Talk:Roma people/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Other

The article should be under Gypsies since that is the common English word for Gypsies.

No, it should be right where it is. There's a redirect from Gypsies to this article, so no problem with readers finding it. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The old peer review has turned to a farce, it would become yet another war zone if left. --Gutza 20:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is under active NPOV dispute, so I'm removing my own request for a peer review. --Gutza 20:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've not done this before. Only would like to point out the "celtic connection" to the cowboy world, widely doccumented in many articles & books, & suggest these celts (mostly Scots - strong cattle traditions, & Irish - equine skills & both for general laborers) brought their own related oral and musical traditions with them. This is very clearly a major source for cowboy songs. A good example is "Streets of Laredo" being derived from the "unfortunate rake" series of ballads well known to many peoples of the British Isles. In addition many older songs of the rural appalachian areas have been traced directly to even older Scotts & Irish songs. In turn, both these areas contributed greatly to american popular music forms; Gypsy-influenced Django might have influneced western swing, but that's just one sub-set of "western" music and I'd seriously doubt music of the Rom had as broad or direct an influence as celtic in U.S. pop music. BK

I am responding to the call to list the most up-to-date figures for populations in various countries. I have some verifiable information that I would like to add in the box on the right hand side of the page regarding the current population in Slovakia, but do not know how to edit it. I would appreciate any help in this. --Jakubukaj 00:58, 31 May 2005

You can click the "Edit this page" tab at the top of the page to open the page in editing mode. In the edit box near the bottom, you just type in the new information. If you're just replacing the old numbers, you don't even have to know anything about how the page is formatted. If you need to add new figures, you may be able to figure out how to format them by following existing examples. You don't really need to know HTML or anything like that. Does this help? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 02:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
But you'll need to cite the source of the figures. Are you getting the information from a website, or some other source? -- TheMightyQuill 09:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

New Articles

I believe at this point that new articles should be created on the subject.I propose: Roma Minority for countries with the largest Roma minorities(Roma minority in Romania,Hungary,etc).According to many sources Roma people are the largest minority in Europe(EU as well?) so an article on Roma minority in Europe is also needed.Another important one should be "History of Roma people" , Migration of Roma people,etc.Anyone up for it? --Radufan 12:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • What does 'largest minority in Europe' actually mean? Wouldn't that be men? Guinnog 12:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • useless talk,it is I believe pretty obvious I was talking of ethnic minority.no reason to be that technical given the context,don't you think?and correct me if I'm wrong but seldom "minority" reffers directly to "ethnic minority"(check the wiki definition).anyways,that is not the point here:)--Radufan 13:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, technically, "minority" means just what it says; you ought to say "ethnic minority" if that's what you mean.
About adding these new articles: just what would they say about the Roma that isn't already in (or couldn't be added to) the existing article? That they're a significant, or even the largest, minority in that country? Doesn't seem enough of a reason for separate articles to me. Maybe you can elaborate. --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The "Roma people" article is now taking part in the Article Improvement drive.That's why I was proposing some subjects.There is so much more to say about Roma people!And if you simply added to the main article it would be too long.And just an article for for an ethnic minority of such proportions!An article of Roma Culture is also needed.Plus they are not insignificantly different from one country to another.Take Romania ,my country, whose Roma minority is largest in the world(EU estimates of up to 2.5mil).Little it is said about this particular group and how it developed.Respecting proprtions it is quite unfair to give them less attention than to smaller groups in the Czech Republic,Hungary or US.An article about Roma minority in Romania would include subjects like: statistics(official and estimates),struggle for fair parliamentary representation(think of 2-3mil citizens out of 22 having very little political voice),history of Roma people in Romania,differences between "Roma" and "Romanian",sclavism up untill 19th century,culture and music mixed with Romanian one,particular arts and crafts,particular lifestyle(Czech and Romanian Roma don't have the same lifestyle),Romanian 100% roma villages and how they successfully organise themselves,the Roma kings-Bulibasha(and their subjection to their own form of authority in contrast with no voice of Roma kings in Romanian public affairs),mixing with romanian population,roma neighbourhoods in romanian cities,their reasons in building huge and unexplicably empty villas(a rich roma family would build a 20room empty villa and then have a camp outside in the backayard where to spend most of the time)etc.I can think of more and would gladly contribute with sources but since I'm no expert I can't do it all myself.--Radufan 22:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I also uploaded and propose this photo for the main page (an interwar Romanian-Roma "Bulibaşa")
--Radufan 23:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, OK, that sounds like a pretty good case for some new articles. You could try starting one or more of them yourself: I'd do that, if I had the information that you seem to have.
I agree especially with the need for an article (or perhaps several) on Roma culture.
By the way, one small suggestion: put spaces in your sentences. Hard to read otherwise. --ILike2BeAnonymous 22:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

A rudimentary History of the Roma people article has been created. It can now be expanded, and the main section in the article reduced. I suggest new articles on Rom culture and society, Rom oppression/discrimination, and the roma-criminality issue. I think migration would be a sub-topic in the history article. Wachholder0 22:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Crime discussion/glossing over other elements

I know that the Roma are associated with thievery for a reason, that being that many of them are involved with such activities, however I also believe that, if anything, the Roma who have nothing to do with such activities are what is being glossed over. I've noticed that so many people generalize when it comes to this group of people and I can't help but be a little frustrated with it because it's so misleading to others. Also, their social status in their countries of residence as well as their monetary stiuation must play a huge part in this. After all, many Roma are struggling financially and it doesn't help that there is so much discrimination against them in European countries. When people are desperate they go to more extreme measures to survive, it makes sense. I don't mean to support robbery, but, if so many of the Roma are in such a bad situation as what I suspect, then they may feel very well that their situation can't get any worse, and that they have nothing to lose, so they take risks and disregard others in order to survive. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I think that most humans would go to those same measures, would they not? They have found their buffer between themselves and poverty/starvation/homelessness/etc. and though robbery is considered evil to most, it still remains a matter of opinion. I believe it is wrong as well, don't misunderstand me, but that does not change that it is an opinion. -Rei

82.143.162.72 15:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Please list all the articles on Wikipedia in which modern-day examples of paedophilia are qualified by the inclusion of 'a practice which was common 500 years ago'. Until then, the fact that sex with 12-year-old girls was acceptable half a millennia ago does not seem to have much relevance when quoting a news source about it happening today.

Of course it's relevant, because we're not talking about just "sex", we're talking about marriage (you know, monogamy)... It's relevant because this is a vestige that has died out everywhere else in Europe in the last 500 years, but you wish to present it as some kind of aberrancy they just came up with out of the blue, and that's just one sided and misleading. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 15:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)It is misleading to describe the conditions some Roma live in without reference to the fact that there is not one single country where Roma are forbidden to integrate into mainstream culture and live somewhere else. That is why the words 'choose to' are added, words which you keep deleting. If you were adding the '500 years ago' reference to a marriage that happened 500 years ago there would be some relevance to it. As it stands, whether it was widespread or not 500 years ago, it is paedophilia today. You could qualify everything you are so keen to describe as persecution, rather than perceived persecution, by reference to the fact that ideas of racial inferiority were much more widespread 500 years ago than they are now. Again, you keep removing any edits that describe 'persecution' as being a matter of perspective. Moving people off illegally occupied land is not persecution, it is law enforcement. Arresting someone for begging with a pre-school child is not persecution, it is law enforcement. Arresting someone or fining someone for not having the necessary planning permission for a building or the necessary tax for a road vehicle is not persecution, it is law enforcement. Describing any ethnic group or groups as 'unclean' is racist, regardless of whether it was 500 years ago. Enforcing such laws or referring to them is not persecution.

By your logic, then, putting the Romany in concentration camps was not persecution either, because that too was law enforcement. But then, you strike me as being one of those types who pretend all that never happened. People like you should be resisted at all times and at all costs, and I'm going to revert every single one of your racist, hatemongering edits to this article until you find something better to do with your life than persecute people and monger hate for being different. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)82.143.162.72 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)That's a good example of putting words into people's mouths and guilt-by-association. Not much of an example of anything worthy of entering in an 'encylopedia'. There are going to be pieces of information that do not agree with your political views whether you like it or not.
I suggest you read what you just wrote back to yourself, since you are the one who is primarily deleting things that don't agree with you. I am more of an inclusionist; I will happily include one viewpoint so long as the other is also included. You apparently only want one to be included, yours. Also I note you have received warnings for vandalism and not adhering to consensus on your talk page. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 07:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)You have repeatedly been asked for the source of 'brief' in 'brief civil unrest' but not provided one. A source for racist behaviour was provided but rejected (even though there are now two). You are applying a double standard. 'Discrimination' on grounds of race and 'racism' are the same. Deal with it.

Has anybody of you known gypsies in person? Did you ever have a conversation with a gypsy? Have you spent time in a gypsy's house? I don't think you know gypsies for real. I have only known one gypsy in my life who actually worked. All other gypsies i've known (a lot) dedicate their life to scamming, living off wellfare, and yes, stealing, or selling stolen stuff. A common spanish joke is "A gypsy that was working". Is racism against gypsies different? No. As said, its discrimination on grounds of race. But what race dedicates their lifes to surviving by any means but working? Blacks? No. Arabs? No. Asians? No. South Americans? No. Gypsies? YESSSSSSSSSS. Would you want to have such a "parasite" near YOU? Hell no. My stepfather was has half gypsy, and we've been to gypsies houses and ive met a lot of gypsies. They are a very strong culture, invisible and independant to governmental institutions, nevertheless dependant on "payos", or non-gypsies. May I ask, do Gypsies not have a state or similar, like the kurdish, because they were persecuted and such or not allowed, or because _they dont want to_? What, imagine, a gypsy country, they'd have to actually frikkin WORK to maintain, tell that to anybody who has lived near and known gypsies, he'll bust out laughing. I'm not calling for racism against gypsies here, i'm pointing out why people are racist against gypsies. You'll see racism against gypsies wherever they appear. Just ask yourself, do I really know gypsies?

