Talk:Romani people/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Romani people, Romany people, Roma people

Two apples and an orange. The introduction as it presently reads equates Romani people/Romany people with Roma people. This is incorrect and I recommend for this removing "Roma people" from the introductory paragraph. The differences are explained discussed in the "Terminology" section as they should be (though the significant difference should be made more explicit there). I will repeat three citations (now archived) that support my recommendation:

1) "'Roma' is a political term used as an umbrella name for all members of the Romani ethnic community ... [F]rom an ethnographic point of view, the Romani community is extremely diverse and all Romani groups, subgroups and metagroups have their own ethnic and cultural features .. so far, the homogeneous Romani identity is a political project rather than a reality." (p. 13 in Illona Klimova-Alexander's The Romani Voice in World Politics: The United Nations and Non-State Actors (2005, Burlington, VT.: Ashgate).

2) "Before the changes in 1989-90, the name 'Roma' was used most commonly as an endonyme (an internal community self-appellation) in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (except for former Yugoslavia) when the Gypsies spoke Romanes (the Gypsy language). This name was not widely popular and did not have an official status. In order to be faithful to the historical principle we use the word Roma only for the period after 1989. In all other instances we use the term 'Gypsies'. We think that 'Gypsies' is wider in scope than 'Roma' and we also use it to include the Gypsy communities who are not Roma or who are considered to be 'Gypsies' by the surrounding population but do not wish to be considered as such." (p. 52 in Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov's "Historical and ethnographic background; Gypsies, Roma, Sinti" in Will Guy [ed.] Between Past and Future: The Roma of Central and Eastern Europe [with a Foreword by Dr. Ian Hancock], 2001, UK: University of Hertfordshire Press). [wherein Dr Ian Hancock uses "Romani people" in place of "Roma people" consistently in order to avoid the ambiguity I am drawing attention to.

In sum, "Romani people" and "Romany people" refer to the more inclusive ethnic group described in the article, of which "Roma people" is a part. The introduction should be rewritten to make that clear. The scholarly citations appearing above have much more more authority and validity than those blogs and encyclopedia references given in support of "Roma people" as equivalent in meaning to "Romany people" and "Romany people".Steviemitlo (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Manual of style

Now that the normal and long waited move to "Romani people" was finally accomplished, I think that we should have a manual of style for his matter, as it was already discussed here:

Basically, following the talks, I think that "Romani people"/"Romanies" for the entire ethnic group, Roma (as a noun) for the E Europe subgroup, and "Romany" with an "y" when we cite a title is the best solution. AKoan (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A manual of style is a great idea. Meanwhile, we need a working definition for this article titled "Romani people" that allows us to edit systematically pending the production of the manual of style. To minimize ambiguity in the first instance I suggest that the introduction read: "The Romani (Romany) people are an ethnic group with origins in South Asia. The Romani people are a widely dispersed ethnic group, with the largest concentrated populations in Europe and the Americas. They are alternatively referred to as Romanies (Romanis), Roma, and Gypsies (Gipsies)." I have removed all citations from the introduction in anticipation that they would appear in the following "Terminology" section. I suggest we retitle that section "Terminology and Manual of Style". What the proposed working definition for "Romani people" allows us to do is to initially work to revise the article to emphasize our recent consensus to rename the article as "Romani people" in order to more clearly recognize and empower its comprehenive representation of the entire ethnic group worldwide for encyclopedic purposes. Steviemitlo (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I have posted a "working definition" that has the attributes mentioned above. While I anticipate it will be contested I urge editors to consider how concise and clean it appears without neeedless citations. Our previous discussions provided citations upon which we reached consensus of the name change. These citations can appear in the next paragraph under "Terminology and Manual of Style." I suggest the second paragraph under "Terminology" be moved to being the first paragraph of "Terminology" so that terminology involving "Romani" appears first and foremost, keeping with the focus and emphasis of the article. Steviemitlo (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
A minor suggestion from me as I haven't been involved in the discussion enough to comment on anything substantive: instead of "Romani (Romany)" etc., you should use something along the lines of "Romani (or Romany)" to make it clear that these are spelling variations. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Where and how many? .. again

The introductory phrase has been discussed here [1]. I couldn't continue the discussion, cause I was absent a long time. I support the version initially suggested by Kuaichik (with the largest concentrated populations in Europe, but also in the Americas and, to a lesser extent, elsewhere), because it represents better the reality. The Romanies have the largest concentration in Europe, followed by the Americas, followed by "elsewhere". The current version (with the largest concentrated populations in Europe and the Americas) gives the impression the Europe and the Americas have kinda the same Romani populations. AKoan (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you have returned to continue to take an active part in the improvement of Wiki: Romani people. Your previous numerous contributions in the archives discussions demonstrate great knowledge, wisdom and experience with the many convoluted and contested issues related to the article, and particularly questions of terminologies. I look forward to working with you toward a concensus improvement of this article under its new name. Right now I am trying to build a case for consensus on a proposed "working definition" for Romani people as an clear and concise introductory paragraph (uninterrupted by citations that can be inserted under "Terminology and A Manual of Style"). Please share your thoughts on this. Steviemitlo (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind welcome back! My absence was because of lack of time, and unfortunately this hasn't change, so I don't know how present I shall be in the future, although there are a lot of things that I would like to do here.
About the introductory phrase, except for the "concentration" part where I've said my opinion, I think that "Romany" should appear only in the Terminology section, since its quite an old form. Also, the "Gypsies" part should be a little expanded, and the various connotations and ambiguities should be explained (maybe also in the Terminology section). I think that the idea of putting Terminology right after the introduction is a good one, that is something I wanted to do myself. AKoan (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Coming back to where this started, is there any objection to this form: "with the largest concentrated populations in Europe, but also in the Americas and, to a lesser extent, elsewhere"? AKoan (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Not an objection, since what you say is correct. It is, however, wordy, and extends the length of the now-concise and fairly stabilized introduction considerably. Your observation can be more clearly and at length conveyed perhaps in the "Population" section (which is in sore need of editorial attention) where the uncertainties of counting the Romani people can be also addressed. All the country by country population estimates in the box beside the little flags and so on are colorful, but should be labeled "contested" in almost every case. And there are so many missing countries where there are Romanies that are not addressed in the table: Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and so on, that the entire table seems misleading rather than informative. The template for this "world distributions of the Romani people" box needs to be discussed, where we seriously weigh the virtues of the box against its vices. School kids are going to copy the numbers and ignore that they are "contested" for good reason. AK: how about you taking a crack at improving by revising and rewriting the "Population" section and the "populations around the world box"? As for "concentrated, etc." in the introduction: can you get your message across by changing what is there using fewer words? If so please do so. Steviemitlo (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that an extra half of row will make the intro to "dense", do you?
I agree with the objections about the population table, I said some time ago that it would be better without it; just with a section (or even an article) that will deal with that part, but is not an urgency for me. What I want to do right now in that section is to make the map more accurate. I'm not very pleased with the idea of having such a map, but if we have it than at least lets have a good one. AKoan (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess not. So go ahead and make that change. I am all for a better map. How about the maps in Clebert, J-P (The Gypsies, pub. E.P. Dutton, 1963, pages 18-19 and 28?). They have nice detail. On the Wiki, the arrows on these maps can be put in color. The captions can be changed from "Gypsies" to "Romanies" or something like that. Steviemitlo (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you post that map, I can't have an opinion on it, if I don't see it? Thanks!AKoan (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, another thing with the intro. I think that the second phrase should be "The Romani people are.." or "The Romanies are.." in order to be grammatically correct. Romani is the singular form. AKoan (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

English-language usage of "Romani" (or "Romany") as a plural noun is uncommon and perhaps archaic but I think not grammatically incorrect. Those who use the term "Romani" to mean "Romani people" are just lazy communicators, and habitually assume their listeners or readers understand "Romani" in the context of their communication means "Romani people" or "Romany people" ... More to the point: In reaching consensus in early December to change the name of the article to its present name (Romani people) the editors at that time reached a consensus that permitted the move -- but respected the wishes of one editor to retain this uncommon use in preference the more common alternatives "Romani people" or "Romanies." Personally, as the archives will show, I suggested "Gypsies (Romanies)" for the name of the article: "Romani people" is plain awkward where "Romanies" can be substituted, and "Gypsies" with the capital "G" is the by-far-most-common term meaning "Romani people" in the English-language, and used by many of the Romani-people themselves to refer to themselves when speaking English. I compromised. I have learned that Wikipedia for all its virtues sometimes barters shades of truth for consensus. The extent to which a partially true statement in the introduction is grammatical, archaic, or politically correct can be elaborated using citation of authority and validity in the "Terminology and Manual of Style". Since the present use of "Romani (or Romany)" in the introduction is not wrong usage, only uncommon usage, I say "let sleeping dogs lie" unless other editors want to make an issue of it. Better our energies at this time are spent on removing all the clutter and inappropriate elements of the present article owing to the name change. I suggest we can always return to this issue down the line. Steviemitlo (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Who speaks Russian?

The section about the Romani groups uses to references that are in Russian. Can anybody translate them (at least the relevant parts) cause I'm suspicious about them.AKoan (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Specifically which refs are you curious about? If User:RomanyChaj is not available, I might be able to take a crack at them for you. —Zalktis (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Its this [2] and this [3]. The two sources seem to support the Rom, Dom, Lom theory, but I don't know what exactly divisions they make, nor how trusted they can be (especially the first one). AKoan (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
If there isn't anybody who can certify the information extracted from those sources (basically that the Dom are a subgroup of Romani people), and the reliability of those sources, I shall delete them. AKoan (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I've looked a bit at the links, but, sadly, I don't have time right now to chase up the scholarly credentials of the people behind either of them. Sorry. Regarding the first source, however, the suggestion in Table 3 is that there are some kind of common Indian ancestors between the Dom and the Romanis, but that this division took place long before the specific ancestors of Romanis had moved on through Persia, Armenia and Byzantium. In the text, the basis for this suggestion appears to be taken from the theories of 19th C. linguists Graziadio Isaia Ascoli and Franc Miklošič, as well as references to Thomas Allen Sinclair. —Zalktis (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
A common Indian ancestors between the Dom and the Romanis is an old hypothesis that might be true, but to say that the Dom are a subgroup of the Romanis, that is a different story, I'm gonna take that part out, thanks. AKoan (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

See also section

The see also section of the article is getting a bit out of hand. Would anyone object if I attempted to cut it down? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Have at it! Steviemitlo (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. Let me know if you think I removed anything I shouldn't have. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks great! What remains is a lean and balanced mix of useful recommendations. Steviemitlo (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Cem Romengo, Indian diaspora and List of Roma, Sinti and Mixed People should be kept. --Olahus (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Indian diaspora is a redirect to Non-resident Indian and Person of Indian Origin, which doesn't seem relevant. List of Roma, Sinti and Mixed People is a redirect to List of Romani people, which is already there. I'll re-add Cem Romengo. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Terminology and Manual of Style

The introduction to the article appears to have stabilized. This encourages us to begin to attempt to revise and update what is now the "Terminology" section and "Etymology" sub-section. It would be great if one of our Romani language specialists would attempt a systematic yet concise reorganization of the present contents that logically follows from the introduction. Something comprehensive yet without unnecessary esoteric digressions. Something written at the comprehension level of a 9th grade English-reading audience. I hesitate to attempt this myself, as so many other editors have earlier worked hard and contributed to the present contents -- which as far as I can tell are pretty much correct in substance, though in need now of updating and consolidation. If we are to have a Manual of Style for this article (or a direct from this section to a separate Manual of Style page), this seems a good opportunity. Steviemitlo (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"not to confuse with Romanians"

Someone keeps inserting this into the introductory paragraph. In looking over the archives, it appears that this (non)issue has been beat to death by previous editors. So what if the spellings "Romani people" and "Romanian people" are similar. The distinction can be addressed in "Terminology". Reference to Romanians does not belong in the introductory paragraph. Steviemitlo (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Steviemitlo, the confusion between the Romanies and the Romanians became a mass phenomenon in last time. The scope of Wikipedia is to inform the reader. The argument "so what" is not helpful. If you believe that this distinction can (or should) be addressed in "Terminology", then do it. Nobody would hinder you.--Olahus (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for identifying your concerns. The "Terminology" section already addresses the existance of confusion between "the Romanies" and "the Romanians" and how parties concerned about mitigating the confusion have attempted to solve it: "Sometimes, Rom and Romani are spelled with a double r, i.e., Rrom and Rromani, particularly in Romania in order to distinguish from the Romanian endonym (români)." This sentence clearly addresses that some confusion exists. However, your reference to Romanians in the introduction to "Romani people" is not helpful to improving the article. Steviemitlo (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, the mentioning in the section "Terminology" suggests that the Romanies might be confused with the Romanians in Romania. But not that Romanians really are confused with Romanies (and viceversa) outside Romania. --Olahus (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
"Terminology" and "Etymology" will be reorganized and updated soon. Editors are recommending there also be a Manual of Style. The extent of confusion between Romanies and Romanians outside of Romania can be included in that update. It would help if you would provide an authoritative source that speaks to the extent of the confusion and so validates your concerns. Thanks! By the way, are you familiar with Romanian-born Konrad Bercovici's many English-language books written on the Romanies? He was born in Galatz on the Danube. His autobiography (published 1941) is a fascinating read. Steviemitlo (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Lots of free-to-read Bercovici at Internet Archive RashersTierney (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Konrad Bercovici is Jewish not gypsy (romanies you say but gypsy in all Europe) and ROMANIAN citizen And one more thing "Galatz" is not the same wits Galaţi the real name (not some chat mess shorcut). I think we shold change back their name back because cause even more trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Pardon? RashersTierney (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Nothing, we, the Romanians, have our percent of idiots, too:) Kenshin (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revised "Terminology and Manual of Style"

I have taken the initiative to draft a proposed "Terminology and Manual of Style". I have reorganized the existing "Terminology" and "Etymology" sections, keeping most of what was there but deleting some items and adding a very few others. My main objective was to revise the article in ways that reflect the new name and its implictions regarding issues of terminology. The section may still be too long, but what I would like is your feedback on at this time regarding the accuracy of the content. If you encounter statements you consider absolutely wrong or very wrong, please do two things:

1) tell me here in "talk" how wrong they are, citing your opinions with the titles of scholarly references that have authority and validity.

2) ask me here to cite my opinions in support of contested statements with scholarly authority and validity.

The citations will enhance the next draft with more authority and validity until we reach a point where we can all agree here to a draft we can post. Once we post a consensus draft we can perhaps reformat it to be more aesthetically pleasing. What we need now, however, is consensus on credibility of content.

