corrected after some more urgent problems will be resolved.AKoan (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Italy fingerprinting Roma

Italy has started fingerprinting Roma living within its territory. I don't have time at the moment to incorporate this information into the article myself, but maybe someone else will. – SJL 15:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

just to say, i already added this. Lihaas (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Where the Romani people live

I was about to undo this good faith edit, but I thought about it again.

See, that edit is fine, but the wording sounds a bit odd. It says "This widely dispersed ethnic group lives across the world, not only in Eurasia, but also in the Americas and the Middle East." But...the Middle East is in Eurasia! :-P

And yet there is another problem. What should it be changed to? The original said that the Romanies live "not only in Europe, but also in the Americas and the Middle East." But there are Romanies in Iran (and possibly other borderline "Middle Eastern" countries), and it seems that there are also Romanies in China and even Singapore (though I still maintain that there are no Romanies known to live in India). So, should it be changed back to "Europe," or to something like "...Europe...the Americas and Asia"? --Kuaichik (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

How about: "This widely dispersed ethnic group lives across the world, not only in Eurasia, but also in the Americas and Northern Africa." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, no, sorry. I don't think that will work, either. True, estimations are listed for "Romani" populations in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt, but they seem to be basically referring to the Dom people, who also are not Romani. Yes, they are of Indian origin and are called "Gypsies," and this has led some to propose that they are related to the Romanies, but that doesn't make them Romani. --Kuaichik (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
In Northern Africa they are also Roma people. The gitanos from Spain, Portugal and southern France migrated through Northern Africa until they reached Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any sources to back up that claim? --Kuaichik (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I just remembered about this discussion, and I wish to say: I'm sorry, my mistake. You're right, there are Romanies in Northern (and/or other parts of) Africa. Or more generally, there are Romanies in both Africa and Australia.
So now, I am going to make a new suggestion: "not only in Eurasia, but also in the Americas, Africa, and Australia." We could cite p. xx of We Are the Romani People for this.
Note, however, that (as Prof. Hancock points out on that same page) the Romani people live mainly in Europe and the Americas, with smaller populations elsewhere. So we could also say "in Europe, the Americas, and, to a lesser extent, elsewhere" or something like that and still attribute our statement to the same source. --Kuaichik (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

founder population?

I am not sure what a founder population is. It would help to link to an article that covers that information. (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A "founder population" is basically a small group of humans from which a large group of people (like an ethnic group) have emerged. I shall do some more work on that section when the trolls will allow work to be done. This is also the case of other sections. AKoan (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


Just saw Rezistenta revert of my edit. Well, my edit was a change of a non-member edit. I was going to revert this edit, but i bothered to look at the sources (of which there are multiple) and saw the max number was 19.4m. These are not my numbers. These are numbers of already sourced edits. The max was 19.4m that's why the site says a MAX. number for "Other estimations." Not even the prime estimation that is still disputed, but the OTHER estimations. in future can people please DISCUSS before all but minor edits on such a big article. Lihaas (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you should drink less. Roma are not Romanians Rezistenta (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Rezistenta, your personal attacks are totally uncalled for. Lihaas asked people to discuss before making large edits and you respond with insults? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
For God sake look at his edits and then start talking, the large edits were made by him not by me Rezistenta (talk)
I just did look at the edits, and you were perfectly correct to revert the changes, but that doesn't justify your insults.
Lihaas, what Rezistenta meant to say was that the source you mentioned (6) is in Romanian, so "Romani" refers to Romanians, whereas "Rromi" refers to Romani people. A simple mistake, easily explained, without belligerence. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Lihaas' edit actually LOWERED the number of Romani people from the vandalism (22m) to 19m, so why you wouldn't assume good faith is beyond me. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
How was I supposing to know his edits were not made in purpuse ? Before editing he should first speak over here, i'm not the one who should explain his edits. And that wasn't an insult, if you're really searching for insults look a little upper in the page Rezistenta (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Is that your attempt at an apology? You're not supposed to know that his edits were not made on purpose, but you are supposed to assume good faith -- please read this now -- especially (but not only) because he was LOWERING the number. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I have posted this matter at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts because I'm tired of the personal attacks on this page. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I responded to Rezistenta on his user page in an entirely civil manner saying after he explained the info made more sense. but before edits people need to discuss (this often happens that people jump to edits, without discussion, i myself have been guilty of this. but this is also happened before that civility and reason brought about a better conclusion). The previous number said 22.4m so I looked at all the sources, and, at the time, the 19.4m, which did seem high, was pegged next to Romani. The fact the English wikipedia used foreign language sources can cause confusion, even though it is legitimate. And also assuming good faith is equal to assuming changed are not made as vandalism. It does not mean "how was I support to know..." I don't know if Rezistenta has read this but it'll help to prevent further flare ups. I could have been in my right mind to report this but I see Themightyquill has done so. (Thank you for your support in preserving civility, even though our edits didn't agree we can still be civil and discuss) There are other occasions (for example: see the original page for Zana Krasniqi) with blatant POV violations, but, on that occassion at least, I re did the article, and the others made edits back to keep it as a better POV. Lihaas (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

15 million, or more?

In this edit, AKoan reverted the edits of an IP user. However, in doing so, he changed the original estimate for the number of Romani people in the world from the original "15 million or more" to "15 million." Before his edit (and that of another IP), the article originally said "15 million or more."

Shouldn't it be kept the way it was before, i.e. "15 million or more"? Clearly, there are controversies regarding the number of Romanies in various countries, and not all Romanies have been accounted for on Wikipedia (not even in the more exhaustive list Romani people by country!). For example, there are (apparently) Romanies in China and Singapore, but you can't see China or Singapore in that list. (In fact, it's quite possible that there are no estimates available for the number of Romanies in China or Singapore.) --Kuaichik (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, he was reverting the whole of edits at the bottom, but in the process the legitmates got removed. I changed the 'other' estimate. BUt 15million or more sounds fair IF it was established before. Lihaas (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
If that particular part was established before than you can change it separately. I personally don't care much about Romani numbers, but I see there are a lot of edits about them without consensus or even discussion. AKoan (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, this one was carried over from an earlier edit on the template that used to be used. According to this discussion, the count is based on the figures in Romani people by country. And besides, there are Romanies all over the world who are unaccounted for (I mentioned China and Singapore as examples; it so happens that We are the Romani people also mentions these two countries (as well as Africa, etc.) as examples of various regions all over the world where there are Romanies. He notes, however, that the majority of the Romani people live in either Europe or the Americas). --Kuaichik (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)