82.143.162.72 13:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Just out of interest, if the person who wrote the above paragraphs (there's nothing to identify who) had put them on a website and then linked to it in at the end of the article, would you keep the link in place or delete it, and why?

User:"above" I just wanted to give people some insight. I've seen docs on TV that desctibed gypsies as harmless and romantic too, but thats just the idea that people have that dont really know gypsies. Whatever. Who cares. Gypsies dont read wikipedia, thats granted =)


There are some data out there. Look at table 13 in this UN Development Program report, poetically entitled "Ethnic aspects ofr criminality (the case of Bulgaria)"

http://roma.undp.sk/reports_contents.php?parent_id=1&id=229

In Bulgaria, Rom are charged with 38% of all robberies, 23% of all rapes, and 19% of all murders, despite being only about 9% of the population at most. Compare that to Turks, who are responsible for 6%, 8%, and 7.1% of such crimes, repectively, despite being 9.5% of the population. Note that the report makes it clear that the problems of Rom poverty and crime are surely confounded, and the report does not attempt to control for income, police racism, etc. So the Rom seems to be more involved with crime than many other groups. It's just unclear why that is.

I know the plural of anecdote isn't evidence, but there are plenty of other reports of Rom crime.

http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20031109/FP_004.htm http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2002-06-20/cb2.shtml http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-me-gypsy30jan30,0,2021632.story?coll=la-story-footer&track=morenews http://www.blacksheepbellydance.com/writings/files/rom.html

I think the widespread perception should be noted, but skeptically. I'm sure we can discuss this in an objective and appropriate way. Wachholder0 23:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually possible to discuss it in an objective way. Numbers of alleged crime can be interpreted as apartheid, too. It's a stupid way to explain 'why' but a gypsy won't work because his father will tell him so (really). And the boy, what's he gonna say? Hell yea. I repeat, if you haven't been around gypsies for real, you don't know shit.

To "The User Above". For the duration of this rebutal, please remember that calling a Rom, "gypsy", is akin to calling a person of colour, a ni****. It has been said among my family, that when a Rom becomes "domestic", or "as a baptised person", he is no longer perceived as a "gypsy". This alone does not shed Roma ethnicity, but simply your gaujo perceptions. To draw a parallel, your ni****s transform into people of colour when they become acceptable by the terms of domestic society. Please remember that this article is about Roma People, not simply those that live "undomesticated", or as "a dog of the woods", among your particular locale. I am pashrat; Rom born to a gaujo father. I work for a living, managing a restaurant. You wouldn't know me from Adam simply because I don't fit your stereotype. And I find your racist trash highly offensive. Shaun 05:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


I also find the contents of this discussion thread highly racist and furthermore this is propaganda. I have looked at the question as a political scientist in France and there is no official account in France of the alleged higher criminality rate. On the contrary: The French police realized an extended study on criminality of Roms in 1969 and found out that it was "insignificant" in relation to the proportion of this population in the overall French population. But of course you can prefer to believe the confessions under torture of Roms obtained by the Austro-Hungarians in 1782, confessions about alleged anthropophagy... A racist will always find the 'facts' to feed his hate unfortunately... (And I havee been 'around gypsies' by the way, as I have made a documentary on them, soon available via Google Video, title "Paroles Nomades". In the film a specialist explains how crimes are easily attributed to Roms and that the French police now knows that very often they can find the 'opportunists' who profit from the presence of the 'gens du voyage' to steal their own company!) 31 May 3006

"Because of a false image that they like to steal" - false image? for centruries that's what they did - when gypsies came to town/village EVERYONE had to hide their lifestock and valuables, lock doors and watch everythingl. There's nothing "false" about that "image." Don't whitewash history for political correctness.

ORIGINS IN INDIA

Correct me if I'm wrong but are there not two different races of Indians? Aryans and Dravidians? I believe that the article was referring specifically to the northern, lighter skinned Aryans when it mentioned a possible connection between the Indians and the Roma.

Also, if my awareness of geography serves me correctly, it is not impossible to get to Europe from India without sailing. In fact, thus far, I was under the impression that they didn't use water as means of transportation at all, if the theory that the Roma and northern Indians are related is correct. -Rei

Actually, recent evidence both genetic and otherwise has shown that the two 'races' actually meld together to a large degree and that the Dravidians are actually proto-Caucasoid peoples who genetically closely resemble European populations but also vary and obviously tend to be darker skinned and have varying features at times as well. In reality, most of the modern Indo-Aryans are mixed with these peoples and the Dravidian genes are found as far west as the Persian Gulf and Arabia and as far east as Indonesia. In the case of the Gypsies, they probably have traces of some aboriginal origin, but it's probably pretty minor in comparison to people in eastern Pakistan where their language appears to have emerged. 70.122.73.105 20:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible to get to Europe from India without crossing by sea, as well (though it is some distance) Ralphael 01:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I know plenty of Gypsies, and about 2 don't have honest work.

Oh, yeah? Well, guess what: my cat has fleas. Guess you don't know what a non sequitur is; you may want to look it up. --ILike2BeAnonymous 21:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is great debate as to whether or not there were Aryans to begin with. Most evidence for an Aryan race now appears to be misinterpreted late Harappan artifacts. Aryan Invasion Theory

As for Romani migrations, I recommend the O Vurdon website. They've got a great map in there of all major migrations. http://www.vurdon.it/english.htm

Roma Music

Can whoever posted the section about Roma influence on music in the Americas cite a source? I don't mean to downplay the importance of Roma people, but statements like "The Roma People that came to the americas are the central source of many rythms like Salsa, Rumba, Mambo and Guajira from Cuba and Puerto Rico" make me wonder if this person has the facts right. I've always read and heard that many of these music styles have roots in musical styles brought over by African slaves. - Dave

The point of contention centers upon the relative importance of Roma and African influences on modern Western music, specifically its rhythms. The two sources are certainly not mutually exclusive. The European dismissive that "Rock & Roll = European Melody + African Rhythm" is intellectually lazy, Roma music being perhaps the best evidence to the contrary. Consider the basics - Roma music has a backbeat (i.e. clap on 2 and 4), whereas European traditional music does not (clap on 1 and 3). Proof - just listen to passionate Roma music and try clapping on 1 and 3 and you can see for yourself how goofy it seems. Conversely, European ("white") music is often improved by shifting emphasis to 2 and 4. (something that western Europeans do not do naturally). Roma influence on western music began already in Europe, its influence on traditional music such as the Jewish klezmer or Hungarian Magyar Nóta is undeniable. African rhythms are much more varied and can be quite complex to the point that western music has failed to emulate, yet clearly have also strongly influenced western music. Neither source can be denied.Istvan 18:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, what you write is a mixture of some truth and a lot of garbage about how Roma music has influenced every type of music on Earth. I know that's not what you said, but that is the underlying message in a lot of what's written on the subject from untutored sources. First of all: just because two musics share common rhythmic characteristics doesn't mean that one was derived from the other; that's riduculous. Four-beat rhythms which emphasize the offbeat (2 & 4) are found worldwide in complete disparate musics, so no credit there.
This is not to say, of course, that the Roma had little influence on certain music: they indeed did, and continue to have, great influence. On certain music. You are 100% correct about nota, which is typically played by Roma musicians. Klezmer is more problematic; it's based more on mainstream Romanian music which was not necessarily associated with Gypsies. But imputing that Roma influence is great on such music as American Southwest cowboy music is utterly ridiculous and easily refuted by the most casual of research.
What you say, and what others here say, amuses me and reminds me of a host we once played for. (I'm in a band which plays a good deal of Roma music from Eastern Europe as well as other music from that region.) We played in a place run by a Roma woman (Hungarian) and her Croatian husband (not Roma); he insisted to us, repeatedly, that basically all music in the world—jazz, blues, rock'n'roll—really originated in the Balkans. Which of course is complete bullshit, and is also quite in line with the typical reasoning of many from that part of the world: "The world revolves around us!". --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Pardon, but what specifically is "garbage" in the previous passage? There is no assertion that Roma music influenced "cowboy" music, (much less "every type of music on Earth") nor that it derives from African (nor vice-versa), nor that sharing common rhytmic characteristics is any proof of precedence (one way or the other) nor any appeal to anyone's ethnocentricity. Simply put - 1. Roma have influenced Western music in a large part of Europe, and 2. Roma music has likely also influenced New World Music (specifically rhytms) *alongside* (and not *instead of*) African influences. The above supports the two as not mutually exclusive, and that arguing one OR the other is fallacy.Istvan 22:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but while the first of your assertions passes scrutiny, the second does not. There's not very much evidence that Roma music had any significant influence on what you call "New World" (I assume this means American) music. And Django Reinhardt doesn't count here; first of all, his music wasn't really Roma music. He was a Roma musician playing jazz, so any influence on American country music (acknowledged) is really the influence of swing and big-band, not Roma music per se. Sorry, I don't even buy your thesis that Roma music influenced American music "alongside ... African influences". Find me some supporting evidence that shows me to be wrong and I'll read it with interest. --ILike2BeAnonymous 00:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Certainly - There are many ways to answer. Genetically speaking: Jimmy Rosenburg, Sandro de América (Roberto Sanchez), Victor Heredia, Phoebe Smith, (not to mention Django Reihhardt, nor the rumour that Elvis himself is part Roma). As for purely musical influence - there is no denying the Gitano contribution (not cause, but influence) in Flamenco and Fado and its new world offshoots Rumba, Tango, etc. Although anything close to eastern Cigányzene per se is hardly found, and of course, no single instance of influence can be "proven", it is true that many Roma immigrated to New Orleans 100+ years ago, and their rhythms and styles certainly spiced the musical gumbo in that creative cauldron. In Alan Lomax's Southern Journey collection, there are tracks which are shaded toward Roma styles in recordings of both "white" and "black" musicians. Specifically, hear Bessie Jones' "Before This Time Another Year", and Hobart Smith's "Railroad Bill" either or which, if translated to Romani, change the instruments, could easily be rearranged into something that Ando Drom could have recorded. Of course, Smith and Jones play many styles, but such is musical influence - they picked up something they liked from someone who heard it from someone etc. etc. (without making it too obvious of course). Finally, Roma music is among the most passionate on Earth, and Roma musicians the least sedentary. Denying that they could have possibly influenced music in the New World, is quite improbable. Their footprints are everywhere. Istvan 04:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Gypsies came to the Americas in large numbers many as "Pirates" (with their typical earings as rajasthani nomads) others as Spanish Horsemen cowboys (Charros,Gauchos, Morochucos, Llaneros,Guasos, Guajiros etc). All those rythms you mention are gypsy based sounding in the trumpets, pase of drums, piano scales (typical in salsa) and vocal spice. Old true classical salsa lyrics themselves talk about the gypsy hidding its knife and his hat tilted to once side ready for the fight such as in Tango etc...Willie Colon and Ruben Blades are examples of lyrical romani origin of salsa music.