I should add that I deleted some paragraphs on etymology that went beyond what I thought was appropriate for the English-language Wikipedia entry "Romani people". We can always create new Wiki pages for digressions from "Romani people". One of the managerial complaints to our editors in the past is that the article is way too long and perhaps not reader-friendly to an encyclopedia readership at the ninth-grade English-language level.

Thanks for your constructive comments as we continue to work together to improve Wikipedia's "Romani people" article. All I can say is, the project is important. A world of learners is watching, hoping to increase their knowledge on this significant, complex and provocative topic.

Terminology and Manual of Style

Romanies in English-language terminology are a subcategory of European ethnic peoples with worldwide distribution and having ancestral roots traceable to India. The reasons for initial emigrations of proto-Romanies from India toward Europe (circa AD 1000), and the timetables and routes taken thereafter, remain obscure. Nevertheless, the Romani people are often these days termed a “Diaspora people.” Romani (or Romany) can be both an adjective and a noun.[54] All Romani-speaking branches of the Romani people use the word Romani as an adjective. From this long-observed usage, the term came to be an English-language noun used to comprehensively describe the entire ethnic group (Romani, categorized here as Romani people; and meaning Romanies).[55] Today, the term Romani is used by most organizations —including the United Nations, the Council of Europe, and the US Library of Congress.[56] Roma is not accurate terminology when used an English-language generic name for all branches (subcategories) of the Romani people.[53] Thus, "Roma language" or "Roma diplomacy” are examples of incorrect terminology, while "Romani language" or "Romani diplomacy" are examples of correct terminology.[55][57] Despite the fact that the Sinti branch, the Romnichal banch, and some other widely dispersed branches of the Romani people, do not self-ascribe as Roma[52] some organizations persist to misuse the term Roma as an ethnic name to refer to all Romani people around the world.[52] Roma misused in this comprehensive way is a neologism and incorrect from linguistic, historic and ethnographic perspectives (cite here). Roma is however accurate terminology when restricted to describing that branch of Romani people found in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, or to emigrants around the world from that region (for example, the Macvaya sub-branch of Roma in California). Sometimes, Rom and Romani are spelled with a double r, i.e., Rrom and Rromani, particularly in Romania in order to distinguish from the Romanian endonym (Români). This is well established in Romani itself, since it represents a sound different from the one written with a single r.[56] This variation in spelling is however not widely used outside of Romania, where non-Romanies still often confuse the names “Romani” and “Romanian”. As English-language terminology related to “Romani” is thus often confusing, the following suggestions regarding matters of style are recommended. Consideration in English-language usage should begin with matters involving some root-word Romani-language self-ascribing terminology. These are 1) rom (or rrom) depending on the dialect means "husband" and 2) romni (or rromni) means "wife” and 3) unmarried youth are named čhavo ("boy”) or čhej ("girl"). Etymologies for root-word Rom-related terminologies are unknown. However, these theories have been proposed: 1) Rom might come from old Indo-Aryan rama, which means "husband", the meaning that was kept in Romani itself.[58] 2) Rom might come from Dom, the name of an ethnic group of Indian origins from the Middle East, that some authors believe to be related to the Romani people. However, it should be noted that in the Domari language Dom means "man" and not "husband".[59][60] 2) The ethnonym Rom might have been acquired in the Byzantine Empire where the local people called themselves Romaioi ("Romans" in Greek).[61] 4) Rom might have come from ramta (wandering).[62] Recommended English-language usage should appreciate that Rom (plural Roma) is a noun. For example, “I am Rom” or “I am Roma”. In widespread English-language usage, the term “Romanies” (n. pl.) categorizes the ethnic Romani people inclusive of all sub-subcategories (or branches) variously named. Romani is an adjective . For example, the language of the Romani people is called “the Romani language”. In the Romani language, the adjective is created by attaching suffixes to the root that express gender and number: "Romani" (f. sing.), "Romano (m. sing.) and "Romane" (m. & f. pl.). Usually, in English, only the feminine singular form (Romani) is used adjectively (for example, the Romani (or Romany) road). The use of the Romani word Romanes in English as a noun is incorrect.[64].Romanes, with the following glaring exception, is an adverb (meaning, roughly, "in the Romani way"); the exception being -- the Romani language is also called Romanes ! The result is that “Lets speak Romani!” = “Let’s speak (in) Romanes !” The English term Gypsy (or Gipsy) originates from the Greek word Αιγύπτοι (Aigyptoi), modern Greek γύφτοι (gyphtoi). The Spanish term Gitano and the French term Gitan may have the same origin.[67] There was widespread belief among Europeans during their early encounters with the Romani people that they were royalty and originated in Egypt, and, as some of their stories and documents relate, were exiled as punishment for allegedly harboring the infant Jesus.[65] It seems significant that the Romani people themselves made these initial claims, which influenced the terminology that subsequently was used to ascribe their identities by others, and to which some Romanies still choose to self-ascribe, when it serves their own purposes. Thus the English-language term “Gypsy” when used to name the Romani people or its branches and their members is not an exonym. Correct use is that “Gypsy” pertaining to the ethnic group.[66] and its members should always be written with a capital letter. The Gypsy ethnonym is rarely used by the Romani people when speaking among them selves in Romani language to describe themselves. Many Romanies consider the “Gypsy” term and its variations and depravities, spoken, or written with or without capitalization, pejorative and defamatory (for example, when used as "gyp" meaning "to cheat) However, use of the word "Gypsy" in English has now become so pervasive that many Romani organizations use it in their own organizational names. In North America, where the Romani people proliferate and prosper, but generally keep a low profile, the word "gypsy" (usually not capitalized) is frequently used by outsiders as a reference to lifestyle or fashion. However, when “gypsy” is written in reference to ethnic Romanies, it is these days usually capitalized. There is also some frequent though now relict English-language use of “Bohemian” in reference to the Romani people (were first known as Bohémiens.[71] in France due to their supposed origins in Bohemia), and which also describes a “bohemian” lifestyle that Romanies first inspired among non-Romanies in France, and which to this day remains a fashion statement worldwide -- even in East and Southeast Asia, where Romanies can be encountered from time to time and place to place, but not in large concentrations. Steviemitlo (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Stevi, I welcome your efforts to tackle the issue of formulating a MOS for this topic. My initial observations on the above is generally favourable, but I have a particular gripe with the use of 'Romani'('Romany')as a stand-alone term to refer to the group. In my opinion it should only be used as an adjective in conjunction with a qualifying noun such as 'people', 'population', 'community' etc when used in this context. The stand-alone terms 'Roma' or 'the Roma' should otherwise be used. The only justification why this article is not named 'Roma' (imo),is because of the question of ambiguity. Well done on this positive start. RashersTierney (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi RT. Your opinion is understandable and is shared by many others. However, no neutral observer can deny that the English-language use of Romani (or Romany) as a stand-alone term to refer to the Romani people (or Romanies) as a group is extant and fairly common. I just Googled up “the Romany are” and “the Romani are” to verify this observation. My proposed revision of the “Terminology” and “Etymology” sections of the article as “Terminology and Manual of Style” states “Romani (or Romany) can be both an adjective and a noun.[54] All Romani-speaking branches of the Romani people use the word Romani as an adjective. From this long-observed usage, the term came to be an English-language noun used to comprehensively describe the entire ethnic group (Romani, categorized here as Romani people; and meaning Romanies).[55].” If we call this section of an article “Terminology and Manual of Style” we can recommend usage. So, why not just add this to the paragraph above: “To use Romani or Romany as a stand-alone term to refer to the group is not recommended.” I disagree that we should recommend the stand-alone terms “Roma” or “the Roma” as meaning “the Romani people”. We have the stand-alone term Romanies to serve that purpose, as it is clearly understood to mean the entire ethnic Romani people. English-language usage of Roma and the Roma is addressed in my proposed revised article in this manner: “Roma is not accurate terminology when used an English-language generic name for all branches (subcategories) of the Romani people.[53] Thus, "Roma language" or "Roma diplomacy” are examples of incorrect terminology, while "Romani language" or "Romani diplomacy" are examples of correct terminology.[55][57] Despite the fact that the Sinti branch, the Romnichal banch, and some other widely dispersed branches of the Romani people, do not self-ascribe as Roma[52] some organizations persist to misuse the term Roma as an ethnic name to refer to all Romani people around the world.[52] Roma misused in this comprehensive way is a neologism and incorrect from linguistic, historic and ethnographic perspectives (cite here). Roma is however accurate terminology when restricted to describing that branch of Romani people found in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, or to emigrants around the world from that region (for example, the Macvaya sub-branch of Roma in California).”Reflecting on your comments, to the foregoing I would now add “Thus ‘Roma language’ and ‘Roma diplomacy’ is correct terminology if restricted to refer to the Roma branch of the Romani people.” I hope I have been able to reduce some of your concerns, and if not let’s just keep at it until we can reach agreement. Steviemitlo (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with the use of Romani, both as an adjective and as noun (Romanies) for the entire Romani population, and Roma, as a noun only, for E-Europe Romanies. And that for the same 2 main reasons: 1. Romani is used and recognized by all Romani groups, while Roma (as an ethnic name) is rejected by most W-Europe groups, 2. it would be confusing to use Roma both for all Romani groups and just for the E-Europe group. "Romanies" as a noun is not something new, so this should not be a problem. AKoan (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this sentence "I also agree with the use of Romani" Can you explain to me why exactly it was so important to change from Roma to Romani? I am a Romanian and I learn that more and more often, by mistake, lack or knowledge or ill intended even here in North America it is now creating this confusion: Roma People equal Romanian People.By using "Romani" ,no matter your reasons,you guys are doing a great unmerited "disservice " to both Romanians and Roma People. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgegheorghe (talkcontribs) 22:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read the previous discussions, you will find the answers to your questions. Kenshin (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

English-language Wikipedia, Romani people and proto-Romanies

The article is titled Romani people. This title and the introductory statement guides the entire content of the article, which is now under revision since the name change. In my opinion concise, relevant content extraneous to Romani people can perhaps be inserted in an appropriate place in the body of the article, but has no place in the introduction -- Especially if it is esoteric content written in a language other than English. This is an English-language Wikipedia. It disseminates the best knowledge available on a topic, through consensus. Which is: Since the Romani people are a European people (A. Fraser, The Gypsies, 1992) any concise, English-language historic, ethnographic and linguistic introduction of proto-Romanies belongs in the body of the article. When deciding what what content should be included and given prominance in the article, scholarly materials pertaining Romani people should be privileged. Extraneous materials do no belong in this article. We should discuss these matters here on this Talk page rather than continue to change the present concise and uncluttered introduction. Polemics, proselytizing and petty feuding don't belong here. Let's stick to disseminating the most accurate and updated knowledge about the Romani people. For a start, we should reach a consensus on whether or not the Romani people and proto-Romanies can and should be introduced and discussed separately using these terms. That would really help organizing the contents of the article and sorting out the wheat from the chaff. Steviemitlo (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Come on, they are of South Asian origin, nobody denies it. Besides, what exactly is an "European people"? How do you define an "European people"? The fact that it lives mostly in Europe? Ok, the Roma live mostly in Europe and this is already written in the article. But the Roma from USA are not Americans? The Roma from Australia are not Australians? The Roma from Turkey are not Asians? Come on here, why is so extremely important for you to present the Roma as an exclusively European people? All the Roma have been nomads without permanent home in the past. Few of them still live so. --Olahus (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The article is Romani people. You present arguments about Roma. The archives for this article clearly distinguish between the two names. You are dissembling by 1) not acknowledging the ethnographic, historic and linguistic distinctions between Romani people and Roma, which was the reason for the name change, and 2) why Romani people is more appropriate than Roma for the English-language Wikipedia. Steviemitlo (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Really? So why does Roma people redirect here? --Olahus (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"proto-Romanies" appears to be a term made up ad-hoc, getting all of 7 google hits

Find sources: "proto-Romanies" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

"Romany/Romani" and "Roma" are two English terms for the same group. The preferred plural of "Romany" is not "Romanies", just "the Romany". Fwiiw, I think Steviemitlo is correct in his opinion that "Romani" is the better choice for referring to the entire group, because "Roma" in some instances could also refer to specific subgroups. The Roma are, of course, a "people of Europe" even if about half of their numbers are not European, this makes them a "people of the Near East" on equal terms. --dab (𒁳) 12:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

1) I disagree with Dbachmann that Romani/Romany and Roma are two English terms for the same group. Consensus has already been reached here based on is ample and probably overwhelming historic-geographic, ethnographic and linguistic evidence that demonstrates Roma people are a sub-group of Romani people. This is a crucial agreed-upon distinction that led to the name change. We editors should continue to adhere to this "working" decision if we are ever going to make rapid headway on improving this article. I suggest we discuss stull it further, if only to reassure ourselves that we made a correct decision, and meanwhile encourage Dab to join our consensus thought on this before we continue to revise the article; and 2) Thank you Olahus for directing editors here to the seven Google hits that elaborate on "proto-Romanies" as a useful concept in Romani studies. The "hits" nearly all refer to the use of the term "proto-Romanies" by Dr. Ian Hancock who believes the Romani people "did not form an ethnic identity until the stay in Anatolia." If we editors can agree with Dr. Hancock on this, than the Romani people article can be conveniently divided into main sections titled "Romanies" and "Proto-Romanies." The virtue of this division is to acknowledge that the appearance of the Romani people in Europe is documented and the undocumented origins and migrations of proto-Romanies refers to myriad speculations about the experiences of proto-Romanies. I think, Olahus, that your inclination is to discard the concept of proto-Romanies because there are only seven hits on Google using that term and concept. However, your concern focuses on (lack of)quantity and not the clear quality of the concept, which has the authority (Dr. Hancock) behind it. The Wikipedia is unique and superior to a hard-copy encyclopedia because it's knowledge content has constant currency and floats even the newest concepts for editors to discuss and weave into their constantly modified consensus. Dr. Hancock's concept in this case I believe pushes the envelope of knowledge in a positive, uncharted direction. The proto-Romanies concept I think is sound and helpful in organizing the English-language Wikipedia. I suggest we consider using it and then rethink the organization of the entire article using a Pomani people/proto-Romanies dichotomy. Finally, our use of "proto-Romanies" is allowable under Wiki guidelines because it is not our original research, would be citation and endorsement by consensus of the opinion of a highly-recognized authority in Romani studies. Steviemitlo (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Indian Roma