Can you please explain the connection between the "old true classical salsa lyrics" and the tango, which originated a very long distance away from Central America and was originally an instrumental style? Vince In Milan 07:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The big error as typical I keep hearing is that latin american music came from Africa, since african slaves where the ones who adopted these gypsy rythms (Roma People) and added their touch to it same happened in the united states in the far west or south.

Same goes with South American rythms like Peruvian coastal Zamacueca-Marinera, Tondero or Peruvian Valse rythms which are of total gypsy origin and are directly inspired by the typical gypsy tradition of cokfighting and the tragic inspiration of birds flying errant (same goes for bolero, flamenco, zards and mexican norteñ rythms).

True blues or country "cowboy music", as well as jazz, fox trot, rock and roll and boogy and even Hippie Movemente (Progressive ROck of the 60-70s basis of Heavy Metal) all where born from the gypsy people of the southern United States. All this music is rooted in Indian melodies from the north as to Flamenco, Zards and other folklore that is inspired right of Punjabi, Kashmiri and Rajasthani warrior music that is of Indo-Iranian origin.

As for many gypsys having whiter skin it is not only a phenomenon of their mixing with europeans, but of their origin itself. Romani people where themselves nomadic castes of warriors that defended the Hindustani Culture agains the Arabian Muslim. Many of the people living in the Pakistani and North Indian Plains were of indoaryan, indoiranian or even scythian (greek) origin. That is why many Roma don't look dravidian or indian but rather resemble Persian, Afghan or North Indian cultures such as Jatts, Rajputs and Sikhs.

That is why Roma Music has both a sweet asiatic indian flavour and yet a very passionete warrior-like flavor as in other middle eastern folk music. Roma are not primarily Indians from the south (dravidian aboriginals) yet some do have that mix, mostly belonging to the Iranian stock of Old Hindus.

Please allow me to express my doubt that Roma music had such a wide influence. I am sure that most of you have never heard a real Gypsy music, something like Romale Javale, which in considered their anthem (at least on the Balkans). It has nothing to do with Salsa, Rumba, Mambo. Gypsies are great musicians but you overexaggerate their impact on contemporary music. PN 26 February 2006

Please check edits by 194.95.59.130

194.95.59.130 has added three books into Reference section:

Auzias, Claire. Les funambules de l'histoire. Baye: Éditions la Digitale, 2002. 
Genner, Michael. Spartakus, 2 vols. Munich: Trikont, 1979-80. 
Roberts, Samuel. The Gypsies: Their Origin, Continuance, and Destination. London: Longman, 4th edition, 1842.

Quite a few of edits by 194.95.59.130 are childish vandalism but at least one book here (by Roberts) does exists. If someone can make qualified judgement on relevancy/existence these edits, please do. Pavel Vozenilek 23:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Claire Auzias' book you find in www.amazon.fr as well as in the French edition of Wikipedia on Roma people. Michael Genner's book has been published in Germany. You will find it in the German library resources.

Please edit this article!

I'm not sure if it's only because it is late and I'm tired, but this article seems to me very sloppily written. I even found parts of it difficult to understand (for example, the music section) because of how poor the writing is. It seems rather like this page was written by someone who doesn't speak English very fluently, but considering how many times it has been edited that is hardly an excuse. Also, better citation of sources and some more explanation of certain things would be helpful. Again, in the music section, it is not enough simply to say, Roma music is the inspiration for salsa, mambo, flamenco, bolero, country, jazz, classical ballet, electonica, and funk (I'm exaggerating of course), without listing sources and explaining how. It would be more useful to say something like, according to Dr. So-and-so, Roma pirates introduced the complex rhythms of Pakistani folk music to the natives of Costa Rica, which, mixed with African slave music, produced the following dance rhythms: mambo, cha-cha, etc. The biggest thing though is just to go through and make sure everything is coherent!

The article gets several edits each day but so far no one found time to spend with thorough copyedit. If you have knowledge of the topic (or know someone such) please do this. Pavel Vozenilek 00:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

map

A colored map would be nice to see where Roma are concentrated. 66.205.108.8 06:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Tatere - Tattare - Vandriar - Tradrar - the Scandinavian Travellers.

The Norwegian travellers are indeed related to the Rom. In fact they refer to themselves as Romani, and their language has the same name, Romani. I think you would also find the language quite similar. The Tatere probably arrived in scandinavia about 1500, comming partly from England, sweden and Finland. They travelled frequently over the borders to sweden, finland and perhaps aslo Russia, which also borders to Norway. Which "tribe" they originally spawned from is unknown, but a closer look at the Norwegian Romani dictionary reveals that many of the words used are of Indian origin, and some are probably loan-words from cultures they have encountered along the way. Some are of hebrew origin, some are taken from other European languages. It is no secret that many of the norwegian travellers have married into local families, and thus their skin has whitened over the centuries, and their appearance have changed in many ways; But the culture remains. The Tatere, or Romani/Vandriar as they referr to themselves as, is accepted by the Norwegian Government as a National Minority. Like in many other countries the Romani people have been hunted down, abused, and imprisoned by the church and government. This has been a part of an assimilation-process, sponsored by the government, to wipe out the romani-culture i Norway, and Scandinavia. It has not succeeded, and the government has taken steps to revoke their former policy. The writer of this note is himself of partly norwegian-ethnical, partly Romani ancestry.

Please feel free to add to this!

reb.


Cleaned up some of the repetition, grammar and punctuation.

Guinnog

Elvis, Uriah Heep etc?

I could find no evidence of this part-sentence so have removed it for now.

"to the beginnings of Heavy Metal and Progressive Rock genius like Uriah Heep, Led Zeppelin[citation needed], Deep Purple[citation needed] among others."

As for the Elvis connection, I could only find the one site I have linked which asserts it to be true. Can anyone substantiate/debunk this?

Guinnog

"Roma People were influential in the creation of what was the true Hippie-Gypsy Movement Music that later developed as the basis of Classic Rock from Elvis Presley (according to http://www.imninalu.net/famousGypsies.htm, of roma ancestry)."

I've taken these out as well, as one sole webpage is as likely to be wrong as right I'd say. Thoughts?

I've read somewhere that Elvis was in part a descendant of Scottish Travellers (though I can't recall where I've read it). Even if it is true, it still doesn't make him a descendant of the ethnic Roma per se, in my opinion. Jonas Liljeström 19:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog

"Some claim the United States also enjoys Gypsy inspiration in its soulful cowboy country music[citation needed] and"

Out, on the basis that 'Some claim' is often a synonymn of 'bullshit'

Guinnog

Nice job. The article is full of false info unposible to verify, so don't be afraid to remove it. BTW, on Wikipedia we usually sign with "~~~~". Try it out. It will be replaces with this: "Dijxtra 19:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)" when you submit the comment. --Dijxtra 19:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Guinnog 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Gypsy Influence in American Country Music

Django Reinhardt (Sinti) influenced Western Swing music(Bob Wills) etc. which in turn influence the country music of today.

http://www.americanamusicplace.com/album_details.asp?inventoryID=905&cart=true

http://www.mp3.com/django-reinhardt/artists/6280/biography.html

Here is a interview of Willie Nelson where he cites Django Reinhardt as a influence on country music and himself

http://www.neonbridge.com/Articles/2000-2002/Willie%20Nelson.htm

Picture issue: Image:Tsigganes-Greek Roma-Gypsies.jpg

This is a very...romantic picture (pun not intended). While I like the picture, I think that a picture more representative of the Roma ethnic group would be better for this article--ChrisJMoor 02:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? :-) I really like the picture. And the girls are obviously Roma... Yes, there probably are more representative pictures of Roma, but put them in the article. If you take a look on every other nationality infobox, you'll see scientists, novelists, poets, ect... those too are not representative. --Dijxtra 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not doubt they are authentic. But, if you see my point, they seem to be representative of what outsiders think of the Roma (I'm not afraid to admit that my stereotyped mental image of them is something along the lines of these ladies:D). Mindless political correctness aside, I'm not against using this picture but I wonder if anyone has a more...anthropological picture showing a family group or a settlement? It would fit nicely into the white space to the right of the list of names in various languages.--ChrisJMoor 00:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

is there really anything that would be neutrally considered to be 'representative' from one photograph? to be brutally honest with myself, when someone says "gypsy", the image that enters my mind is of an old woman wearing black 'grieving' garb, face partially veiled, with a tambourine. yes, a tambourine. it's a stereotypical image of one kind, probably from a movie i saw as a child. Bob Hoskins is roma - is a photograph of him 'representative'? The girls in the photograph are captivatingly beautiful. I can see no harm arising from that photo. On the other hand, a police mugshot of a roma pickpocket would be 'representative' to some people. so, i think with neutrality in mind - the roma are people. the photograph is of roma people. it is neutral to the extent that there's no implicit or explicit "message" attached to the image - it's just people. so i say, it's an excellent representative photograph. just my two cents. Anastrophe 20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I second that. Let's just make that guy who uploaded the photo state the source of the photo so the photo doesn't get deleted. It'd be a real shame. --Dijxtra 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)82.143.162.72 11:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Still waiting for the source. Have deleted the picture in the meantime. Reason: definition of 'verifiable'.


82.143.162.72 13:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Apart from demonstrating that the Roma have two eyes, a nose and a mouth each, the picture does not show anything to demnstrate who the Roma are. The actions/beliefs of larger numbers of Roma are not accepted in the article so the picture has been removed in the interest of editorial consistency.

  • I don't see how the latter sentence connects to the first one, nor how it relates to deleting the picture. In any case, different ethnicities, by and large, have a particular look (partly by their cultural dress, partly by variations in body shape such as the face). Pictures of various individuals help give an impression of both of these, and that's information that's good to see in an article. --Improv 18:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Before you put the picture back: 1) Which of the three Roma best illustrates the Roma? The one looking to camera right, the one looking towards the camera or the one looking to camera left? What aspect of their appearance illustrates characteristics of the Roma that would not illustrate a non-Roma person? 2) What proportion of the Roma do they illustrate? 3) How is this picture more representative than an illustration of a wheel, a spoon or a pocket calculator that belongs to the Roma?

How is the picture of the Roma woman in the shawl representative? The type of shawl is worn by a lot of older women in Poland and not just by the Roma. There are a lot of old women in Poland who are not Roma, many of whom would look just like the woman from Andrychow.

If a statement made about some Roma based on film of more than three is not representative, then by all means delete the 'racism' text, on condition that the pictures are removed and all the links which are based on anecdotal accounts of the Roma. Otherwise allow all three.

Your goalpost-moving editorial policy on this article is a farce. 82.143.162.72 13:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Answers to this questions are the same as for Image:English-people.JPG on English people and Image:Grms.jpg on Germans. The "best representation" of people does not exist. People differ one from another. There do not exits two men who look similar just because they are of same people. This picture is nice. The point of this picture is not to learn you how to differentiate Roma from non-Roma, it is here to make this article look nice, and it works.
And your comments are personal attacks. Don't do that or you will be blocked. --Dijxtra 14:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Why does the article have to 'look nice'? And what is the difference between trying to make it 'look nice' and POV?
First of all, sign after you write a comment. Second, use indentation, that way it is much easier to track the discussion.
I'll refrain from answering on the 'look nice' question as this is obvious provocation. The

difference between POV and aesthetics is, I think, too very clear: the two have nothing in common. --Dijxtra 17:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of examples of photographs of people who happen to be Roma which would not 'look nice' and which would also, quite rightly, be deleted if they were used to illustrate the article (e.g. picutres of Roma begging with pre-school children in a country where it is illegal).
Your point being? Are you suggesting this women are engaged in some sort of illegal activity? --Dijxtra 17:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
No, but a picture which contained such activity would be attempting to portray the Roma in a particular fashion which would not be suitable for an article in what claims to be an encyclopedia. You could provide a picture of a two-stroke internal combustion engine, a rabbi, Szamotuły etc. as the picutres would show something characteristic (assuming the engine was not in a box, the rabbi was engaged in activities unique to rabbis and not standing in a swimming pool discussing particle physics, and the part of Szamotuły in question could only be seen there and was not just a picture of a post box or a paving stone). You cannot illustrate 'Roma people' with a picture. 82.143.162.72 18:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Please, sign after you write, please use indentation. Is it that hard to understand? And I still don't get your point? Are you suggesting that all of images shoud be removed from Wikipedia because you cannot represent the idea with one instance of it? --Dijxtra 00:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You cannot represent a whole race with a photograph so remove the photograph.
Please, master the difference between race and people as ethnic group before engaging in this kind of discussion. Then, please note that most of the articles about different nations have pictures of its nationals in infobox. Therefore, you are proposing a change in Wikipedia policy. To discuss change in Wikipedia policy, please go here. Until a consensus is met, this article will follow example of other articles on Wikipedia: it will have a photo.

82.143.162.72 18:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)You cannot represent a whole race, or ethnicity (unless the ethnicity has a common physical appearance, which the Roma do not) or people (unless the people have a characteristic appearance, which the Roma do not) with a photograph so remove the photograph. Incidentally, there are plenty of Roma who refer to their ethnicity as their 'race'. Still, by the standards of editing used here it would not be surprising if they were not seen as representative in any way.

In any case, there have been plenty of personal attacks made by people on this page who have not been blocked. 82.143.162.72 17:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to report those. --Dijxtra 17:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 13:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)1) The pictures are there 'because they look good'. Is this the reason for putting something in an encyclopedia? In which case, just put a picture of some kittens or flowers. 2) There are pictures on the 'English people' and 'German people' entries. True and false. These are pictures of people who can already be identified by another entry (e.g. Shakespeare) and not just headshots of people in the street (who do not have any other 'claim to fame' so to speak). If I illustrated 'hydrogen' with a photograph of the Hindenburg airship I would be adding something informative about the topic. If I just showed a glass tube with a colourless gas in it, it would be adding nothing to the article, except for its being colourless (which is why the relevant illustration is captioned 'appearance' rather than simply 'Hydrogen'). This is what the current picture does. When pictures more consistent with those in the 'English' and 'German' entries are added instead (i.e. bringing the article more into line with existing policy) they are deleted. 3) Material that is not relevant 'should not be added'. Then drop the existing picture because the fact that SOME Roma look like those in it says nothing. Quite a number of people in Brazil look just the same. A lot of Roma do not look anything like the picture either. The photo from Andrychów is even less relevant. The clothes are not representative any more than the appearance of the person. You can put the picture back when you have a consistent editorial policy on pictures.

  • The pictures are there to give some examples of how Roma look. Any ethnicity has some variation -- I have known a number of people of the different ethnic groups of India, and they have more variety within themselves (because India has a number of ethnic groups in it) than, in my opinion, Europeans show as a whole. I also happen to live in a Jewish neighbourhood, and the Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Miznahim all have distinct looks, despite all being, at some point in the past, presumably part of the same ethnic group. Not all pictures are perfectly representative of their ethnic group, but that is not a problem -- some useful information is still being conveyed by the pictures. I am asking you to stop removing the picture without a good reason and against clear consensus on this page, and to stop doing disruptive edits that are intended to lead people to a particular conclusion about Roma. If you want to present facts, do it carefully and in full understanding of our WP:NPOV policy. If you cannot do that, you will be blocked. The goal is not to have Roma people read like a sales brochure, nor a justification for why they all belong in the 4th circle of hell -- we are here to present facts in a manner that does not by itself lead to value conclusions. --Improv 13:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 19:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)There are some things you cannot illustrate, unless you use a tonne of pictures to do so. The Roma are one example. Any attempt to illustrate what cannot be illustrated will introduce some form of POV that is not neutral. There is obviously a POV attached to the current picture given how many other pictures have to be removed in spite of their being of Roma people, or people of Roma descent.

You could always just write in this section what, in your opinion, the Roma look like. Then it would be easier to decide which pictures of the Roma illustrate (in some way) the Roma and which don't.

The Greek picture has been restored because it is: 1. descriptive of Roma appearance, specifically long, straight hair, conspicuous, traditional jewelry, no makeup... The fact that one of the three girls is beautiful seems to be (puzzlingly) objectionable to some; however, even by strictest standards, this is not atypical of Roma or any other group of people - and 2. The picture is aesthetic - it belongs front-and-center as a warm welcome to those who browse across this topic and show some interest.
As for the Polish picture, I agree with the delete - there is nothing in it that is distinctly Roma - there are so many Gallician valleys, each with its own florid ethnic costume, someone more expert in discerning this type of ethnic (Polish or Roma) dress is free to repost the image.
The purpose of these pictures are to illustrate the topic, not describe it - for a complete description, we have the entire text section at our disposal. The Greek picture illustrates something distinctly Roma, and the Polish picture does not.Istvan 14:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
82.143.162.72 19:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)There are Roma who could look like both. There are non-Roma who could look like both. There are other pictures of Roma people whose Roma parentage can be more easily confirmed than the anonymous people in the current picture. Not all Roma have long, straight hair or wear conspicuous 'traditional' jewellery (that worn in the picture can be bought from markets all over the place. There is nothing characteristically Roma about it). A group of three people from Brazil could look just the same. As for aesthetics, that's a POV. In an encyclopaedia illustrations are just there to illustrate. On a political website your argument might have more weight. There is still no source to confirm that they are in fact Roma so, until one is provided, it has been deleted.
It is not necessary to meet the standard you describe. The image should stay up. The caption reads "Roma Girls in Aetolia, Greece". Beyond this, we know nothing more about this picture. Given no further information, one may accept it at face value. Perhaps the veracity of the caption should be dis-proven before the image is removed yet again, and we repeat this process ad-nauseum. I do not need to repeat the reasons that this image is an excellent choice for the article: See above. Your point that appearances are unreliable indicators of ethnicity is well-taken and not disputed, however this, in itself, is no reason to pull down an image. This leaves the question - all else being equal, do we demand that: a. the given captions to each image be verified before posting, or b. that the given captions be accepted as true unless proven otherwise? Its a clear and straightforward choice. I vote b. Everyone - please post your opinion so we can settle this silly back and forth and move on to other things (like clean-up). Istvan 20:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
82.143.162.72 22:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)The policy of editing is that the material should be verifiable. Simple as that. If someone added something which was, God forbid, slightly negative in its portrayal of one aspect of traditional Roma lifestyle, it would be removed immediately if there were no verifiable source. I can't see any objection to applying the same standard across the spectrum. The picture is an Athena-poster style photo and, given the ethnic diversity of the Roma, has zero information to support an encyclopaedia entry, despite what merits it might have on a personal/political website. There are plenty of other pictures you could add. One poster mentioned the pictures that illustrated 'English' and 'German' people. All were verifiable. Why not do the same here, or does the concept of editorial consistency stop on certain topics?