The ">15 million" estimate is reasonable if we include the "Indian Roma": in this case, we have 6 million in India, 5 million in the Near East (high estimate), 4 million in Europe and 2 million in the Americas (high estimate), or 17 million as a high estimate (or about 10 million as a low estimate). But this would mean that nearly half of the Roma population lives in India. The article does not reflect this: it uses the Indian population just to inflate the population count, but discusses European and Near Eastern groups exclusively in the remainder. Usually, the Roma are associated with the groups that left India in the Middle Ages. Consequently, the groups that did not leave India, are not normally included. It is rather dubious that the article should include them half-heartedly as it does. I also note that the Lambani article makes no attempt to include the group under the "Roma" term. Nor does any article attempt to give a serious reference for the "6 million Indian Roma" claim other than the website which gives 5.6 million as the population of the Banjara. This article either needs to be clear that about half of the Roma population are in fact Banjara, or it needs to exclude the Indian 6 million from the population estimate and list the Banjara as a cognate group, not a subgroup. Excluding the Indian Roma, the high estimate would be about 11 million, and the low estimate probably near 7 million. Since the Banjara do not speak Romanes, but a Rajasthani dialect, I find it highly artificial to include them here. It would require rather credible sources under WP:REDFLAG. The article would need to be updated that most Romani do not actually speak Romanes, but Rajasthani, and that "only" the out-of-India minority (i.e. those usually counted as Romani) speak the Romani language. In other words, I recommend we drop the Indian 6 million figure from the demographics section and the infobox. --dab (𒁳) 11:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC):

I agree. Please make that change, and all others in the article consistent with your logic, and let's see what comes of it in terms of toward discussion leading to consensus. Steviemitlo (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

ok, removing the Banjara. --dab (𒁳) 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Broken ref tag

There's a broken ref tag at the beginning of the third paragraph under "Terminology". Since I really don't know what it was intended to refer from/to, maybe someone who knows could fix it. Thanks. - Special-T (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. —Zalktis (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

transliteration of Romani

Olahus (talk · contribs), if you are interested in discussing the writing systems used for Romani, please present your sources, at Romani language. Wikipedia articles aren't references you can usee[4]. It is pointless to repeat the same term in three different writing systems unless you can show it is relevant that we show it in each. Your transliterations do not appear to have any currency whatsoever:

Find sources: "Романэ мануша" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
Find sources: "रोमाने मानुशा" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Now please stop reverting unless you can satisfy WP:CITE. This isn't optional, you get to edit the article after you have presented your sources. --dab (𒁳) 21:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't even need to make this effort. The Wikipedia in Romani-language is written with Latin, Cyrillic and Devanagari script. If you tink that though this language is not also written in Cyrillic or Devanagari, help me to change my mind. --Olahus (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

you obviousy have no understanding on WP:RS. You cannot present Wikipedia as a reference for a claim made in Wikipedia. There is no way you can enforce your content without providing quotable references, it's as simple as that. If you continue to refuse to honour this obligation, your edits fall under WP:DISRUPT. We don't have any control over the quality of the rmy: article. It doesn't cite any sources whatsoever. The Devanagari was added by an anonymous editor, on 22 December[5]. Are you seriously saying you imagine it is permissible for people to go make changes to some sister project and then come here presenting these edits as "references" to be used for en-wiki? Whom are you trying to kid? You may or may not be aware of the fact that Sanskrit manusha isn't spelled मानुशा at all, it is spelled मानुष. What we have here is an attempt at rmy-wiki to Sanskritize the Romani language, but an attempt by people who don't know very much Sanskrit. Neither will of course be tolerated on en-wiki without the presentation of adequate references. I have no idea why the authors of rmy: would opt for using Devangari. It seems about as intelligent as, say, writing tr: using cuneiform. Rmy has some 1.5 million speakers, mostly in Eastern Europe. Most of them are barely literate. Presenting them with a Wikipedia project in their own language but written in some perfectly foreign (to them) alphabet seems to be a mind-boggling feat of cultural arrogance, or misplaced and artificial ethnic nostalgia. Not that this is relevant to this discussion on the en:Romani people article in any way of course. --dab (𒁳) 14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That said, we haven't even got as far as establishing that "Romane manusha" is a term that is in use by anyone, in any writing system. Google gives me all of 25 hits for the term, about half of which are wikipedia mirrors. Olahus, you are cleary trying to push unreferenced content, and now would be a good time to either stand down or start presenting respectable references. --dab (𒁳) 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

ok, I have looked into it. In the light of this, we should clearly use the international standard orthography for all Romani strings (unless given in direct and attributed quotations). Anything else will be an arbitrary choice among dozens of dialects and local standards.--dab (𒁳) 16:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't already clear what is going on here, I just found this interesting exchange from two years back. It seems that the rmy: project is rather infected by linguistic activism. The editor who came up with the idea that "Romani should be written in Devanagari" is Desiphral (talk · contribs). --dab (𒁳) 16:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt about the fact that the latin script is the most spreaded. But you you couldn't proove me that is not also written in Cyrillic or Devanagari, as I asked you above. The Romani Wikipedia has articles written with the Latin, Cyrillic and Devanagari script. --Olahus (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:IDHT, eh? Please read carefully: You want to present a spelling in Cyrillic or Devanagari, you present evidence of this spelling. I.e., you don't simply present references that Romani is written in Devanagari (which you haven't), but you also present evidence that "Romane manusha" is used as a term, and that it is really spelled मानुशा, and not, for example, मानुष. Also note once and for all that the content of rmy-wiki is completely irrelevant per WP:SELFREF even if we hadn't figured out already that the presence of Devanagari on rmy: is result of Devanagari being a hobby-horse of Desiphral (talk · contribs). --dab (𒁳) 19:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Olahus wants to use Devanagari in order to illustrate better their South Asian (aka non-European) origin. This doesn't particularly bothers me, but Devanagari for the Romanies is not backed up but serious sources, yet. AKoan (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Romani devoid of retroflex sounds (irony)? Notwithstanding, Dbachmann has a point: forcing Devanagari on modern Romani would be cruel. (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The map in this article needs to be objectified. Using that wheel symbol is not appropriate. Also, it should not just be Europe, but the entire world, and also contain hard numbers, as well as percentages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


I have tried to bring this article in a halfway acceptable WP:SS format. It has long been in an appalling shape, essentially a dumping ground for headlines on recent events of persecution and various genetic studies. I have tried to acommodate this material in a reasonable ToC, and exported a lot of the "dumping ground" material to Modern Antiziganism and Origin of the Romani people. As things go, this stuff is now just sitting in these articles waiting for cleanup, but at least exporting them will direct further accretion of such material to the proper sub-articles.

The article atm has still an excessive length of 83k and needs further attention from skilled editors. The most urgent problem is the huge Romani_people#Roma_people_by_geographic_area section. It is of course necessary to distinguish the various distinct populations, but the main "Romani people" article cannot do this in such detail and should focus on global statistics and commonalities instead. --dab (𒁳) 17:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This article was suffering from a very bad case of Wikipedia:Main article fixation. I have made Roma people by country the main article for discussing an "overview of Romani populations", now itself running to 50k. The "by geographic area" section here should just be a brief summary of that (or be merged into the "Population" section altogether). --dab (𒁳) 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow! The revised population section sure looks great with its creative new map describing best guess estimates of Romani people in Europe. Another map using the same legend should be made for the rest of the world. I still have trouble with the persisting casual ambiguous use of Roma in the place of Romani people. Let's aim for consistency in our usage of key terms and concepts. Dbachmann writes above: "I have made Roma people by country the main article for discussing an "overview of Romani populations", now itself running to 50k." Why not just write " ... made Romani people by country ..." and avoid ambiguity. The introduction states correctly that Roma is an alternative for Romani people and Romanies, but let me cite again strong arguments from the scholarly literature for using Romani people or Romanies and not Roma to mean the entire ethnic Romani people, which is the subject of the article: 1) "'Roma' is a political term used as an umbrella name for all members of the Romani ethnic community ... [F]rom an ethnographic point of view, the Romani community is extremely diverse and all Romani groups, subgroups and metagroups have their own ethnic and cultural features .. so far, the homogeneous Romani identity is a political project rather than a reality." (p. 13 in Illona Klimova-Alexander's The Romani Voice in World Politics: The United Nations and Non-State Actors (2005, Burlington, VT.: Ashgate); 2) "Before the changes in 1989-90, the name 'Roma' was used most commonly as an endonyme (an internal community self-appellation) in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (except for former Yugoslavia) when the Gypsies spoke Romanes (the Gypsy language). This name was not widely popular and did not have an official status. In order to be faithful to the historical principle we use the word Roma only for the period after 1989. In all other instances we use the term 'Gypsies'. We think that 'Gypsies' is wider in scope than 'Roma' and we also use it to include the Gypsy communities who are not Roma or who are considered to be 'Gypsies' by the surrounding population but do not wish to be considered as such." (p. 52 in Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov's "Historical and ethnographic background; Gypsies, Roma, Sinti" in Will Guy [ed.] Between Past and Future: The Roma of Central and Eastern Europe [with a Foreword by Dr. Ian Hancock], 2001, UK: University of Hertfordshire Press). I would ask Dbachmann to comment here to my above-documented critique of the misuse of Roma to mean the entire ethnic Romani people. In sum, ethnic Romani people is the subject of the article and not ethnic Roma people. To persist to deliberately use the two terms interchangably in the article is to tolerate an unnecessary ambiguity and messiness into this article. I think it is impossible to "clean up" the article until this issue is resolved by consensus. I propose the use of Romani people and Romanies where the entire ethnic group is meant, and the restricted use of Roma to mean Roma people, an ethnic subgroup of the ethnic Romani people. Steviemitlo (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I support Steviemitlo's suggestion regarding the principles for using Romani and Roma in this, and other Romani-related WP articles. For an example of why Roma and Romanies should not be treated as synonyms, I would refer my fellow editors to the article on the Kalo group I recently created. Most likely what we need now is an article on Roma (people), which would begin with an intro such as

The Roma people are a major division of the Romani people, also known as Gypsies. The Roma were previously based in south-eastern Europe, particularly the Balkans, but since the 19th century have spread to most parts of Europe and beyond. Because of the fact that they are so numerous and widespread, "Roma" is often, albeit inaccurately, used in English as a synonym for the Romani people as a whole.

The (re-)creation of an article specifically about the Roma would, IMO, help us to sort out a good deal the wrangling over terms in the main article Romani people. —Zalktis (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


Yes, please initiate another article on Roma people. Your paragraph on Roma people would be an excellent beginning to that article. As for this article on Romani people: If we can reach a consensus to strictly hew to a distinction between ethnic Romani people and ethnic Roma people, then improvements to this article and related articles would have a clear and useful guideline. Steviemitlo (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
My view is that such an initiative would constitute original research. The issue of the use of 'Roma' or 'Romani', in my opinion, is of appropriate usage in the English language, and not (as this venture implies), of anthropological classification. RashersTierney (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The article Roma people has been re-started. Discussions of WP:OR would probably be best handled on its talk, for those who are interested in this issue. —Zalktis (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I read your Roma people entry. It was immediately contested. I joined the discussion, hoping it would be productive. Suddenly your entry disappeared. I suspect vandalism -- unless you removed it yourself. Anyway, Zalktis, it was a good idea and worthy of further discussion by more of our fellow editors. Steviemitlo (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that "Roma" as a true subset of "Romani" is an intermediate level, in turn consisting of various subgroups that already have full articles on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with making this the summary article of all subgroups, both Roma and non-Roma Romani. If we are to have a separate article on the Roma exclusively, we'll simply need good sources (WP:RS) establishing which groups are Roma and which aren't. It may be possible to write such an article in principle, but somebody will have to sit down and do it properly. My current understanding is that "Roma" is more or less synonymous with "Romani people in Central and Eastern Europe". If this is correct, we don't need a new article, we can simply add a discussion of the situation to the "Eastern Europe" article. --dab (𒁳) 15:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to cite again this source in support of the argument to separate Romani people and Roma people into separate Wiki articles: "Before the changes in 1989-90, the name 'Roma' was used most commonly as an endonyme (an internal community self-appellation) in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (except for former Yugoslavia) when the Gypsies spoke Romanes (the Gypsy language). This name was not widely popular and did not have an official status. In order to be faithful to the historical principle we use the word Roma only for the period after 1989. In all other instances we use the term 'Gypsies'. We think that 'Gypsies' is wider in scope than 'Roma' and we also use it to include the Gypsy communities who are not Roma or who are considered to be 'Gypsies' by the surrounding population but do not wish to be considered as such." (p. 52 in Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov's "Historical and ethnographic background; Gypsies, Roma, Sinti" in Will Guy [ed.] Between Past and Future: The Roma of Central and Eastern Europe [with a Foreword by Dr. Ian Hancock], 2001, UK: University of Hertfordshire Press). In the present article, under "population" the Roma people are introduced and presented as disinct from the Romani people, as an ethnic subcategory, and the subcategories within Roma people are introduced. However, each subcategory of Romani people and Roma people deserve their own Wikipedia page, and will eventually have their own page as the Wikipedia grows. Their is simply not enough space to introduce and present all the subcategories of the Romani people in this article, and to do so at length and respectfully. What the Romani people article does provide of inestimable value is a conceptual framework for justifying separate articles for each ethnic subgroup of the Romani people. You Dbachmann yourself acknowledge that Roma people is a "true" subcategory of Romani people, but you wrongly assume that Wikipedia already addresses Roma people subgroups as well as other non-Roma people subgroups of Romani people around the world. That comprehensiver coverage is now only a project in progress. In sum, let's improve Romani people in a conscise and logical manner, beginning with the separation of Romani people and Roma people into separate articles. I should add, because it is very important, that ethnic Roma people today are an entity not confined to "Central and Eastern Europe" as its members are found on all continents except Antarctica. The Roma people are in a great migratory mode at present. For this reason it is futile and senseless to try and define and "frame" and especially enumerate Romani people and its subcategories geographically. It is in fact demonstrated as impossible. To name a Wikipedia article "Roma people in Central and Eastern Europe" ignores reality that Roma people are today everywhere. Just so, it is idealistic and misleading to conceptualize Romani people "as an objective whole" except for discussion purposes and an an academic exercise in critical thinking, or as a case study useful in a critiqe of science. I think the purpose of Wikipedia: Romani people should be to as concisely as possible acknowledge, present, emphasize and celebrate Romani people as a variagated, dispersed, and surviving people about which very little is actually known. Steviemitlo (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

let's do this properly then. At present, we simply don't have the references that would allow us to describe "the Roma" as a well-defined subcategory. Other than that it used to be a self-designation of Roma speakers, but when we say "the Roma", we are using an English exonym, not a Romanes endonym. So, we have the following articles on Romani subgroups:

Your first step will be to clearly establish for each one whether they are Roma in the narrow sense. I suspect that these are Roma:

I suspect that these aren't

but I am not sure about Romnichal (UK Roma?) and Manouche (French Roma?) Mind you, this judgement is just based on what we have on Wikipedia already, and not because I know anything about the topic. Please set it straight. --dab (𒁳) 11:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The Cale (Gitanos), Welsh Kale, Finnish Kale, Scandinavian Travellers, and most laikely the Romnichals most likely belong in the group known as "Kalo" or "Kalé". Romnichals certainly seem to differentiate themselves from more recent Roma immigrants from SE Europe, as do the Romani Travellers in Scandinavia. I had started an article on the Kalo group, but follwing the overwhelming negative response to the Roma people article, I removed it from mainspace to avoid it being nominated for speedy deletion (as WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, or WP:FRINGE). The text of my former Kalo article can be reached via my user page, if anyone is interested. As for Sinti and Manouche, they appear to be considered as constituting a third division of the Romanies, alongside the Roma and the Kalé (cf. Liégeois). —Zalktis (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Well, the present article serves us well for the purpose of articulating a distinction between Romani people and Roma people that justifies separate article for each. Hancock and Matras, both reputable sources, are cited to justify seven major subcategories of ethnic Romani populations listed in the article. If you separate the first category in the list (Roma people) from the other six categories of Romani people, then you have justification for the split into two articles. The Roma people article will then include its subcategories of distinct named subcategories. Suggestions for these are in the second paragraph of the "populations" section of the article. Most of those mentioned as Roma people seem correct, but each population (as you suggest) needs to be justified with proper citation. I never heard of Kawliya outside of Afghanistan, so that will have to be deleted as a not-Romani people. As for "Scandanavian Travellers" and "Ruska Roma" and the like: If there are Travellers in Scandinavia that are Romani people or Roma people, as I am sure there are, then they are ethnic Romanies and ethnic Travellers in Scandinavia and Russia; for example, Kalderasha in Sweden and Lowara in Norway, etc. In sum, the references are available to describe subgroups of the Roma people subgroup of the Romani people. Hancock and Matras (and I would add Fraser 1992) are necessary and sufficient authority to distinguish between Romani people and Roma people as is done on the present "populations" list in the present article. Editors for a separate "Roma people" article can amass authority and validity to sort out the Roma people and elaborate their similarities and differences. Steviemitlo (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


The article currently states "The Romani (also ... Gypsies) are an ethnic group with origins in South Asia." Under English law not all Gypsies are Romani (and not all Romani are Gypsies it depends if lead a nomadic lifestyle). Different English laws make different assumptions so the first sentence to this article is currently misleading. --PBS (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Gypsy" and "Gypsies" continues to appear in the titles and contents of much if not most of the titles of the most erudite English-language scholarly books about the ethnic Romani people. Chaotic English laws about Gypsies are indeed misleading, but the first sentence to this article is not misleading. "Gypsies" is found there along with Romanies, etc., because of a well-documented scholarly consensus (for example, Fraser, 1992; Weyrauch, 2001; Mayall, 2004, and down to the present, e.g. the recent book title Gypsy Architecture, 2007) that it belongs there. Steviemitlo (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That is no reason to include the word in this introduction as it clearly has more than one meaning, and hence the reason we have an article on Gypsies and another on Romany. It is as if one was to include the word British as an alternative name for English in the English people article, nine times out of ten it would be correct but for one in ten it would not. --PBS (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I urge you and other editors of this article to read "The Role of Language in Mystifying and Demystifying Gypsy Identity" by Yaron Matras (in N. Saul and S. Tebbutt [eds] The Role of the Romanies: Images and Couner-Images of 'Gypsies'/Romanies in European Cultures). Matras identifies and then discerns between "Gypsy 1" and "Gypsy 2" identities. Your argument is about "Gypsy 1" but this article is about "Gypsy 2" -- the ethnic Romani people. The ethnic Romani people are different from the ethnic Roma people, and they are both "Gypsy 2". Each deserves and requires its own Wiki article, just as the Lakota people among Native American deserve their own Wiki article apart from the Dakota people. Let's just cut to the chase here: Romani people from an ethnographic perspective were for centuries known by scholars and by the English-language reading public as Gypsies. Since discussion among editors including citation of authority is the main currency of Wikipediacademia, I have cited the following item frequently in support of my arguments to 1) conceptually separate Romani people from Roma people in order to improve the Romani people article (which remains cluttered and inchoate), and 2) to justify the use of Gypsy, as well as Roma, alternatives to Romani people in historic and extant English-language usage: "Before the changes in 1989-90, the name 'Roma' was used most commonly as an endonyme (an internal community self-appellation) in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (except for former Yugoslavia) when the Gypsies spoke Romanes (the Gypsy language). This name was not widely popular and did not have an official status. In order to be faithful to the historical principle we use the word Roma only for the period after 1989. In all other instances we use the term 'Gypsies'. We think that 'Gypsies' is wider in scope than 'Roma' and we also use it to include the Gypsy communities who are not Roma or who are considered to be 'Gypsies' by the surrounding population but do not wish to be considered as such." (p. 52 in Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov's "Historical and ethnographic background; Gypsies, Roma, Sinti" in Will Guy [ed.] Between Past and Future: The Roma of Central and Eastern Europe [with a Foreword by Dr. Ian Hancock], 2001, UK: University of Hertfordshire Press). You, PBS, have consistently ignored the implications of this authoriative statement which is validated by most other prominent scholarly sources. It bears directly on our discussion here pertaining to the identity of the Romani people. Steviemitlo (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, when all else fails, blame the Irish. : ) RashersTierney (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Steviemitlo since when was any scholarly definition more authoritative over the definition of an English word than English law? --PBS (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
When the English word is used and defined elsewhere than in England? RashersTierney (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Gypsy" is clearly a very common synonym for "Romani". There is nothing wrong with mentioning it as an alternative term in the lede. Nor is it wrong to keep a separate article on the term itself. --dab (𒁳) 15:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Roma (Romani subgroup)

I knew that this problem will be reopened soon, so please read what I've said here. "Roma" (and not "Roma people") is a subgroup of the "Romani people". "Roma people" is a grammatically incorrect term, and we should avoid it in all stances! We should restart the Roma (Romani subgroup) article, and "Roma people" should be just a redirect to "Romani people". AKoan (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your argument that "everyon involved in Romani issues knows 'Roma' is a Romani subgroup" is not only incorrect, it ignores the purpose of the Wikipedia, which is mainly to introduce Romani people as concisely and accurately as possible to neophytes and not to experts. As for starting a Wikipedia:Roma article? Sure, why not? That action would not bear on the continued improvement of this Romani people article. I agree: the Sinti are an ethnic subgroup of the Romani people; the Roma are an ethnic subgroup of the Romani people, and so on ... It is precedent in Wikipedia to attach "people" to the ethnic category and sub-categories, even though the guideline is not stictly followed. However, since there is a political Roma movement that claims the term "Roma" is the qualitative and quantitative equivalent of "Romani people" then some mention should be make in the article Romani people that the term "Roma" is clouded in ambiguity at present. The strict use of Romani people (and Romanies) as the category, and Roma people as the sub-category serves this purpose. Yes, technically Roma people is grammatically incorrect, but I would rather reduce ambiguity in response to the complex and profound question "Who are the Romani people" than bog down the improvement of the article because of a grammatical technicality that can be addressed as such in a sentence. Steviemitlo (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that you didn't understand me. When I've said "everyone involved in Romani issues", I didn't meant the people that read Wikipedia, but the editors like you and me, and the people involved in that AfD. The deletion of the "Roma (Romani subgroup)" was pushed by Romanian nationalists, because they tried to induce the idea that "Roma (people)" is just a synonym for "Romani people", and not a subgroup, too, although there was plenty of evidence for the double use of the term. But it doesn't matter now, its an old story.
Now, the fact that "Roma" is used as a synonym for "Romani people" is already mentioned in the article. "Roma people" as an incorrect version of that was also mentioned but I don't know why it was taken out! Anyway, there is no reason to create an article for "Roma people" just to say that "Roma people" is used as an (incorrect) equivalent for "Romani people" (that should be mentioned here as it was previously), but an article about "Roma" as a Romani subgroup obviously makes sense. AKoan (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that an article about Roma (meaning Roma people) makes sense (but note my related comment here). Steviemitlo (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I readded the part that makes clear the grammatical issue (which matters!), but i think that we should drop the parts about names that are not used in the English language (especially those that are used for other "gypsies", not the Romanies). AKoan (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

how is "Roma people" grammatically incorrect? You need to take care not to equate English and Romani grammar. Hancock is giving recommendations for his preferred terminology, not more and not less. --dab (𒁳) 12:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Hancock, at least not directly. The current interpretation of 'correct' English in this debate has been the OED, which in its recent manifestation favours 'Romani' as an adjective and 'Roma' as a noun. That situation may change over time but such would appear current usage.RashersTierney (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
dab, "Roma" is a noun, both in the Romani language and in the English language, so "Roma people" is grammatically incorrect. AKoan (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
See the Merriam-Webster dictionary, that is used as a source here. AKoan (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So Roma is a noun. Well, English is very good at noun+noun compounds. Is "cat people" ungrammatical because cat is a noun? Note that I am not disputing our preference for Romani, I am just saying that it is completely irrelevant that Roma is a noun. The point is that it is ambiguous (are the Roma the Romani, or a subset of the Romani). --dab (𒁳) 19:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Roma are a subset of the Romanies (the largest), but the term is also used as an equivalent to Romani people. AKoan (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Roma is also the plural of Rom, so "Roma people" means actually "Roms people" - you tell if it is grammatically correct. AKoan (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

it is news to me that -a serves as an English plural suffix. I am not talking about Romani grammar, I am talking about English grammar. This discussion is futile because I agree we should use "Romani people". All I am saying is that we need to reflect the fact that "Roma people" sees some use in English without passing judgement on "correctness" in Wikipedia's voice. So the OED favours "Roma" as a noun. Any evidence it considers it a plural with either a distinct or a non-existent singular? --dab (𒁳) 17:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what OED saids but MW recognizes "Roma" as a plural of "Rom". If OED gives other usage, please fell free to add it, but don't delete sourced content. AKoan (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


I propose that something should be added to this article about the major economic activities (and their development through history) of the Roma people; in other words, what they did and do to support themselves in societies in which they are always a minority. Here is a nice article about this within the Soviet Union and CIS, and here is a more general overview. Esn (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


I cannot edit the article, so just one remark: The estimate 550 000 for Slovakia is wrong and the two links provided in the table do not contain such a number. In reality, there are many estimates, but none of them is higher than 370 000. The point is, if this is how also the other figures in this article have been "chosen" (i.e. simply invented by someone to be as high as possible without any grounds and nobody even notices that), the value of this article is zero. Romaaaa (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

you mean, the value of these numbers. The article has more than numbers. But it is true that the population numbers have been up for cleanup for a while, see further up on this page. Now somebody would need to actually do it, of course. --dab (𒁳) 16:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all, Welcome to Wikipedia, Romaaaa! The highest estimation for Slovakia is 520,000 (see here, for example). --Olahus (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

see above below, we're in the process of cleaning up the estimate figures. Bear with us, or feel free to help. The current approach is to restrict ourselves to estimates quoted by in order to avoid the more unrealistic ones. --dab (𒁳) 19:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

population counts

The population count in the infobox is ... buggered. Also, File:Eurogipsy official.PNG is useless: it pretends to give "official" numbers, when it is simply copying dubious figures off Roma people by country. Many of the countries listed have no official figures, so the claim is wrong in any case. The best neutral source I can reach at this moment is Pan and Pfeil (2004), who give a number of 3.8 million Romani in Europe. Their count is broken down by country as follows (in thousands):

  • Spain 631
  • Hungary 600
  • Turkey 545
  • Romania 535
  • Bulgaria 314
  • Slovakia 184
  • Russia 153
  • Yugoslavia (i.e. Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo) 144
  • Italy 130
  • Portugal 105
  • UK 90
  • Poland 60
  • Germany 50
  • Ukraine 48
  • Macedonia 44
  • Netherlands 40
  • Sweden 40
  • Switzerland 30
  • Ireland 24
  • Greece 22
  • Austria 20
  • Czech Republic 12
  • Moldova 12
  • Belarus 11
  • Croatia 10
  • Finland 10
  • Lativa 8
  • Bosnia-Herzegovina 6
  • Albania 5
  • Norway 5
  • Lithuania 3
  • Slovenia 2.5
  • Denmark 1.5
  • Estonia 1.5

I suggest we use these figures for the infobox pending the presentation of some more credible source. --dab (𒁳) 17:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Panel 2008 (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Me too. A single source rather than a mish-mash would be good. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trkgnd (talkcontribs) 06:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