Hey, how's this for an idea: banning 82.143.162.72 from editing this article. I'm serious. I'd vote for it in a millisecond. He/she/it has caused more than their share of misery around here. What do you say? --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Its ironic that, of all the thousands of issues which may be considered "controversial" about the Roma, it's one photo of three Greek girls, or more correctly - one person's objection to said photo, that has sucked the breath from this article for weeks. Clearly, consensus dictates its inclusion. At this point, two issues are important: Firstly, there is no burden upon an IMAGE to give a comprehensive description of the subject, except where the image IS the subject (e.g. "Mona Lisa"), nor should there be - the description is provided by the text, and supported or illustrated by the image. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (to coin a phrase...) and NOT a photoessay. (btw Ive never heard of "photoanthropology") Such a standard, demanded by some, would significantly impoverish the Wikipedia. Secondly, now that it seems, thanks to the dilligent work of an admin (Kudos!) that we may have some peace now, there is an immense task before us in improving this article - let's not waste the opportunity the AID affords us this week. Istvan 16:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

83.19.205.78 15:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)There are 3 rules on Wikipedia.

1 verify. The picture was not verified.

2 neutral pov. One editor on Roma said the article was 'for the Roma'. That's not what Wikipedia is for.

3 no original research. Saying 'In my experience' is original research.

If you put something in that breaks one of these rules, YOU are the vandal.

You know, you might have had more influence had you presented your case a bit more thoughtfully. Most English-speaking cultures are willing to hear minority opinion, (even a minority of one) and, unlike Eastern European, even to consider it seriously, if presented reasonably, and civily. In other words, you dont have to be disruptive or overly pedantic. Your language skills are good enough to do this properly. Your point is not without merit, but may be more valid for a consequential statement of fact or argument. Read WP:V - it defines the scope of information as "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments" - If this definition has been debated and considered (and you can bet it has) then the absence of the word "image" at least signifies that photos fall outside the literal scope of this policy, (in fact, neither "image" nor "picture" appear on that page) and - although it may be considered a guideline, clearly images are governed by a different standard (as they must be - if you think about it, just as copyvio is different for text and images). The standard you are proposing is inapplicable, as per both literal policy and consensus. Please stop the edit warring - its disruptive (see also WP:POINT).
You shouldnt be doing all this as a sockpuppet anyway - (really, who makes almost 400 edits over a year's time via an IP address (82.143.162.72))? It all looks Jekyll/Hyde. I would much rather write this on your talkpage (where it belongs), but which one? And even so, should anyone ever debate a sockpuppet anyway? Please use your registered identity and then discuss it properly. Istvan 17:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. I accidentally made an edit that follows Wikipedia's rules. Bad child! Bad child! (unsigned, by 83.17.96.202)

83.30.85.151 14:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)I can not find a way to see if the picture is real Roma or not. What is photographer's name? Who are the 3? Did they say 'Yes, you can use this on internet'?

82.160.253.238 20:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)I took the picture away because it is not verifiable. Why not use a verifiable picture or nothing?

Kusturica reference

One sentence reads:

Most Roma abandoned their nomadic way of life long ago, and a good representation of the way of life of Balkan Roma today can be seen in the films of the famous Bosnian director Emir Kusturica.

I would say that Kusturica's films are not really representative, especially compared to documentaries such as Pretty Diana. Any objections to remove this reference to Emir Kusturica, and reinsert it in a section about Roma in arts, or something? --dcabrilo 04:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC) '

No objections. This article is in really bad shape and anything you do is improvement :-) --Dijxtra 11:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Kusturica's movie are totally representative of the way Roma live on the Balkans today. It is sad but it is fact. PN 25 February 2006

ophelia comment

Is it me or is the following 'Because of their nomadic lifestyle and unwillingness to be integrated, there has been a great deal of mutual distrust between the Roma and their more settled neighbours.' a sweeping generalisation and POV? Specifically the unwillingness part - perhaps some of the unwillingness is due to the persecution of settled communites based on fear of the unknown etc. I would like to suggest a removal of 'unwillingness' and substitute something like: ' and the difficulties with integration that nomadism can present' any thoughts? ophelia

I totally agree. Please, feel free to change it. If you don't, I will! :) --dcabrilo 19:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Changed. Be bold! Guinnog 20:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

List of names

How useful is the list of names for Roma in all different languages? I mean, there is no such list for Germans, Jews, etc. We have a Wiktionary for such info, and it's probably more appropriate for list of ethnic slurs anyway. Besides, almost all names are derived from Rom or German Zigeuner (Cigani, Cigány, Sigøyner, Цыгане, Çingene). Anyway, I'll be bold, remove the list, and include some useful info under the Name section. --dcabrilo 10:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I've put back the important clarification about Rome etc. Guinnog 11:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree also. It would eventually have gotten too long anyways. --Khoikhoi 22:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Since the list of names is growing again I suggest to create leaf page for the names. While not that much useful it should stabilize the main article a little bit. Pavel Vozenilek 14:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In finnish, "manne" is a racistic (and insulitng) name, it should be removed from the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Auku (talk • contribs) 3 August 2006.


Romany loan words?

Would a short of list of Romany loan words into English be appropriate in the language section? Guinnog 18:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Any examples? --ILike2BeAnonymous 19:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
There is also a special language article (Romany language, I think), where it would be more appropriate. This article right now is cluttered as it is, though some loan words used in Eastern Europe by majority peoples may be appropriate to illustrate culture. --dcabrilo 21:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Roma "apartheid"

There's been a lot of recent tweaking and attempts to polish what amounts to an undocumented and unsupported assertion: that the Roma themselves practice discriminatory practices against non-Roma (one author went so far as to compare it to S. African apartheid). I took this out, not because I know it to not be true, but because it has no supporting evidence here. (I've also never heard of this alleged practice, which doesn't mean it doesn't exist, of course, but still ...). If anyone can support this claim, they can put it back in. --ILike2BeAnonymous 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 20:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Here http://news.scotsman.com/features.cfm?id=357302005 is a reference to the content of the Channel Four documentary. Here The Gypsy Council, European and UK office, 8 Hall Road, Aveley, Essex. RM15 4HD T/Fax: 01708 868 986 enquiries@thegypsycouncil.org is the address of the Gypsy Council if you would like to ask them whether the content of the programme was a figment of the viewers' collective immagination. Alternatively you might like to ask them if the family in the programme were 'real' Roma. You might not get much of a reply though. They are not overly enthusiastic about answering their mail. In the mean time, I have put the information back in.

  • Your ref does not support your claim of racism. Even though it is a shock-jock on a right-wing rag, writing about a television programme. Do you have any better refs? Removed meantime Guinnog 21:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry; I also looked at your "reference", and it's crap. One anecdote from a writer with a quite obvious axe to grind does not "supporting evidence" make. But hey, thanks for playing. --ILike2BeAnonymous 22:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's one example, of one person in one community in one country, obviously written from a biased POV. Such examples are to be found in any community and generalizations using such examples is simply called racism. --dcabrilo 22:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the poster was probably using it to suggest a larger pattern of behaviour. If enough references can be found for this kind of thing, or especially if one can find justifications for it that suggest it is widespread, it would be appropriate to mention it, although I would suggest that my wording is less provocative/leading and thus more proper here. Compare it perhaps to Jewish prohibitions/disapproval of intermarriage -- that phonomena is fact, with considerable commentary about it all over the place. It is probably best to note that some call it racist, and also note some justifications given for it by the Jewish community, rather than to have an article about it flat out call it racist. If we can find similar data for discriminatory actions with regards to the Roma, it is worth covering it in the article. --Improv 01:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 11:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)1) If you are going to delete it because it is only one example, can we remove all claims of 'persecution' that only have one source? 2) The newspaper reviewer's opinion is not the point. The point is he confirms what the television documentary contained. 3) Are you suggesting that Channel 4 just happened to come across the only Gypsy camp in the world where there were racially segregated toilets and washing facilities? If so, can we apply the same reasoning to any other statements made in Wikipedia where just one news report is used as a basis?

As the user who removed your 'SA Apartheid' comparison, let me reply. Of course the C4 film maker had the right to state his opinions, and so did the Hootsmon journalist have the right to give his reaction to the TV programme. But to leap from that to a comparison to Apartheid (something I personally witnessed at first hand btw) is ludicrous. Nowhere in the ref you gave was that comparison made, so that is your own POV. Unless you can somehow justify it (and, as it is arrant nonsense, this is unlikely) it should stay down.

If you can make a more encyplopedic and less POV statement to summarise the TV show, feel free to stick it back up there.

Guinnog 17:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Take a look in the edit history for my revision -- I think you may find it to be what you're looking for. --Improv 17:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! put it back in, it is pretty good. Guinnog 17:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 18:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Fine, so long as the term 'perceived to be racist' or words to that effect can be applied everywhere else in Wikipedia that currently uses the term 'racist', including entries on Apartheid and Segregation. I would suggest also that more than nine times out of ten the word 'persecution' should be removed from Wikipedia. Be my guest. Can we extend this policy and remove any link that describes a difference of opinion over the actions of the Roma as 'prejudice'?

  • LOL! There is a major difference though. When Kilroy-Silk not being allowed to use the same toilet the Romanies used, he may have perceived that as being racist. He may have had a point. It is one person. When the Gypsies or the Jews were being murdered wholesale by the Nazis, or when South Africa prevented 87% of its population from voting or living in decent areas, that *was* racist. It was millions of people. Hence individual versus institutional racism. Can you really not see the difference? Guinnog 19:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 11:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)1) Kilroy-Silk did not say anything about it being racist (he was a little sarcastic about the practice). It was referred to because the practice was shown, not because of Kilroy-Silk's opinion. The same has already been pointed out with regard to the newspaper review of it (it was provided simply to confirm that the practice was seen in the documentary). 2) It's still racism, just as one person making a derogatory remark about a person's ethnicity would constitute racism under the law. Individual racism is racism, not 'perceived to be racist'. Institutional racism is racist, not 'perceived to be racist'. In any case, the practice of the Nazis could be described as not persecution from the point of view of the Nazis themselves. The same goes for the government of South Africa in the days of apartheid. The fact is, treating people of a different ethnicity as 'unclean' is racist, no matter what the cultural, historical or personal reasons for it are. By that standard, the practices of a lot of Roma people are racist. Just racist, not 'perceived to be racist'.