this also appears to be a reasonable source. If the Council of Europe lists a source, it may be worth mentioning. --dab (𒁳) 15:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose to both proposals. They are dozens of other reliable sources that can be presented. Actually, Dbachmann's proposals will only reopen Pandora's box. --Olahus (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The "proposal" here is to clean up the sad mess in the current infobox. You are welcome to help, but I think you need to review our idea of WP:RS first. --dab (𒁳) 21:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann has a good suggestion here. However, population data for Romani people in almost all countries of Europe as well as other countries around the world will continue be contested by other editors with other sources (as Olahus warns). I agree to the change, but the article should be transparent about population data for Romani people: weakness in the data and the reasons for it (persisting high rates of secrecy and mobility among ethnic Romanies) should be clearly and concisely stated in the text of the article, and in the new data box. before schoolchildren begin citing as true the "best estimates" data from our page. But even before revising the population section in this manner, I recommend we agree to use Romani people or Romanies in the article wherever we mean ethnic Romani people, and to use Roma people wherever we mean ethnic Roma people. Let us try to avoid perpetuating the ambiguity in the article that results from the causual substitution of Roma for Romani people, because the ethnic Roma people are a subcatagory of the ethnic Romani people -- in Europe and elsewhere. This is the main problem with the article: we are not consistent when we use Romani people to mean ethnic Romani people and thus, as Dr. Ian Hancock states here (and I, and many other scholars agree based on solid ethnographic, historic-geographic, and linguistic evidence): the Romani people "did not form an ethnic identity until the stay in Anatolia, nor did Romani begin to crystallize into one language until then." If we can agree to this statement as a working hypothesis, we can replace almost every use of "Roma" in the population section, as well as almost all other sections of the article, with "Romani people" or "Romanies" and thereby reduce ambiguity and internal contradiction within the article substantially. Think about it this way: do we want to convey in this article with this new population data list that there are 90 thousand ethnic Roma in the UK? Or do we want to convey our best estimate at present that there are 90 thousand ethnic Romani people in the UK? Steviemitlo (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann proposed wisely above to replace the present multisourced and endlessly disputed Romani people population counts table with a simplified table originating in one source, which is authoritative and cited. Overwhelming editor consensus was reached a week ago in support of the proposal. Please, Db, make that change while the consensus stands. Steviemitlo (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that the Pan and Pfeil (2004) numbers I quoted appear to be "low" or "official" estimates. I suggest we use the CoE estimates instead, quoting high and low. Yes, for some countries, the high and the low estimates are very different. Too bad, that's how it is, so that's how we need to report it. All the work has already been done for us, here, we just need to copy the figures and their sources. And since the immediate source is the Council of Europe website, we should assume that they didn't include unrealistic or far out estimates. It appears that there is no consensus as to who is a "Roma proper" as opposed to a "Romani", so it will be futile to attempt making this distinction here. I understand that most Romani are also "Roma proper", and it would be actually a minority of Romani who would not subscribe to being "Roma". Perhaps we should do articles about these instead, as in Sinti and Kale/Kale/Caló. --dab (𒁳) 22:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I urge you again to implement the consensus agreement in support of your excellent initial proposal for these reasons: The P&P numbers are for Romani people (and Roma) and appropriate according to our consensus criterion for Romani people as stated in the article. The COE data includes Travellers! Little wonder then the P&P numbers seem low. Do you want every New Age Traveller with a caravan counted among Romani people? Of course not. I suggest you implement the consensus agreement in support of P&P and let a discussion develop about those numbers. That would appear to be more in the spirit of the Wiki Way for advancing knowledge. As for your understanding that most "Romani are also 'Roma proper'," you are mistaken. This version of the reverse is the case: "All Roma people are Romani people." Such was the argument presented and cited that resulted in the name change to Romani people. Romani people is the category from ethnographic, historic, geographic and linguistic perspectives; Roma people is the subcategory. This is what the article already states under "Population". It is therefore understandable, appropriate and acceptable to endorse P&P estimates for Romani people in Europe. The reality is that Romani people at present as in the past continue to successfully defy commensuration. For us to pretend otherwise is wishful thinking. The result is nit-picking and wasted efforts for our editors that distract from rather than promote the sort of critical thinking necessary to improve the article. Steviemitlo (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(moved section to bottom as re-activated). I've exported the infobox for transclusion ({{Romani infobox}}) and I've cleaned up the population estimates, reducing it to something that is actually useful for a quick overview expected of an infobox. The infobox links to Romani people by country for more detail (this article needs to be cleaned up badly). The 3.8-9.1 million estimate for Europe is based on quotable sources of the 2000s. The "up to 4 million" estimate for the Americas is more shaky, based on an [external link edited for Wikipedia spam filter] www web4desi com/Articles/36-ArticlesbyJorgeMFernandezBernal/52-the-rom-in-the-americas online article quoting "UNESCO, RNC, Romani Union, SKOKRA and federated Organizations" as its "sources". The high estimate of 13 million for the total population is the result of adding 9 and 4 (gasp, teh WP:SYN!).

I understand that most "Roma" populations of the Middle East (other than Turkey) we sometimes found reported are actually Dom people which we agreed not to include in this count (the infobox links to the Dom people as "related"). There are a few Middle Eastern Roma populations, i.e. Qawliya, Roma in Armenia, and possibly Roma minority in Syria (or are these Dom?), also some in Israel (immigrated from Russia), but these are tiny and do not noticeably contribute to the overall population.

Please let us remember what an infobox is intended for: a guide to a quick, rough overview of a complex topic. An unreadable tangle of numbers and flag icons isn't helpful. Wikipedia has ample space to go into the gory details, but that's not for the infobox. --dab (𒁳) 10:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Romanies" from Middle East are mostly Domari, and those from Armenia are actually Lomavrem. A lot of people mix this 3 ethnic groups probably related, but still distinct. I know that there are some Romanis (not Domari) in Middle East, but they are very few. AKoan (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
you confirm my general impression. We also need to be careful about the popular "Romani=Dom" identification in the Romani people by country article. --dab (𒁳) 15:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Some cleanups need to be done, like in the article about Qawliya. Also "Roma in Armenia" and "Bosha (Roma)" should be merged under the name "Bosha" or "Lom people". AKoan (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The page says of "Gypsy": "If used, this exonym should also be written with capital letter, to show that it is about an ethnic group." This is dubious: English has no set rule about whether ethnic groups are written with capital letters. Most English writers write "white" and "black" without capitals, for instance. 22:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

how are "white" and "black" ethnic groups? Use of "gypsies" indicates an occupation or class, like "tinkers", "vagabonds", "carpenters", "builders", "commoners" etc. Use of "Gypsies" would imply recognition of the term as a demonym. --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Old Indo-Aryan rāma"

((Source: Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit (RamaNa)

(gRhaja meaning domestic but also civilian. possible source for Romani Gajo (m) / gaji (f) / Gaje (p)) (paaNDu meaning white like Romani 'Parno (m) / Parni (f) / Parne (p)')

I can see the reference where Hancock mentions "Old Indo-Aryan rāma 'husband'" as one suggestion (not his own, although he doesn't say whose) for an alternative (Sanskritic) etymology. Now, I am not aware of any "Old Indo-Aryan" term for "husband" looking like rāma. I think Hancock may be mixing up things. I think this is about the "so-called Rajput theory" mentioned here, which tries to create a heroic backdrop to the migration out of India, and which takes Romane Chave to mean "sons of the god Rama". We can document this "theory", although it is rather suspect, but we'll need to do it properly. --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

dab, you should discuss first some of your changes, especially since you've made some mistakes.
As adjectives, in the Romani language you have Romani for the feminine, Romano for the masculine, and Romane for the plural (both feminine and masculine).
There is an word in Sanskrit meaning husband, but as far as I know it is ramana or something. I'll search. This theory has nothing to do with the "sons of the god Rama", that is really folklore.
The "Rajput theory" is a valid theory with the mention that the Romanies are not descendants of the Rajputs themselfs, but of mercenaries and/or "camp followers", position that Hanckok also supports lately, as far as I know. AKoan (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
And if you added the OED view, why did you remove the ME one? The terminology section was to present all the faces of this complex issue. AKoan (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't pretend to know any Romani, I am just repeating what I find in the sources cited. I do know some Sanskrit, however, as you seem to do as well: ramaNa is an adjective meaning "charming", but it can also be used in the sense of "husband" or "lover". This doesn't really help, since Hancock unambiguously claims an "Old Indo-Aryan" rāma meaning "husband". I think we should just drop this detail as unsubstantiated and not affecting the overall argument either way. I don't understand what you mean by "ME view". I don't see that there is any dispute regarding de facto English usage. My point is that we need to keep discussion of English usage cleanly separate from discussion of terminology within the Romani language. In any case, I have now created a Names of the Romani people article, and any detail regarding the etymology of rrom etc. should now go there. --dab (𒁳) 15:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with the separation between the usage in Romani and English. In fact I think that we should present first the situation in Romani (which is more clear), and then the situation in English (which is more complicated).
By "ME view", I mean the fact that Merriam-Webster gives "Rom" only as noun with the plural "Roma (or Romans)". Since I don't have access to OED, I would like to ask you to tell me what is the exact entry for "Rom/Roma/Romas" and "Romani/Romani" there.
I don't know any Sanskrit, but I find it in more places, as "raman" or "ramana". Maybe we should search for somebody that knows more on Indo-Aryan languages to see how substantiated is this "rāma". The user Kuaichik might have help us, but I see he is no longer around. AKoan (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I found it. Apparently, rama (not rāma!) can mean "joy; a lover, husband, spouse". This meaning of an adjective "pleasing, dear" is attested in lexicography only, imho shedding light on how far-fetched this hypothesis is. rāma and other inaccuracies imho also shed some light on Hancock's limited linguistic qualifications. I am sure he is a bona fide expert on the Romani in general, but I will view his etymological musings with suspicion in the future... I do not think that MW contradicts OED wrt English usage, but OED is (as usual) more detailed. OED has "Rom: also pl. Roma(s), Rom. a) A (male) gipsy, a Romany. b) attrib. (the Rom people, Rom families)" and "Romany 1. A gipsy; also collect., the gipsies. 2. The language of the gipsies. 3. attrib. or as adj."

Just as thought! You hurried up and didn't read carefully. OED doesn't give "Romas" as a plural, nor doesn't give "Roma" as an adjective. "Roma(s)" means that "Roma/Roms" is the plural or "Rom" in English, and "Rom" (not Roma) as an adjective makes sense.
I am confused about "Romany" thought. Doesn't OED give "Romani" as an alternate spelling, although there is quite a trend today to use "Romani" instead of "Romany"? AKoan (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
um, no. the OED is saying that the plural of the English proper noun Rom may be either Roma or Romas, or Rom itself. --dab (𒁳) 10:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I doubt the "Romas" plural. Can we contact them and ask directly how that should be interpreted? :::What about "Romani"? AKoan (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am now looking for substantiation of this alleged Sanskrit ramta "wandering". This is even more suspicious than rama, since ramta isn't a possible Sanskrit word. I think it transpires that all these proposed Sanskritic etymologies on r- are, not to put too fine a point on it, pompous nonsense motivated by a desire to avoid association with the Ḍoma. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

it turns out that ramta "itinerant" is Hindi, not Sanskrit.[6] This seems to be another sample of just how much these "Sanskritic" etymologies are worth: ramta is a Hindi word without any apparent Sanskrit precedent (perhaps ramhi, an obscure Vedic word for "speed"? Of course a Hindi etymology would be sufficient for a tribal name around 1000 AD, but no, it must be Sanskrit). --dab (𒁳) 12:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I have to tell you not to hurry up. "Indo-Aryan" doesn't necessary means Sanskrit. The "Dom" theory for "Rom" is probably the strongest, but that doesn't mean that there aren't alternatives. Lets not push a POV. AKoan (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am doing precisely the opposite of "pushing a pov", I am debunking an unduly over-represented pov per WP:FRINGE. "Indo-Aryan" obviously doesn't equal Sanskrit, since even Romani itself is included in the term, but Old Indo-Aryan is pretty much a synonym for "Sanskrit (including Vedic Sanskrit)" --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Outside the learned sphere of Sanskrit, vernacular dialects (Prakrits) continued to evolve" AKoan (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
um, yes? These are known as Middle Indo-Aryan, as opposed to Old Indo-Aryan. See also Prakrit. --dab (𒁳) 11:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
That cite is taken directly from Old Indic. Its the last proposition there. AKoan (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

AKoan, I believe I have even written that sentence myself. Can we stop the games please? You may well know a lot about the Romani that I don't, but I doubt you can tell me much about Sanskrit and Old Indic. The point here is that ramta is Hindi, not Sanskrit and not "Old Indo-Aryan". --dab (𒁳) 16:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

dab, I'm not here to tell you about Sanskrit or Old Indic, I'm just telling once again not to hurry up and mix things:
  • there is no mention that ramta is Hindi or Sanskrit.
  • rama was "Old Indo-Aryan", and that can mean a lot of languages. AKoan (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

right. this is a detail in any case. The sources we cite that "Sanskritic etymologies were suggested", and mention rama and ramta as mere examples. None of our sources do actualy propose or defend these specific etymologies. I believe the situation is summarized properly as it stands: the possible relation go Dom, Lom and ultimately Sanskrit Doma was recognized in the early 20th century, by Sampson. This remains the standard assumption. The "Kshatriya theory" first advanced by Kochanowski (1968) doesn't necessarily affect etymology, but in its context, Sanskritic etymologies were suggested from the 1980s, following Rishi (1983). This is the situation, and this is how it is presented at Names_of_the_Romani_people#Etymology. I think any further discussion on this would belong on Talk:Names of the Romani people. --dab (𒁳) 15:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


Following Information is unsourced/incorrect: "The Romani share a "common ethnic substratum" with the Jat Sikhs, the Panjabi Hindus and the Rajputs."

The Punjabis consist of a number of different tribes, and cannot be distinguished foremost by religion. For example there are Hindu and Muslim Rajputs, Hindu and Muslim Jats and so on.

Can someone back me up on this one, and amend the statement? It would make far more sense to say for example: "The Romani share a "common ethnic substratum" with several tribes of the Punjab region located in the northern Indian subcontinent." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

this is taken directly from the source cited, Ian Hancock, We are the Romani people, p. 13. I don't see the problem, obviously both Muslim and Hindu Rajputs share a "common ethnic substratum" connecting them much more closely than either are connected to the Romanies. This is just intended to gesture at the Romani area of origin. --dab (𒁳) 15:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't dropped in on this article recently but I remember it used to have quotes from recent DNA studies - anyone know what happened to that section? Rmhermen (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean Origin_of_the_Romani_people#Genetic_evidence. --dab (𒁳) 15:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

India vs. Anatolia

It is true that the Romani ethnogenesis probably took place in the 13th or 14th century in Anatolia. It is just as true that the "proto-Romanies" contributing to that ethnogenesis originated in NW India in the 10th or 11th century. Both are true statements, and both may be noted, and they are not mutually contradictive. --dab (𒁳) 15:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What references do we have that "It is true that the Romani ethnogenesis probably took place in the 13th or 14th century in Anatolia." I just looked through this and the origins article and don't see anything that really leads to that conclusion. I have no opinion on the matter but I don't see any sources supporting the claim. Rmhermen (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's what I gather from the situation as described in the "Origins" article as well as this map. I don't think this is very controversial. The earliest records are from the 14th century, and they appear out of Anatolia. Whatever they were up to between leaving India around AD 1000 and appearing on the European radar around AD 1300, god knows, but three centuries is just about the time a good and proper ethnogenesis will take. The geneticists propose that the population was founded approximately 32–40 generations ago, which falls squat within the 1000 to 1300 period. --dab (𒁳) 18:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a more complicated problem, cause we don't really know whether they were an ethnic group in India or after that, and not even if the concept of ethnicity, as we, the Europeans, understand it, apply to them. A more correct thing to say is that they their cultural and linguistic (as well as genetic) roots can be traced to India. AKoan (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

well, we do have the reference saying there was a founder population 32-40 generations ago, so no, they were not a single ethnic group back in India. Which is also evident from the fact that there is no record of any ethnic group identifiable as the Romani equivalent in India. Ethnogenesis is indeed a complicated process, and it does take time (many generations), but we can say with confidence that in the case of the Romani this process took place in Anatolia in the early centuries of the 2nd millennium. I am not aware of any source given in the "Origins" article that would be in contradiction to this general scenario. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"a founder population 32-40 generations ago" is a mislead from an ethnical point of view and even from a genetically point a view, taken out of the context. In this case I think that 32-40 generations ago, is the time they departed from the subcontinent, and had their particular mutations. But that doesn't mean that they couldn't exist as a population/ethnic group before that in India.
There were probably thousand of unrecorded populations/ethnic groups in India.
But the question that I've asked, was what do we mean by "ethnic group"? Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Why are we going PR on their criminal history?"

There is a noticable bias here. The Rom are well known in Europe for their propensity to criminality and that they do indeed lead an uncivilized life for the most part. In Rome, there is not a single area where they do not invade and make a hassle. Shouldn't this be objectively mentioned? It is wrong to automatically close your eyes to things just because it labels a particular group. I mean, who denies Italians like pasta. When a thing is so greatly associatiated to a people, it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

well, sure. Somebody will just need to take the time and sit down to compile sufficient quotable sources. I do invite you to do that. It should be easy to come up with sources discussing Roma criminality, but be aware that you'll need excellent attribution for expressions like "propensity to criminality" or "uncivilized life". --dab (𒁳) 15:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The various stereotypes, including the one related to criminality, are already in the article. Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kenshin,

Suggesting that this is a stereotype shows bias. An objective analysis is required instead. Such a research is hard to commit as most people, including me, has had negative experiences with gypsies. (valuables stolen at knife-point, I'm lucky to be alive as to say). Let's not waste time by going down the "stereotype" path. A section is needed about gypsy criminal stats and not in the biased style of "people often accuse gypsies of street crime and living off of social aid" but a factual representation of the problem, pro or contra. Lothandar (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree that it should be mentioned that it's Romani culture to steal, there is a link to a bbc documentary on Romani people here: [[7]] I think it's made by someone ethnically Romani himself which goes some way in dispelling accusations of bias. But who can be bothered to write it in, that is the real question. (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Romani origins

The "References" section seems to be put on alert, so as to not screw anything up, here are my sources. maybe someone can put them up:

re: Roma/Jatt Sikh genetic distance:

re: geographic/cultural origin:

A lot of other sources say similar things, if these don't make the cut.

I don't have anything against Romani, but the statement regarding the Jatt Sikh connection caught my eye, as I am one myself. I looked into it, and most sources I came across (fairly reputable ones) say that their origin lies in Central India, among such other nomadic groups as the Banjara. Not to be pretentious, but i think this makes more sense; the vast difference in lifestyle between the agrarian, martial Jatt Sikh and the staunchly itinerant Romani just doesn't equate, and their culture seems more akin to that region. They did spend a few centuries in the Punjab region (200BC~500AD) after moving from central India; thet doesn't make it their region of origin. The linguistic kinship between Punjabi and the Romani language would be because they are both Indo-Aryan languages. From what I've seen of the vocabulary it is somewhat more akin to Hindi, although a Punjabi element comes up every now and then due to the Punjabi/Hindi relationship. For an author to state a connection to illustrate from which area the Romani took off from South Asia is one thing; forging a kinship without any evidence is another. It really seems awkward that they are from "Jatt Sikhs," as opposed to other Jatts or Tarkhan Sikhs (all of whom are similar) and from Hindu Punjabis and rajputs; the Romani don't claim such specific lineages, and considering that they barely have any cultural similarities, it is mindboggling to do so. I believe that the author is simply trying to eqaute the most well-known northerners (who are very present in the Souht Asian diaspora) with Roma. Linguistic (Indo-Aryan)connection? Sure. Closest genetic/cultural kin? Hardly. 3swordz (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

3swordz, I personally believe, too, that the Romanis come rather from the lower parts of the Indian society, but a connection with the Rajputs and Jats is not totally out of the question. The genetic studies made on Romanis gave mixed results. Recently I have seen a reportage about a Romani woman that was genetically tested in India (probably mtDNA) and they found that her ancestors were from the Lohar caste, that are believe to be descendants of Rajputs and Jats. Maybe that part should be rewritten, but not removed. Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kenshin, I'll try to make the adjustments. Some interesting things you might like to know are that the Rajputs themselves (even the Punjabi ones) are themselves native to Rajasthan, actually, as opposed to the Jatts, who are indigenously Punjabi. (Rajasthan used to be called Rajputana not too long ago; it still commonly means "Land of Rajputs.") As for the Jatts/Jats, there are actually two distinct types, culturally and possibly genetically. The Jats in Haryana (which used to be part of the Greater Punjab region) have different surnames, customs, and from I've surmised, look different (don't know if that counts for anything). Their culture also resembles Rajasthan's more than Punjab's (modern East Punjab). The Sikh Jatts of Punjab are the dominant indigenous ethnicity of that region, and are mostly landowners. (The Jat/Jatt pronunciation actually differs.)
Anyway, I also read that low castes often accompanied Rajputs on their military marches and such in a "traveling city" type of deal. Handiworking Lohars would fall under that group. Lohars infrequently adopted the surnames of Jats or Rajputs they lived near, but more frequently didn't have a surname or simply adopted "Lohar" as their surname. (Come to think of it, there was a famous singer/musician named Arif Lohar in Rajput-dominated West (Pakistani) Punjab...)
Hindu Jats populate Haryana, Sikh Jatts dominate East Punjab, and Muslim Rajputs dominate Pakistani Punjab. Regarding Pakistan, according to Collier's Encyclopedia(1994 24-set): Rajputs are the most dominant ethnicity, who compete with Jats and Arains (farmers/landowners/army men); then come Awans, Gujars, Lohars (artisans, handiwork), Chuhras (sweepers), Julahas (weavers), and Mussallis (scavengers). (This is just a high-versus-low list, the exact hierarchy was not disclosed.)
Genetically, The R1a haplogroup that is by far the bulk of Jatt's Y-ancestry is absent in Romani, while the R2, H, and M haplogroups that define Romani, south and central Indian groups is very low in Punjab, let alone Jatts. Of course, while these aren't hard-and-fast, general trends point to them being fairly different.
Anyway, I'm sure you knew a lot of this before; I'll try to edit my previous contribution, feel free to change the semantics if if doesn't suit, though I think it's a good compromise. My sources are already here. Thanks for your time.3swordz (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I thank you for your time and for the informations, lots of it I didn't know. I guess that makes the puzzle even more complicated. I hope that you will stay around and contribute more. Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Duplicated paragraphs from Antiziganism

The following two paragraphs are copied verbatim from Antiziganism:

In Italy, the government recently tried to blame the Romani population for crimes that happened in large cities and has claimed that there is a Roma Emergency. Marco Impagliazzo, president of the Community of Sant'Egidio human rights organization said: There is no national emergency ... What is an emergency is that in the 21st century the life expectancy of a gypsy living in Italy is under 60 years of age.[1]
A study done by an Italian anthropologist revealed that stereotypes are stronger in the Italian mind than the reality itself. She investigated a series of child kidnappings in Italy done supposedly by Romani women, and found that not even one of them was actually true.[2]

They're poorly sourced to begin with. The first article, "Italy assailed over plan to fingerprint Gypsies", reflects early knee-jerk reactions to a census proposal that later gained international acceptance (from Antiziganism: "On September 4, 2008 the European Commission said Italy's census of illegal gypsy camps does not discriminate against the Roma community. They said the census is in line with European Union law.", etc.). The second article is in Romanian, and references an Italian research of dubious notability. Overall, it seems likely that these two paragraphs were added to both this article and Antiziganism by the same person on the spur of the moment after reading some piece of news, with little regard to how relevant they were to an encyclopedia article. The duplicate in this article should be removed, since the information is more relevant to Antiziganism. But even in that article there is some reduplication: the paragraph that's based on the article about initial reactions to the census proposal was tacked on after existing text that already covered the same issue in more detail and in a less POV way. Flavus (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Both statements are from valid sources and will stay. I'm already bored with this idea that any source that doesn't attack the Romanis is "poor". I do agree that they are better suited for the Antiziganism article, though. Kenshin (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
And randomly attacking the Italians is better? A statement like "A study done by an Italian anthropologist revealed that stereotypes are stronger in the Italian mind than the reality itself" makes little sense if you just drop it out of the blue in the middle of an article: you need to at least introduce what these stereotypes are before you proceed to debunk them. That's why that paragraph should be moved into its proper context inside the Antiziganism article. The first part of moving it has been done, since it's already present in that article; what's left to do is to remove it from this one, where it's redundant and out of context. The same thing goes for the attack on the government: it makes no sense to have just a fragment of the controversy in this article (resulting in a very POV slant), when Antiziganism already has a much more comprehensive coverage.
I don't know what you mean by «this idea that any source that doesn't attack the Romanis is "poor"»: nobody said anything of the sort. Instead, some objective problems with those paragraphs were raised, and they should be considered honestly. Another example: "the government recently tried" shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, because it's relative to the time of writing (I don't know the right wikipedia acronym to refer to that, but I'm sure you're familiar with it). (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That study primary deals with the stereotype that the Romani kidnap children. I have already agreed that it is redundant here.
All right. I would remove it, then, but I don't have editing access to this page. May I ask you to do it?
Yes, I will do it.
  • The part about the Italian government should stay as the the Italian government has been criticized by many "authorities", including European parliamentarians, not only human rights groups, and we cannot completely ignore it. If you think that it is POV, please come with a concrete solution to un-pov it.
Like I said, a more complete and NPOV treatment of the issue is available on Antiziganism. Duplicating a single paragraph in this article gives a POV view. There are two ways to fix it:
  • include the following paragraph as well:
On September 4, 2008 the European Commission said Italy's census of illegal gypsy camps does not discriminate against the Roma community. They said the census is in line with European Union law. An analysis of an Italian report on the census showed it did not seek "data based on ethnic origin or religion," said Michele Cercone, spokesman for European Justice Commissioner Jacques Barrot. The controversial fingerprinting programme has the sole aim of "identifying persons who cannot be identified in any other way," he said. The fingerprinting of minors was only being carried out "in strictly necessary cases and as the ultimate possibility of identification," Cercone said. [37] [38]
  • alternately, remove the POV paragraph and defer to the full Antiziganism article for a treatment of the issue.
Is not that simple, because the section in Antiziganism is not complete either. It is true that the European Commission said that the fingerprinting is ok, but the European Parliament and the Council of Europe said that is not, and this does not appear in the article either. Besides, the fingerprinting was not the only issue in Italy. I'll try to add everything to the Antiziganism section and then make a brief in this article.
  • <this idea that any source that doesn't attack the Romanis is "poor"> - I have seen plenty of this on Wikiedia. Kenshin (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me?! What do I have to do with what you've seen on Wikipedia before? Remember WP:AGF. Flavus (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Because, you don't seem NPOV either, I'm sure that if you know the issue you know that there have strong voices that criticized Italy. Kenshin (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I second Flavus in that the paragraph needs to be improved. Kenshin is incorrect in sensing an anti-Romani bias on Wikipedia. If anything there is a pro-Romani bias, seeing that we cover Antiziganism and persecution of Romani in great detail, but we have hardly any coverage on the very real issues of organized crime, and if the general poverty and squalor in the Romani communities is mentioned, it is invariably in a paragraph arguing that these are the result of discrimination and persecution. This isn't honest, or neutral. I don't want any articles bashing the Romani, but neither do I want PC whining about how badly the Romani are treated by everybody. I want neutral, unemotional, detached, well-informed reports on the facts. --dab (𒁳) 09:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have said on more occasions, I don't mind at all a section on Romani criminality as long as good sources/statistics are provided. But I don't think that it's place would be here, as no article on any ethnic group has such section. Instead there are some articles dedicated to ethnicity and crime, like Race and crime. Kenshin (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The anti-Romani persecution is covered in great detail, while the "the very real issues of organized crime" is not, because the anti-Romani persecution is sustained by many detailed and reliable sources, while I haven't seen, yet, any reliable data/statistics that will show how "very real" is the Romani criminality. Kenshin (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It is true that at this very moment there aren't strong anti-Romani attitudes on Wikipedia, but they had been in the past. Kenshin (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


On the box on the side it mentions 'Paganism' among the religions the Romani people practice. I have never encountered that claim in any literature. Any sources? MethMan47 (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that you can remove that part. Kenshin (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Solved. --Olahus (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a weird idea - "paganism" is simply any religion that is not Abrahamic (and in some definitions, non-Dharmic). Surely they practiced a non-Abrahamic religion pre-conversion? (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is Romani religion? I know they often adopt the religions of their host countries, but, what are the religious beliefs & practices of Romanis, in & amongst their own tribes & peoples. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


The article claims that "gyp" ("cheat") derives from "gypsy". But the OED (online edition) says that "gyp" only "perh." (perhaps) derives from "gypsy" (or perh. from "gippo"). The derivation should therefore not be stated as fact, since it is only speculation. (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

fixed. Details would belong on wikt:gyp, not here. --dab (𒁳) 09:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

addition for music section

{{editsemiprotected}}add Hala Strana as a rock band from America influenced by Romani music in the paragraph on Romani musicBlue00 (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Blue00

Why? How is this relevant to this article? Please repost your {{editsemiprotected}} if you have some references and reasoning. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Romani Ehkipe

A picture showing Romani literature if needed

[URL=][IMG][/IMG][/URL] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

History: post-1945 section

I think the post-1945 history section should be divided into two parts, because the largest number of Roma lived and still live in the East-Central European region, where the attitude towards them was greatly affected by the 1989 political changes. I suggest that a section should be written on "Roma between 1945-1989", emphasizing how governments tried to integrate Roma into communist societies, and another one on "post-1989", pointing out that the new, post-communist governments tended to show little concern about them. The success of radical anti-Roma political parties at the 2009 EP elections should definitely be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

References are needed....

for the beginning sentense of the topic-- (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bias in this article

I have read many posts that I know were written by racist people. For example a user named 'Omerlives' here wrote that Romani people are jatts and rajputs. Interestingly I found a comment in youtube by Omerlives(by the same name) that the Pushtuns(he is a pushtun probably) are better than Punjabi(he used the term 'Punjabi Tamils' for them). The people who hate Jatts and Rajputs of Pakistan and India deliberately identify them with Romani people, who don't have a good reputation. Other than that baseless theories are posted here without any evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As an American-Born person who hates racism, it seems to me the section titled: Contemporary Issues is blatently racist. I never heard of the Romani people until my girlfriend, a recently-immigrated Hungarian, warned me about them several times. She also let me know they were "Gypsies," and their main cultural trait was pickpocketing. This raised my suspicions so I came to the WikiPedia, only to find a very poorly written section which mentioned, but neither cited nor referenced the the following; "Romani are often confined to low-class ghettos because of their incapability to pay rent, are refused in jobs due to the lack of education and bad working moral, and Romani children are in highly disproportional numbers placed into special schools for mentally backward children."

It gets worse as the section goes on. The only references to supporting articles is one written by a "controversial researcher." This smacks of code words - for racist. And it gets worse in the second paragraph.

"Low education, frequent job-switching, low working moral and low personal responsibility are listed as the main reasons of the high unemployment rate. Unemployed Roma often work illegally or gain livehood from crime and other forms of illegal activity. Their leisure time is not used rationally, with many Roma spending big amounts of money on drugs and gambling."