  • Permit me to play devil's advocate here. First, let's distinguish race and culture briefly, and suggest that it may not be about race, but instead about cultural practices that are either shared or not shared. If one were to have notions of cleanliness where one must refrain from touching the dead, must always wash one's hands after using the toilet, and one's fingers must never directly touch food, and having purification practices involving strong antiseptics for when one makes a mistake or must do these things. People of a culture that did this would presumably, in order to remain clean in that fashion, refrain from contact with people who did not maintain such a high level of cleanliness, whatever their race may be. Presumably if neighbour dana decides to stop caring about cleanliness, she would be booted from the community and be required to use the guest facilities while packing her stuff to avoid contaminating others. Is this racism? It may look like it, but it may instead be enforcing cultural boundaries that are only accidentally related to race. I am not saying, however, that this is the case, but it is a plausible alternative situation, and IMO makes the "percieved to be" something different than using "weasel words". --Improv 14:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That is a very good explanation, let's see if I can add to it a little. In Leviticus of the Hebrew Bible, a set of ritual purity laws is given, that are so strict, if a person even sits on a couch that a "defiled" person previously sat on that day, he too will become (ceremonially) "defiled". This is very similar to the concept that is still practised by the Romany today. "Racism" is something else altogether. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, who said that Roma discriminate against others on any basis? We only had that one example, but still no sources that it happens often enough to merit being in the article per se.--dcabrilo 16:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I should have amended my remarks to read "that may be practised by some Romany today." ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

(Restored comments follow)

You know, people, 82.143.162.72 is right: sometimes you should call a spade a spade. Alright, then: you (82. ..., or however you'd like to be addressed) are clearly just an asshole who just doesn't like gypsies and hippies. That much is plain from your so-called "contributions". --ILike2BeAnonymous 07:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Il2ba, could we keep this civil? No matter the disagreements, name-calling (e.g. "Asshole") is not helpful. --Improv 01:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

(end of restored comments)

To answer this: I am not, and do not intend to be, civil to racist assholes. Playing nicey-nice does no more to solve problems than does outright violence. Plus, I don't care much for these little visits from the "civility police".

To whoever felt compelled to remove these comments, along with others in a massive sweep: what's up with that? Tidying up an article, that I can see. But these discussion pages are not supposed to be "sanitized" like that. Pleast do not do that again. --ILike2BeAnonymous 18:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Religion

I heard they have no "official" religion, e.g. this is neither christianity nor islam as indicated because they adopt the religion of the country they live in. Brandmeister 18:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Languages....

Well this article says that Romany is similar to Indo-Iranian languages found in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nrothern India.... Shouldnt it be specifically Indo-Aryan since Romanys connections to Hindi & Sanskrit have been established. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 05:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I am suprised to see that little emphasis has been given to establish relationship between Hindus and Romanys. Over the years, Islamic invasions from Turks and Mongols corrupted the culture existing in Pakistan and Afghanistan but northern India has retained the very essence of the Indo-Aryan Vedic culture (which forms the basis of Hinduism). Romanys belong to that Vedic culture and the article should mention that. --Deepak|वार्ता 21:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Personally, I'd be all for removing any mention of Aryan from the entire site until the [Aryan Invasion Theory] debate is over.

Vedic culture is Harappan, not Aryan.

Subtle POV pushing

Ahh.. well i know this has little to do with this article but it has been popping all over wikipedia. Well for records Punjab is NOT entirely in Pakistan; 30% of Punjab(Which had Hindu-Sikh majority) is in India. And Kashmir is a disputed province most of which is governed by India. Do keep these irrendentists in check. 61.1.71.53

Good point. Reference to transnational regions (e.g. Punjab, Lapland, Kurdistan) which attempt to shoehorn itself into a Nationalist paradigm, e.g. "The Punjab Region of northwestern India and Pakistan", are not only clumsy (try describing the Banat that way) but also invite error and POV-pushing as you point out. In a world with hypertext, the REGIONNAME, properly linked, should be sufficient reference (e.g. Banat). (after all, there exists an entire article *elsewhere* to define the term). This is especially important for "Roma" because of their concentration in an area with unstable borders and more that it's share of ambient ethnic frictions. The English site should avoid that garbage, lest we end up in another inane edit war - funny that the point should first be made via Punjab and not some Balkan region. Istvan 14:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Indo Aryans came from Iran.

When it says Romany is related to Indo-Iranian languages it is in fact true since Vedic Culture and Sanskrit is realted to the Iranian People called "Aryans" (these are not barbaric nordic blue eyes and blond haired people but bearded and white skinned, not paled like northern european) that established themselves all over Iran (their home), Afghanistan, Pakistan and Large parts of Northern India.

This explains the language names found in Northern India cities are of Iranian influence such as Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Mewar,Punjab, Kashmir etc etc are all forms found in Old Persian wich is ofcourse related to Old Sanskrit, since these nomadic peoples came from central asia (Iran) and established "new kingdoms" in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (cities mentioned).

Ofcourse many years have past and India has lost most of its Indo-Aryan (iranian race) peoples since most have mixed to dravidians, asiatic mongoloid or other peoples yet in Northern India some of culture is still alive in the costums, music and culture.

Romany people probaly left Kashmir,Punjab and Pothonari regions as defeated warriors pledging allieance to the Rama warrior: some went through the Hindo Kush, others and onto Europe and North Africa; and the rest left into the deserts of Northern India where they still live as musicians, poets and danceers; yet most of these have mixed with dravdian peoples, unlike the ones seen in Kashmir, Punjab, Iran, Norther Africa and Europe; which still have Indo-Iranian nomadic traits such as the Balouches...etc

This is why many of the Romany don´t feel Indian since they belong to the Old Hindosthan wich is related to Vedic Aryan and Persian cultures..

Wait dude, Sanskrit is a precusor to Persian. Indo-Aryans are a separate ethnicity. Indo-Iranian is generally used to refer Indo-Aryans and Iranians. All this alk of "Iranian" influence is nonsensical as Iran did not even exist then. 61.1.71.153 10:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Persians and Indians share a genetic link; "Aryan" and "Iran" have obvious phonetic similarities and denote a similar race of people. It is impossible to categorize any group of human being as somehow being radically different from the next since the history of humanity is predicated on migratory patterns and cultural exchanges. Indians are related to Persians as they are related to Arabs as they are related to Africa, Europe, etc. Trying to somehow differentiate peoples on any other basis than culture or language is largely subjective and borderline racist, depending on what side of the fence you're straddling.

I am Gypsy; we have no formative history so anything that is not based on any empirical science or recognizable form of logic is ultimately hearsay and should not be heeded whatsoever. Linguistic studies are fairly solid evidence to substantiate the Indian theory.

The post concerning the Persian connection is absolutely illogical, baseless, and backwards. It is slightly comical, in fact. The civilization of India, the so-called "Aryan invasion" theory and the Sanskrit language all predate Persia. If anything, the pattern of migration with relation to historical evidence is such to follow that the subcontinent of India, including Afghanistan, is the predecessor to anything we currently identify as Iran. I refer to Persia as a pre-Islamic culmination of Greek and Mesopotamian peoples; Iran is an admixture of this containing large Indo-Euro qualities, as well as Central Asian and various Islamic elements to boot.

What you say is not just ridiculuos, it is funny. Incidentally, what you call Iran today is totally non-aryan. Today's Iran consists of Arabs and people of Semitic race. They have adopted a Semitic religion and are a Semitic race. The original Aryan inhibitants of Iran were Zoroastrians, who were either exterminated by the Arabs or who fled to India. Iran as of today is totally Arabianized. So are other erstwhile Aryan lands like Afghanistan and Pakistan. India on the other hand has preserved its Aryan culture as well as the Aryan race thanks to the caste system (which I think was irrational though).

"I am Gypsy; we have no formative history so anything that is not based on any empirical science or recognizable form of logic is ultimately hearsay and should not be heeded whatsoever. '""
This here is a really good point that doesn't seem to be directly addressed in the Roma articles. It might help the neutrality to be a little more explicit that much of this history has been reconstructed by way of informed speculation. --iMb~Meow 16:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, enough with the Aryan thing. Until there's an agreement as to whether or not Aryans even existed, it really has no place in a rational discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.6.122 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 1 September 2006

South America

The article mentions a large South American Roma population, and I know it's referenced sometimes (100 Years of Solitude), but doesn't actually speak to it: when did they get there, why, or really anything at all. If anyone knows any details, I think there'd be of lot of interest. FireWorks 17:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Gypsies portrayed in a Horrible Manner

I have noticed that in Three recent American movies deplicting Gypsies-Snatch, Queen of the Damned, and Chocolat. Gypsies were portrayed as dying in fires or being thrown into them after death in each of this movies. Also the show "Carnivale" diplicts a Gypsy women being burned in a fire.

  • Are you referring to the death of Apollonia? I'm pretty sure the characters in that show are traveling carnival workers, not Roma, and the producers are not trying to represent them that way BethEnd 05:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I was going to remove this sentence that you had added to the "Fictional Representations" section, but then I see someone beat me to it. The problem is that this was pretty much a non sequitur in this section, and not well written. But it's of interest. Maybe there's a better way to work this in somewhere. --ILike2BeAnonymous 03:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


"Snatch" featured Irish Travellers, not Roma.

They spoke in Broken Romany-they where Romany

In German it is definetly translated as a Gypsy camp (nothing added). So the people are Irish, but also Roma. But I would not argue about that, they are really sympathic. They do not kill people and feed them to the pigs like most British in this movie nor burn others alive.