Clearly, this is opinion. The reference to it is from a foreign language source. That seals the books on researching the reference.

One big clue this is a racist opinion is the poor grammar found in a few areas. I won't be more specific so as not to let the author clean it up.

I followed the link and read the article on antiziganism, and that is beutifully written with good grammar, a journalistic tone, and qualified references.

I hope the writers for the Romani section clean this up and make it palatable.Pcdr (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


As an American, it is hard to have a clear vision of the issues with European minority groups. A friendly reminder: Poor grammar is not a suggestion for factual errors. Not everyone is born English, please keep that in mind before discrediting sources. There is a saying in Eastern-Europe and it goes "The farther you live from the Balkans, the more tolerant you get towards the minority groups living there". Basically this means that since you never hear about the minority groups in a negative context, you will base your views on them by assumption. But if you think about your girlfriend's experience, you have to see that the farther you are geographically from a problem, the less insight you have into it. Care must be taken before forming opinion of overseas issues. Cheers, Lothandar (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Added source

Hey Kenshin

This is 3swordz, who corresponded with you a few months ago. I decided to incorporate the other source regarding the genetic studies that I showed in the previous discussion. That study, that drew upon larger representative samples of Jats and Roma as opposed to a single family, strongly suggested that the two groups are rather unrelated in terms of male descent, which was the focus of the study.

About your recent source, I do have my doubts about its content, although I am in no position to debate it. This form of glaucoma associated with the Roma (1 in 1250) also occurs in other populations: "estimated at 1:10,000 in Western countries and higher in inbred populations such as those of Saudi Arabia (1:2500), Slovakia Roma (1:1250), Arab Bedouins of the Negro region in Israel (1 of 1200),and Andhra Pradesh in India (1:3300)," and "the incidence of PCG is geographically and ethnically variable." SOURCE: mutation history of the roma/gypsies. I believe the mention of Andhra Pradesh in Southern India is of note. There are no standout populations in north India, I think due to greater variability (I read in another article), and the Jats don't have this condition at a noteworthy rate, which would also imply that they don't have some kind of monopoly on this gene, which seems somewhat silly to name the gene after them. Some of the other info regarding Roma origins struck me as a little incorrect, but whatever. I did take the liberty of changing the wording from 'confirming' to 'suggesting,' which struck me as especially unscientific, with no actual group studies of PCG prevalence, along with the haplogroup stuff sharply suggesting otherwise.

I pulled some of the y-dna prevalences in different populations from other wiki articles (cited ones), just so you know. I also nixed the subheading due to the contradictory study.

A lot of sources say that Roma language is related to a multitude of Indo-Aryan languages (no surprises there), among them Hindi, rajasthani, Punjabi, Sindhi, etc. I decided to look at some Romani vocab to see if I could see a trend. Most Romani words aren't really recognizable anymore unsurprisingly, but I do think that the language is most related to Hindi; the few words that were immediately recognizable to me were in Hindi, and if anything was in common with Punjabi, it was the same in Hindi as well. An example of this was the Romani word "amaro" (Our), which was more akin to Hindi ("hamara") than to Punjabi ("saadda") The pronunciation of "haath" [long "a" sound] (hand) was the same as Hindi ("Haath", also long "a",) than to Punjabi (huth, or h'th, it is hard to capture the phonolgy, but there is no vowel, let alone extended, in that pronunciation. Languages have a trend to simplify pronunciations/grammar over time but not to add to them. So Romani probably retained the pronunciation)There were other examples, these were among the more striking. It jives, at any rate, with the notion that the Romani originated farther south. Just a few more interesting facts. If the semantics doesn't suit, again, feel free. I do think my source is rather valid, and I will keep yours as well of course.3swordz (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi 3swordz. Thanks for your stopping by, but I have to tell you that I don't much agree with you. First of all, the discovery in the article is not about PCG, but about a specific form of PCG, caused by a specific mutation (the Jatt mutation). After the 2004 study there was another one in 2008 that found that the 'classical mutation' does not fully explain the particular Romani glaucoma ( It ends with: 'Data on other Mendelian disorders and on the population genetics of the Gypsies suggest that a true founder mutation is likely to exist and has remained undetected. Our analysis of another candidate gene, MYOC, and the GLC3B and GLC3C loci did not provide support for their involvement. The molecular basis of PCG in the Gypsies is thus unresolved, and diagnostic analyses should be extended beyond the E387K mutation'. And now that particular 'Romani mutation' was found, it was the 'Jatt mutation'. I'm pretty sure that those people are not that stupid to make assessments based on a mutation that can be found in many parts of the world and with little representation among Jatts. Also, this mutation was not found in single Romani family, but in many disparate Romani communities.
I know prey much all of the genetic studies made on Romanis and you have to be careful that the study you pointed out only compared the Romani haplotypes with those of some Jatt groups (Jat Sikhs and Jats of Haryana). As you know, there are many Jatt groups that are endogamous and, so, their gene pool might vary quite significantly. There was also a study once that found great genetic similarities between Romanis and Rajputs, while other didn't found.
On the other hand, the Jatt ancestry of the Romani people doesn't exclude other Indian groups (mixed ancestry). But for me, it makes sense, because the Romanis are quite European looking. And, while intermarriages had happened, I think that their looks and diversity is better explained if they are descendants of an already indo-european mixed people (like the Jatts).
I don't particularly mind changing 'confirming' to 'suggesting', although the article uses 'confirming', but I think that the subheading is important, as this is the first time that strong evidence was found to relate the Romanis with a particular Indian group. Kenshin (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kenshin. Some thoughts I have is that the study actually mentioned the discovery in a single Pakistani family, not a Romani one. They were comparing it to Romani populations. The team studied four Pakistani families and isolated it in one. If you have any studies regarding this form of PCG regarding Jatt populations, that would be cool. I was a little thrown by how momentarily the article gleaned over the mutation besides calling it a name. The particular strain, or PCG in general, isn't unduly present in Jatt populations to my knowledge. Jatt Sikhs and Haryans Jats also make up about half of all Jats roughly as well so it's pretty significant, even being "endogamous".

In terms of looks (if you really want to bring that up), Jatts tend to be rather fair skinned actually, either that or a few shades darker. The younger Punjabi populations, Jatts especially in the West (myself included, never got the "farmer's tan," lol) don't really have that "indian" look or how you want to call it; I can tell you out of experience that a lot of Punjabis in general but Jatts in particular are immediately distinguishable from "Indian looking" people, the ones raised here especially, it's quite a vast departure. Perhaps you may have seen some Sikhs (religious or not)like this. Their looks just scream "not indigenous" at any rate. I know that Romani are at least on average 50% European genetically by now (may even become mostly European in due time maybe), but before they started to mix (fairly recently, picked up in the 1800s) they were commented on their darkness of skin and even now some are quite dark and Indian-looking, at least from pictures I have seen and comments made in texts.

I didn't want to get into the whole "looks" thing because it struck me as a bit unresolvable (we could go on all day about looks of Romanis and whatnot) but that is my take on it. The genetics and such showed a large discrepancy, along with my look at the language vocab, as well as the traditions and dances and such, there is little in common, like the dances (the lively spinning dances and skirt style and the presence of distinctly Hindi words/syntax) just don't jive as Punjabi at all, but look like Rajasthani dress and movement. I honestly don't think people can just pick up traditions like [forgive my stereotyping for a sec] fortune-telling, itinerancy, musical entertainment and entertainer class traits, whatever, especially from a settled "warrior past" that strikes as being more self-empowering than factual, like black nationalists claiming Zulu descent or whatever. I am not trying to denegrate them , don;t take it that way, but some things just don't fit at all. I also read of in quite a few articles (for however much this counts) a mannerism of Romani, the "head bobble" or something, where some shakes their heads from a sort of side-to-side to indicate "yes," and I immediately knew what they were talking about, this is a distinct Hindi-speaker trait that I see often; Punjabi speakers don't do this at all (I think the drastically different diction and tone don't allow for it, honestly.)

Here are some more examples of distinctly Hindi or Punjabi words with Romani. They match a lot more with Hindi most of the time. (eng-rom-hnd-pun)

our amaro hamara saadda
boy raklo larka munda
girl rakli larki kuri
hungry bocklo bhuka pukka
good lacho acha changa
five pansh paanch punj
young tarni tarun tardi?
he ov vo o
near pashe pashe nere
children chavorale bache nianne
"-pen" words (very rare in Punjabi, usually in Hindi loanwords)
endings with -o as opposed to -a is a Rajasthani linguistic trait

Only these have more of a resemblance to Punjabi.

brother phral bhai pra
sister phen bhen pen
there adoi yaha othe
BANJARA (per HANCOCK) call outsiders "gujse/gujze" like "Gadje," with no cognate in Punjabi to my knowledge.
Banjara also have stories corroborating their own ranks leaving India 1000 years ago.

Didn't mean to ramble, I have just been learning a lot about Romani as of late, some of which I wanted to share. I'm cool with the new body section, the one thing I would change is the subheading to "Speculative" as there are sharply conflicting studies, at least until more detailed studies come out regarding the mutation's prevalence in subcontinental populations, as I'm sure they will. I just don't think two lines mentioning a Jatt mutation really cuts it with no detail, more should be divulged. Like actual population studies for one. I also think my study and the mention of R1awhich is a quandary which cannot be counted out (R1a is the most common male lineage in northern India, not just Jatts, of which Romani populations have literally none; this is unreconcilable to me) and should be incorporated back in, which was really the most head-on direct study of Jatt/Roma comparison I have come across. Also, the presence of Hindi words kind of contradicts the "origin" in Punjab, unless they dipped back down to Rajasthan before their sojourn. The presence of a few distinct Punjabi (and Dardic, Persian, Slavic, etc) loanwords simply indicates their migration to me.

Notwithstanding, this is a fascinating topic. PS This may warrant a "duh" from you, but are you a Romani? And have you seen the PBS Romani documentary film with Johnny Depp in it? Interesting stuff. Anyway, I will do the heading, fell free to reply.3swordz (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I also have a few images regarding Haplotype H's prevalence, in addition to "Haplogroup H is frequently found among populations of India (approximately 27%[8]), Sri Lanka (approx. 25%[8]), Nepal (approx. 12% in Kathmandu and 6% in Newars[6]), and Pakistan (haplogroup H1-M52 in 4.1% Burusho, 20.5% Kalash, 4.2% Pashtun, 2.5% other Pakistani)[7]." and 47% of Roma lineages is H, with no R1a. PU/PUN=Punjab, GU=Gujarat, etc. here here. In a nutshell: H is extremely scarce in Punjab, R1a is scarce in Romani, no detail of Jatt PCG prevalence (not unduly present, and extremely brief mention with no explained basis for naming), the discovery in only a single Pakistani family (sample size?), cultural/linguistic/genetic affinities farther south, etc. This is my basis for using "speculative," and calling the source under question. (Keep in mind that the new study doesn't necessarily trump the old one; one dealt with common haplogroups and the other with a gene.3swordz (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

3swordz, the methodology of the research id not clear from the article. "one of four" doesn't necessarily mean that they studied four subjects and one was found with that particular mutation. It could be that they studied any number of subjects, and they found the mutation in 25% of them. It also doesn't say how they were chosen, what were they looking and other details. And I think that for us (as we are not even researchers, ourselves) to discuss the methodology is... too much.
The wording seemed ambiguous to me too for a bit, but I eventually chose to interpret it as the tiny 4-family sample. I think that the source of the info was too polished to let a grammar mistake that large pass by. No other sample sixe was indicated, at any rate.
Through history, the Romanis were called dark because they were/are darker then the European population, even if they are not as dark as the "native" Indians. If a group of Jatts (who are at least 50% Indian) would come to Europe today, they would also be considered dark (compared with the Europeans). As far as I saw the Jatts of today are a little bit darker than the Romanis.
Besides, the "dark" aspect of the Romanis was/is exaggerated to enforce the anti-Romani feelings.

On the other hand, as far as I saw, the Rajastan nomads are really to dark as compared with the Romanis.