Wandalstouring 14:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Fictional representations of Roma

The paragraph is getting out of hand right now. I don't think that we should try to describe every instance of Roma appearing in a film/novel (which is just silly), but rather try to nail down a pattern. If nobody complains, I will go ahead and try to write a generalization of the representation, as well as mention some notable examples (such as Kusturica). Anyone objects? --dcabrilo 21:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do. And only time proven artistic depictions should be included as relevant. Currently sold products just come and go.
As for Czech literature: traditional folk stories saw them as group of looters. Romantical writers of 19th century (e.g. Karel Hynek Mácha) portrayed them as freedom loving, proud people.
Article [1] (in Czech) has short overview of romantic period in painting art (17-19th century, across Europe) and it is written by actual romist. I can extract useful parts from it. Pavel Vozenilek 21:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Great. If you don't mind, please extract & translate important points (my Czech is not particularly good). I will try to dig out such information for ex Yugoslavia. --dcabrilo 21:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's my extract: "During era of romantism the Gypsies in literature were show as proud, free people, not tied by law or sexual conventions and they personified long travels. In painting art they were typically pictured as complement of wild nature. Most common named for paintings were "Gypsy camp" or "Scenery with Gypsies". Example could be painting by Adolf van der Venne "Scenery with gypsy camp" (1869) or late romantic painting by Jan Obrovský "Scenery with Gypsies" (1909). With advent of realism (end of 19th/beginning of 20th century) portaits of Gypsies got more realistic. Example is Ludwig Wieden with portrait "Gypsy girl" (date unknown, can be seen on [2], the article made mistake in name and labeled the painter as Adolf). Modernist trends of the first half of 20th centrury mostly avoided this topic."
Author, Karolína Ryvolová, is romist, works in Museum of Romani Culture and what I read (she publishes occasionally in newspapers and journals) was on-topic, qualified and free of hysteric tone. The article is based on experience with assembling a painting art exposition for the museum.
I have feeling that the romantic wave (with Victor Hugo, Czech romantists, etc.) was quite significant. The official publications were, however, not affected by this tendency at all: a guide for village administrators in Czech lands from 1863 warns that the Gypsies only steal and tell the fortune and that they should not be allowed to enter the village. Folk stories and literature for lower classes was in the same tone. HTH Pavel Vozenilek 13:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Exterminated or not

The page [3] (in Czech) describes different opinions of Germany leaders to what to do. Himmler (who had the main word in it) had opinion that most should be deported and small part (few thousands) of "racially clean" gypsies were to be preserved in reservations. In discussion with Hitler (1942/Dec/16) he more-less put through this solution.

The webpage lists sources, from wich G. Levy: The Nazi persecution of the Gypsies, Oxford 2000 may be best reachable. Pavel Vozenilek 15:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that besides persecution and sterilisation the Sinti and Roma fought as German soldiers on almost all frontlines. Sometimes serving as soldiers for the Third Reich after sterilisation, hoping to save their families this way.

Wandalstouring 14:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Western Southern Cowboy Music of Romany Origin

As it is mentioned Country, Classical Blues, Swing, Fox Trot and the root of Classic Rock are of undoubtful romany gypsy influence and root. As it is in thos regions of the united states where mos romany people came to, that is: Dallas, Kansas, Arizona, New Orleans, Kentucky etc where "Country Cobowy" and redneck music was born.

These gypsy rythms also have a connection to "Mariachi" and "Rancheras" of Mexico which where born in Nothern-Mexico by the popular "Charros" (cowboy gypsies).

In the Americas (north, south and central) the Romany Musician and similar groups had many names al relating to what in europe where called first with the term "Bohemians","Flamencos" in spain..In the americas u can see them as "Cowboys","Hippies" (gypsy-hippie) famous ofcourse for their country, jazz and rock and roll, in Mexico "Charros" famous for trumpeting Mariachi and sad guitar Boleros, in Cuba "Guajiros" or "Rumberos" (rumbo errant paths) famous root for most of cuban music (in addition to african influence), in Peru (Morochucos or Piajenos in the north coast famous for playing the Tondero, Marinera or Peruvian Valse), in Chile "Guaso" in Argentina "Gauchos","Milongeros" players of "Tango", "Chacarera" in Venezuela the "LLanero Cobowys" famous for their harp music etc etc

All of these musics have a connection to the primitive Swing of wester europe, tragic Zards of Eeastern Europe and Flamenco from Spain.

Lets understand for once that these rythms were created by these nomadic Indo-iranian raced warrios from the Punjab and Sind region that left their land never to return. Music was a source ofcourse of maintaining their pride as warriors of Old Indosthan and Vedic India.

Sorry, I'm not convinced. I've studied and played a fair amount of American folk music, and apart from music which comes from black (African/Caribbean) sources, it's widely accepted among those who've studied this music that the bulk of it is from Anglo-Irish sources, with less significant contributions from other European sources, such as Czech, Hungarian, Scandinavian, etc. While there is no doubt a minor Roma influence, it's by no means significant.
Likewise, mariachi music is a mixture of German and indigenous Mexican musics, not Roma.
If you wanted to present some evidence of Roma influence here, that would be of interest. --ILike2BeAnonymous 23:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Gypsy Influence in American Country Music

Django Reinhardt (Sinti) influenced Western Swing music(Bob Wills) etc. which in turn influence the country music of today.

http://www.americanamusicplace.com/album_details.asp?inventoryID=905&cart=true

http://www.mp3.com/django-reinhardt/artists/6280/biography.html

Here is a interview of Willie Nelson where he cites Django Reinhardt as a influence on country music and himself

http://www.neonbridge.com/Articles/2000-2002/Willie%20Nelson.htm


Mexican music is a mix-spanish flamenco, which is of gypsy origin, German polkas are an influence also.But almost all of the influence is from Europe.

I think the Roma influence in Jazz is very possible, The French deported Gypsies to Louisiana.They are still around some have mixed, mostly speak french.But I think it is impossible to prove one way or another.

Another point is the first violin-like instrument came from India and Arabia. Later it was brought to Europe and evolved into the modern day violin.

Dispute in "List of Roma People"

Some guy keeps taking off- Yul Brynner, Ava Gardner, Freddy Prinze, Freddy Prinze Jr.

I have sources but everytime I put them back up, this guy erases them. four times today! 2/21/2006. There is literally hundreds of sources for Yul Brynner being Gypsy.

now whoever is taking off Mother Teresa

Post your references, not all the 'hundreds', but just the ones you regard as most encyclopedic, for each one. Guinnog 23:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

pejorative

The English term Gypsies or Gipsies derives from the erroneous belief that the Roma originated in Egypt. This ethnonym was never used by the Roma to describe themselves and is considered pejorative.

I have just spent a couple of hours looking at this issue and couple of others using Google for the Gypsy page. (See Talk:Gypsy) But in in summary:

In British English it is not pejorative: One of the pressure groups which represent traveling people and have represented Gypsies and Travelers in Parliamentty committes[4] are Gypsy & Traveller Law Reform Coalition if Gypsy were a derogatory term, why do they use it? Trevor Phillips - Chair Commission for Racial Equality said

"The Commission for Racial Equality firmly supports the work of the Gypsy and Traveller Law Reform Coalition, which is playing a critical role in driving improvements for Gypsies and Travellers, and providing a powerful voice to lobby for change. There are clearly huge challenges ahead - and we hope to work closely with the coalition in taking this and our own Gypsy and Traveller strategy forward."[5]


I think the problem of if being considered pejorative is probably to do with word in other languages being consided pejorative, and as the word is translated into English as Gyspy native speakers of that language assume that it is also pejorative in English.

If the sentence "This ethnonym was never used by the Roma to describe themselves and is considered pejorative." then it needs a verifiable reference to reliable, published source. Here is one which clearly indicates that it is not Commission for Racial Equality:Gypsies and Travellers: the facts --Philip Baird Shearer 14:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Also this UK governemt paper is interesting and highlights another important point "Gypsies and Travellers: A strategy for the CRE, 2004-7": "[Other EU Roma Gypsies and other Travellers] may have little in common with Britain’s indigenous Gypsy and Traveller populations, as most Roma Gypsies and Travellers from other EU countries are not nomadic." The word Gypsy when used in British English to Roma in Britian tends to be applied to nomadic Roma. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to address this in my latest edit. I added the following:
However, the use of this term [Gypsy] is now so pervasive that even some organizations that support Roma causes use the word "Gypsy" in their own name; in this sense, it is similar to the use of the word "Indian" to refer to indigenous peoples in North America, now more generically known as Native Americans.
It will need refining (and I have no doubt it will undergo lots and lots of tweaking!). --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


See also East Anglian Gypsy Council (EAGC) Why Romani/ Gypsy? Roma is the name that a particular ethnic group of gypsies call themselves. Througout the world they have been known as Romani ((feminin)or Romano (masculine) Gypsies for the past six hundred years. However not all of the people known as Gypsies in the world or indeed in Britain are Roma. Irish Traveling People are an example, so to be inclusive of those Gypsies of other ethnic origins we on this web site use Romani/Gypsy to describe a wider community. They seem to make a distinction that the British Governent does not that Gypsy includes Travallers, but they are quite willing to use the term and they do not say that it is pejorative.