I don't know about the Romani being only "relatively" darker...Roma congregation very varied looks They now live in a very cloudy region like Europe, but still end up being really quite dark, a fair bit darker than Western raised Jatts. I can tell you some identifying features of Jatts (like surnames) if you think I'm exaggerating. If they're too light to be Rajasthani, remember that we are talking about before they mixed considerably.
When I say that Roma are "50% European," I mean that they literally have 50% recent European genetic contribution according to geneticists(didn't save the link, sorry). I didn't pull the quantity "50%" out of the air, if your usage implied that. As for 50% Indian, Jatts have overwhelmingly R1a lineage on the male side and possibly as much as 60% mtDNA not indigenous to India, but to West Asia. If you can identify Jatts, you might see that they look quite divergent from the "Indian" look. Nothing is hard-and-fast, and Indian ancestry definitely figures in a big way with Jatts, but I might have to see some proof for "50% Indian" (I will try to retrieve my source in that case).
I also said the 2 studies don't necessarily trump each other. But in genetics a "match" is stronger than an "un-match". If you and me have a rare mutation, then a past connection between us is highly probable. And the "un-match" can be easily explained. For example the haplogroup discrepancy. If you look at the Romani lineages history, you will see that some lineage have been much more "successful" than other ant this could highly affect the present day Romani haplotype composition. For example, one single male is the fore-father of almost one third of the today Romani population. If that guy happened to belong to the H haplogroup, that would highly raise the general percentage of this haplogroup in Romani populations. So the present day Romani haplogroup composition could be significant different from that of the proto-Romanis. See also Genetic drift.
I am aware that that scenario is possible. But with the stark lack of Haplogroup H lineages in Punjab, the probability would have been infinitesimal for that scenario. I believe that the leaving population was about 1000 people if I am correct. And the chances of all the males belonging to R1a dying off, with the preservation of only H (amongst R1a, J, M, all the rest of Punjab's haplogroups according to the charts, which all show at greater rates; SOuth India as you may have seen contains the bulk of this H lineage.), would have been tiny as well, if the group descended from Punjab especially, or descendants of southern Punjabi migrants as you suggest:
I also know that the Romani language is closer to the Central Indian languages than to the N-Indian languages, but who can say that in the more than 2000 years of Jatt presence in the subcontinent, before the supposed exodus there hasn't been any movement of Jatts further south. There are nomadic Jatt clans even today, aren't they?
I don't mean to be blunt, but there are no nomadic Jatts. If you are referring to the group in Afghanistan also called Jats, the "peripatetic" Jats are unrelated (again from 1994 Collier's Encyclopedia 24-set article). Really, Punjab has some of the world's most productive soil, there would really be little pressure for itinerancy. And Jatts are found almost exclusively in the Punjab and number few in Rajasthan, mostly on the upper fringes, they never migrated that far south; settlement in Punjab was the aim of many migratory groups over the millenia. The Thar Desert takes up most of Rajasthan exclusively; such uninviting conditions would likely have been a deterrent for such migration.
There are many un-answered question and probably there'll always be. I also feel that an exclusive Jatt ancestry doesn't explain all, but a rare mutation match is to strong evidence of a connection for me to be ignored even if you have you doubts.
It is worth note, to be sure. But I believe that the layout of the situation should also be shown, to show all angles. My last few edits have been drastically minimized, all I ask is a note of rates of R1a in Punjab. And as different studies exist, I thought my title was better suited, but whatever.
I'm not Romani, myself, but I have been very interested in the last years.
That makes two of us!
Do you mean "When the road bends"? I saw it and I liked it, but I liked even better "Latcho drom". Best regards! Kenshin (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I will look into it. Very intriguing topic!.3swordz (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are the darkest Romanis that you can get. And the tan adds, too. A more common look is this one: [8], [9], [10], [11]. These are members of the Cioaba clan, one of the most important Kalderash clans. I chose them because they are very strict about endogamy. The Domaris for example are more Indian looking than the Romanis, although they migrated hundreds of years earlier.
I know how Romanis look and I know how Jatts look. Both people are a mixture of Indian and European blood (that varies from person to person and group to group), but I find the Romanis a little bit lighter than the Jatts. I think that the Jatts are at least 50% Indian because, as far as I know, the migrations into the subcontinent were mostly on the male side. So I assume that right from the second generation they were basically half Indians. This is an assumption as I haven't found any reliable sources on Jatt genetics. Do you have some articles/studies about Jatt genetics?
A lot of groups around the world that stress endogamy (really, I believe most groups do) are already quite mixed genetically. I believe that most Romani groups put emphasis on it, (don't they?), what with the mistrust of outsiders, the refusal to conform to surrounding cultures, the insistence that their group is superior to the outsiders and even that each group believes that they have the most unadulterated culture among the rest, that general assurance and clannishness about themselves, you know. Still, they ended up quite mixed. And the darkest Romani may be considered the most like the original stock (They could only have picked up lighter skin traits, the route they headed.) Again, I'm talking about what they likely looked like originally, not how they look now, we know thay are substantially mixed now. They do get pretty dark even in a cloudy region like Europe, even more than the typical sunburned Jatt. (I'm not sure how much a tan can add a darkening factor to that degree in Europe, especially compared to what Jatts get in India's hot season. But this looks debate can go on all day.)
As for Jatt genetics, the closest I come to that is studies of Punjab state, where Jatts are often the most "European" looking and form a majority there. Non-indiginous mtHaplogroups like Haplogroup U and others spike there, and no where else in India. (I'm thinking that many of the spikes in Punjab state have been created by other factors like the "rearranging" of demographics in the Partition, but it's just a thought.) I'll try to refind the study soon (I ought to bookmark these things). At any rate, if male invaders uniformly took indigenous wives and had half-indians for kids and subsequently bred deeper and deeper into Indian genes, then the current look and genetics for Jatts would be hard to explain; their features are quite unique in the subcontinent. But again, that debate.
Even if R1a is the most frequent haplogroup among Jatts it doesn't mean that all Jatt clans have the same haplogroups ratio. Some might have more, some less, and maybe some none. Even if it is a low probability it is not impossible.
Sure, absolutely. But for the Romani to carry a haplogroup among half their male ranks that is scarce in Punjab (maybe 2% tops?) with no presence of R1a makes it a awfully infinitesimal chance. It's not like they sorted themselves by haplogroup, especially with a commonly-believed party size to be a good 1000 people. R1a ought to register at least a little bit, I'm thinking.
By the way, as far as I red, most of the Indian R1a lineages are probably very old (more than 10.000 years), while only a small amount of lineages are from about 3000-4000 years ago. Probably in the future the R1a haplogroup will be split into 2 distinct haplogroups, one for Northern India and one for Eastern Europe (Slavic mixed populations).
That's another interesting thing I thought about commenting about earlier. The Roma still have no R1a lineage having settled in the one of the few regions (Slavic territories) that exceeds even Punjab in R1a (I believe Ukraine has about 64% of males falling under that haplogroup, for example). If they did, there might have been another debate about which area they picked that up. Pretty interesting how the Romani traveled to only R1a "hotspots," lol.
As for the big split, that will be interesting to see, (well not us personally) although the increased interconnectedness of the world may halt evolution as we know it, and populations are getting very large. (Small populations and isolation make mutations take root, and drives evolution. In an anthropology class I've taken, it's been hinted that the pop. boom may prevent this.) But this is a digression, I apologize.
But I do not understand why do you completely ignore a multi-caste origin for Romanis. Probably the warriors + camp followers theory is the most probable. I didn't heard prof Hanckok saying that 'gujze' means stranger in Lambani, I read in an article by him that it means 'prisoner' in some northern (Rajput) dialects.
It's not so much that I oppose it just so much that I question the evidence for the Jatt connection, and to a lesser extent the motive. I probably won't be satisfied until the details of the study come out (they're bound to soon I hope), the method of study is what interests me, and the clearing up of the "sample" issue. I have a natural aversion to South Asian academics, because much of their work is somewhat shoddy; often, even subject matter aside, opinion is injected often. I'm not saying that this was, I'm not one to accuse, but details are everything to me...
Personally, I do find the multilevel army/party to be very feasible. Just the Jatt angle confuses me. Aside from the fact that I don't think Jatts went on campaigns on quite the scale that Rajputs did, and Jatts operated outside the caste system (they are now placed as high-caste as a practicality (censuses and stuff)) and did not travel as much in such campaigns, makes me doubt their clout to draw such accompanying bands. (Jatts have always been powerful in their own right, especially with the Sikh empire and whatnot, but Rajputs are the "quintissential" Indian warrior group, if you will. The Mughals drew from them almost exclusively among Indian warrior groups when they assembled armies; the British drew from Jatts heavily as well, this of course happening later on without regard to "roles" and such, and just based on martiality. There have been a few Jatt kings ruling over small local kingdoms (in the Punjab always, over the centuries.) I've never heard of "major" Jatt marches being accompanied at any rate; Rajputs have a more decorated history in that regard, with campaigns in general.
I believe the reference was in his book. If I got it wrong I apologize, but I think it's correct.
And the fact that, in Europe, Romanis were mostly services providers doesn't mean that they couldn't have been warriors in the subcontinent. Today their most prevalent occupation is small trading, but that doesn't mean that they are from the Maheshwari caste, for example.
They may well have been, I personally think it's unknowable. But the evidence put forth by Ian Hancock, prominent among those who espouse the theory, is awfully flimsy. His main selling point is that Romani language has its own words indicating settlement and possible martiality like the words for house, horse, weapons, etc., and the terms for manual labor like metal work are loanwords. There could have been several explanations, like "houses and horses and settlements are everywhere and we need to keep this word for them," and their persecution could have kept weapon names a current concept. The fact that the Romani have kept these terms while being itinerant for generations kind of undermines his own theory. Besides the linguistics and the supposed concurrent raids of the Turko-Afghan conqueror Mahmud of Ghazni coinciding with the time of Romani departure, he doesn't have much. Were the Romani POWs? Were they simply taken as slaves? Did they move of their own accord? I don't think we can ever come close to knowing now, and choosing "warriors" just seems like empowerment to me, as much as the Romani may need that.
I am very open to any possibly, I have no preferences. Some weeks ago when we spoke, I told you that I also believe in a Central Indian, low caste origin for the Romanis, but now that this discovery (the "Jatt mutation") came out, I have to include it in the equation. Very intriguing topic, indeed!:)
I agree, it is definitely worthy of note, I don't deny that at all. But to me, that is what it should be -- a note. The article from which the theory came from was itself brief on the matter (barely a sentence or two) and I'm seeing Connection h2's everywhere. I just think that it should be given as much weight as the source article would let it (not much yet) and if a subheading is absolutely necessary and it can't fit with the general paragraph, the reality on the ground/other viewpoints should be introduced alongside it, that's all.
By the way, are you a Jatt? From your signature I suppose that you are a Sikh. Kenshin (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Yup. I suppose my pre-emptive "duh" was unwarranted after all since you aren't Romani, lol.3swordz (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't know actually how mixed are the Romanis with the Europeans and when exactly this mixage happened. And coming back to probabilities, is hard to believe that the Romanis mixed with Europeans in some hundreds of years more than the Jatts mixed with the "native" Indians in 3500 years, especially considering that the cultural distance between Romanis and Europeans is greater than the one between Jatts and other Indian groups.

Considering the general Jatt look, they maybe whiter than "pure" Indians, but for me, as European, they are still brownish on the average. And, if a group of Jatts would come to Romania today and, for some reason, they would have some conflict with Romanians, you can be sure that they would receive the "fucking crows" tag.

The skin color comparisons I've made were between "dressed" Romanis and "dressed" Jatts, I haven't seen farmer Jatts. And my general impression is that on the average Romanis are a little lighter than Jatts.

Yes, I have also thought about this aspect of the Romani haplogroups, the absence of R1a, even if they traveled almost exclusively in R1a areas. This would rather support a reduce mixage with other peoples. Even if they would assimilate more women than men, it is still very improbable that they wouldn't have acquired some R1a lineages. So, the Romani genetics puzzle is even more complicated :)

Indeed, small human groups evolute faster because the new genes/mutations spread faster the smaller the group is. (That was my digression :) )

About the reliability of the study, I don't know about South Asian academics, but the study was done at the University of Leeds which is a very respected university. But I also hope to hear some more details to clarify things.

The Romanis were not that itinerant. There have been only a couple of important migration in their history, triggered by some events (usually violent events). Other than that, the Romanis of Romania have been here for hundreds of years, the Romanis of Germany (the Sinti) or the Romanis of Spain (Iberian Kalos), just the same. I thing that their nomadism is exaggerated just like their darkness.

I do agree that the other genetic findings should be put into it, I trimmed the paragraph not to undermine those other aspects, but because I think that details aren't needed. I think it's enough to say that the Romani haplogroups don't match the Jatt ones, but I don't think that supplemental details about those haplogroups help. Especially since the article is already to large.

It has been a nice discussion:) Kenshin (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion on my talk page, as I think that at this point it kinda departed from what is strictly related to the article. Kenshin (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Change in Contemporary Issues Section

Since the article is protected for whatever reason, I thought I would go ahead and explain why I changed a line. As it was the oppening line of the Contemporary Issues section was poorly worded. It said something to the extent of "the government tried to blame the gypsies for crimes committed in urban areas" and finished off with the phrase "Roma emergency." First, the government didn't "try" to do anything, it did explicitly blame the gypsies for crimes in urban areas. Putting the word try in there sounds more like the Italian government doing a concsious frame job or something to that extent. No matter what is happening or how objectively awful it may appear we should probably avoid such loaded language and show of bias and stick to basic, straight forward demonstrable facts. We have no idea why the Italian government has been motivated to say what they've said and we have no idea what, if any, truth exists in what they have said. It's better to just put what they said, include any counter criticism and move on. Save the exposition for the op-eds. Second, is really picky, but why put Roma Emergency like some Italian form of Spanglish? It should either just be Emergenza Roma (or emergenza nomadi as the article I cited called it or emergenza di sicurezza-emergency of security another term that gets used) or simply national security risk or emergency. Roma Emergency sounded really awkward to me. Anyway, that's the reason I made the change, feel free to disagree with me if you want.

Roma vs. Gypsy

Okay I don't want to start an edit war here. The first time I changed it I thought I had made the typo myself when I changed the first sentence. But now I see that someone changed it again to "Italy's Roma population" instead of "Italy's Gypsy population." I don't know the ends and outs of who gets called Romani or Roma, I just know the term that most people use, Gypsy. Maybe that's not the best term but if it's more correct they should just be called Romani. Here it's confusing to say Roma. If the sentence reads that the Italian government have declared Italy's Roma population a national security risk, what information is conveyed in that sentence? Okay so the handful of people on this planet who use Roma as a term for a subset of Romani people, might get that sentence. To everyone else that sounds like the Italian government is cracking down on the citizens of Rome. Roma population, Roma is the capital city of Italy, am I the only one who would be confused by that sentence? Use Romani if you want to be old school or stick with the title of the article but not Roma.

And in fact I went ahead and changed it to Romani. That should make sense and hopefully avoid any offense taken to the word Gypsy.

In English, the capital of Italy is called Rome and its citizens are called Romans, so readers shouldn't be confused by the term "Roma." Nevertheless, your use of the term "Romani" contributes some consistency to this article, and certainly isn't inaccurate.Raskovnik (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree. And on Talk Pages, can editors please sign their posts by entering four tildes ( the squiggle, ~ , above this, # , on most keyboards). (Thanks for remembering Raskovnik, edit conflict). RashersTierney (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It was always gypsy so why should we start calling them differently now? They even refer to themselves as the gypsies. Norum (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you perhaps do some research yourself, then come back and tell us with a view to improving the article. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


Why is Christos Patsatzoglou in the picture when his article doesn't mention him being a Romani? Spiderone (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent question. This is a long-running problem with 'ethnic lists' and some editors haphazardly adding individuals without references., which I think should be responded to with an immediate revert. RashersTierney (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, he does look like a gypsy though. He doesnt really Greek, he seems to be much darker. Norum (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree that he looks like one but there is still no evidence other than the odd thread on a forum. Spiderone (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
On February 5, 2009, when I created the image, there was a mention in the article about it, but later somebody removed this mention. --Olahus (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
An issue like ethnic identity really needs to be ref'd, particularly if the person is still living. While the question of ethnicity is not specifically addressed, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons gives good advice on verifiability generally. "He does look like a gypsy though" is so not good enough. RashersTierney (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I propose removing this image immediately. A less problematic montage can surely be provided. Comments please. RashersTierney (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Remove. It can easily be replaced with a picture of another athlete such as Ricardo Quaresma or Andrea Pirlo. Spiderone (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Because this is a single-image montage rather than an album, its all or nothing. I've asked the posting ed. if he can provide an alternative. RashersTierney (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I will insert a picture of Ricardo Quaresma or Andrea Pirlo. Does anybody have a preference for one of the two? --Olahus (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Quaresma's statement of being proud of his Romani heritage clinches it for me. But really, either seems fine. RashersTierney (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Quaresma Spiderone (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


Please can you remove Category:Europe from this page. IMHO, it should not be in such a high-level cat —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Romani and the Tuatha'an

In terms of contemporary fiction, I see a great deal in common with the Tuatha'an in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, in at least the stereotypical view. Does anybody see the same thing? Pueblonative (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)