It Britian to use the word Gypsy is no more insulting than calling Germans German. Just as there are pejorative words which can be used as to describe all other groups in Britain, there are words for Gypsies, but Gypsy is not more pejorative than the word Welsh. The Welsh do not call themselves in Welsh that but the English do in English. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I've always seen this same comment, that the word "gypsy" is pejorative, but it's not really clear to me why. If it was really pejorative, then why would the Gipsy Kings call themselves like that? Like in english, in spanish the translation for gypsy, "gitano", is not insulting at all.Rosa 12:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
As remarked earlier in this section, it has more to do with cognates in other languages (ţigan in Romanian for example) than with the English, Spanish, or French. Still, there is a tendency even in English for "Gypsy" to be attached to a certain romantic image of 19th century of earlier people; in contemporary contexts, "Roma" is probably more correct. I think people are wrong to compare it to "nigger", but they are correct to compare it to "Negro", which we would not routinely use in a contemporary context. - Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The word "gypsy"

It may well be pejorative, but I think most English speakers think of the word "gypsy" before they think of "Roma people," so I think it should be mentioned in the lead, though near the end of it, that the Romany are commonly referred to as "Gypsies." zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the way things stand now (it's mentioned near the end of the "Names" section, which is right near the top), so what's the problem? Besides, you seem a little confused about names yourself ("Romany" is the name of the language, not the people). --ILike2BeAnonymous 03:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
There you go - it definitely should be cleared up! :) What I meant was that it should be in the lead - ie, the first two paragraphs, above the table of contents. zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I took the plunge and put it in there. Let's see how long that lasts. (I'm not attached to it either way.) --ILike2BeAnonymous 05:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Little Egypt" story - colourful and provocative - is referenced in Angus Fraser's book (with a period illustration of a table of the "speeche of little Egypte") as a belief that the Roma were expelled from "Little Egypt" by the Pharoh as punishment for harboring Jesus, Mary and Joseph. One may infer, as Fraser implies, that this story originated with the first group of Roma in Britain. This is of course only illustrative of the origins of the name "gypsy", and not that of the Roma people. Istvan 15:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

For the many Zigeuner-form names of continental Europe, there is a theory competing with the Cigány/Szegény (or Zygan); The word "Atsinganoi" was used in 11th century Byzantium (which at the time included parts of modern Turkey) to describe a sect of "magicians" and "healers", branded by the Orthodox Patriarchy from time to time as heretical. It is clear that the original Atsinganoi were not Roma, but there is legend that Roma newcomers were identified with them (this may be partly responsible for the "fortune-telling/black magic" reputation) The word supposedly means "those who do not want to be touched". IMVHO, this is less credible than the Cigány/Szegény (or Zygan) because of, according to G C Soulis(1961), a 200 year lapse between the first written record of the Atsinganoi and the second (when Roma were certainly established in Byzantine lands). Fraser also writes that the issue of Roma = Atsinganoi is controversial, and that mention of Cigany-forms in Hungary started to be prevalent in 1370 (at this time Hungary was rather large) and originated from a very small enclave in northwest Transylvania. However, Roma did enter the Balkans through Greece, (assumedly via the Bosphorous) and it should also be noted that none of these theories (even the dubious German "Ziehende Gauner" theory) are mutually exclusive. Istvan 06:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

From your description, I think it would be interesting to include all of these theories in the article, no matter how whacky they may seem. (I'm assuming you have supporting references for the Atsinganoi hypothesis.) If they could be very briefly summarized (maybe in bullet points?), I think it would add something valuable; a reinforcement of the implicit absurdity of the misnomers applied to the people. Or something. In any case, interesting and I think worthy of inclusion. --ILike2BeAnonymous 06:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The reference is ROMBASE and (more scholarly) Angus Fraser's book who in turn references Soulis - The academic basis is there, I was hoping someone could perhaps flesh it out from a Byzantine perspective - perhaps someone more expert on Byzantine history (bc of the controversey) before putting it up. As for the ZG theory, I dont claim it and have found no references.Istvan 07:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Roma in England known as "Moon People" - could the one who posted this provide some reference to back this up? If not, it should be deleted; If so, then moved to "history", or at best, put into the body of the paragraph. Istvan 14:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That was me. The only reference I can find immediately is in a (well-researched) historical novel by C.L. Grace (real name Paul C. Doherty), I'll take it out until I can find something better. If it is correct, its important because it would mean the pejorative word Gypsy was a later invention. Jameswilson 00:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

History edits

I removed the following paragraph from the "History" section:

Gypsies originated in from northern India, and migrated to many parts of the Middle east (Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Central Asia, Turkey, etc.) and all over Europe (mostly Spain, Romania, Italy, France, Germany, eastern Europe, Greece, etc etc) during middle ages (1100-1600AD, and even into the late 1800s. Scholars claim they left due to persection by the invading Muslims of the Middle East. Many other famous people claim to be of Gypsy ancestory; see List of Roma people.

Why? Because

  1. It was redundant and only restated what was said in the previous paragraph.
  2. It was badly written, in non-idiomatic English.
  3. The last sentence is a non sequitur.
  4. The section stands on its own without it; nothing is lost by its omission.

NPOV

I see that this is article improvement drive article of the week, but has an NPOV tag on it. Would someone please summarize the POV issues that are in dispute? - Jmabel | Talk 18:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The tag was added here. You can click "older edits" several time and you will see that the tag was added because of edit warring by User:82.143.162.72. Here you can se that he was blocked few times because of edit warring. Therefore, I think this tag should be removed, because it was misplaced in the first plaec. The guy shoud have been blocked, not allowed to provoke putting of npov tag. --Dijxtra 21:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. --ILike2BeAnonymous 23:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The word gypsy in Greece

I don't know if it's of any significance on the english wikipedia, but in greece the language has developed for some reason to a point that the word "Tsigkanos"(sounds like an article here about Roma in Spain called "Gitanos") has come to refer to the polite way of referring to Roma people. "Gypsy", the greek word being "Gyftos" has come to be negative, and probably in borderline with racism.

There is today a large percentage of the population (maybe the largest) that shows respect for the Roma people - mainly through their representation in comedy movies in the 80s and the wide acceptance and popularity of their traditional music for the last 20 years - and usually those that respect them almost always call them "Gitans(in english), Tsiganoys, Tsiganes" etc. --Fs 03:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you re-apply this comment I removed? I did the initial comment. Since I edited the main page adding the greek word for roma, I thought there's no much to gain from these comments. Maybe you don't know but you have the right to remove your own comments (obviously) --Fs 18:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed you accuse me of censorship. Obviously a misunderstanding. --Fs 18:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sections need reorganization

I'm reorganizing a few of the main article sections. The current organization seems some categorization errors. Feel free to revise further. Vir 02:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well done - the article structure is starting to look a lot better Istvan 05:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :) There is no one way to organize an article like this. But, in general, i think fewer main categories is better. One wikipedia ethnicity along the lines of the current article outline is Jews. The Cajun and Catalan_people articles are perhaps a better scheme (with simpler hence more easily navigable outlines), but to go that direction would be a more basic re-organization of the article. For other options, see: see List of ethnic groups. Vir 06:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Genetics

This valuable section could use some clarity. I wont edit it any further since Im not familiar with genetics on that level. BUT this section is especailly valuable, particularly for this topic - genes are one of the few unbiased authorities of Roma origin. Immenent studies will surely throw much more light on these and many other peoples' roots. If whoever posted the genetic data (or another qualified soul) could somehow streamline the content, it would add immensely to the article. Istvan 07:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

who believes that?

"It is believed that twenty percent of the population of Greece shares at least some Roma ethnicity." who believes that? because at least Greeks surely don't believe it:P If you're looking for the aryan race you won't find it near the mediterranean. We are naturaly not too white, not too black around there. --Fs 15:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This sentence was added by IP user 85.105.20.143 on 2006-03-07 13:33:27 without reference. It seemed a dodgy statement to me as well, but I did not remove it bc Im not familiar with the context. Perhaps IP user 85.105.20.143 or someone could provide reference, and if not, then it could be taken down or moved to talk. The entire edit looks like it could be FY Macedonia POV.Istvan 16:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Greeks ?.Well Greeks do have a high frequency of J2(25%),ROMA (20%) and haplogroup I.Recent paper shows an abscence of I in India.So could it be the Greeks left India and partly become the Roma. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.85.12.211 (talk • contribs) 2 September 2006.

How much ethnity do the Roma share? Just for fun. Wandalstouring 14:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many aspects to ethnicity (I assume that is what you mean by ethnity): mainly language, culture, biological relationship, religion. In the case of the Roma, probably quite a bit on all of these fronts, but it's not like most of these things readily have numbers attached. - Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Enough "Fictional Representations", Already!

Does anyone else feel as if there are already too many examples in this section, and that casual editors seem compelled to add their fascinating entry to the list? If so, does anyone care to see to the task of weeding the garden here? --ILike2BeAnonymous 19:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Meh. The Roma culture is actually mostly known for its pop-culture and other naive and romantic representations. Unfortunate, perhaps, but it is so. Because of this, I'd say the current number of examples is about right. --Ashenai 19:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
So, let me see if I understand what you're saying: because the Roma are "naive and romantic" (and undoubtedly several other undesireable things as well), then it's OK to trash this article just to reinforce that point. Did I get this right? --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Um... no.
I'm sorry if my phrasing was confusing. I'll try again.
Most people know only the naive and romantic pop-culture representations of Roma culture, like the stereotypes about old fortune-tellers, circus performers, etc. Real Roma people aren't like that, but this is what most people know about them, simply because this depiction of Roma people is very popular in various books, movies, games, etc. These types of depictions are, of course, stupid, but they're so common and high-profile that I think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to have a medium-sized section on them. --Ashenai 20:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, sorry if I got a little snarky there with you. So we agree with that last statement of yours; what I'm saying is that we've now exceeded the "medium-sized section" and are headed towards an excess of examples. That's all. --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem; I reread what I wrote, and it was pretty badly phrased. Anyway, I killed a long and rambling section about Johanna Lindsay's Malory romances; that single example was taking up seven or eight lines of the already large section, and it had nothing useful to say about Roma. The other examples seem okay to me, but if you (or anyone else) wants to cull them a bit, I have no objections. --Ashenai 21:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
If the section starts to get too large, then create a daughter article (Roma people in fiction? Fictional representations of Roma?) and only leave a brief summary and one or two examples here. Trim it based on the noteworthiness of the entries, not based on there being "too much" information. We have plenty of articles on common ethnic and racial stereotypes based heavily on literature, such as Uncle Tom; there's no reason to limit this one just because some of the examples are unpleasant or offensive. That's the reality of the issue. Cruft should indeed be kept to a minimum, but that's an issue of examining each example on a point-by-point basis, not of looking at the whole list and arbitrarily deciding that it's "too long" and "too short". It should be exactly as long as there is noteworthy and relevant information. I expect that for a people with so much history (and such an unusual one) and such an imprint on many other cultures' popular consciousness, there will easily be enough information for a distinct page on popular depictions or representations someday. The main question is whether that's merited now; I'll leave that to you to decide. -Silence 22:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that some ref.s to pop culture depictions should be included, but only if they are well-known (e.g., Dracula), have shaped gadje perceptions of Rom (the Shirly Temple flick, perhaps), or are some kind of interest or note. Otherwise, why not have every single mention of gypsys thrown in? I like sea novels about the War of 1812, so why don't I go ahead and include every reference that Patrick O'Brian and C.S. Forrester ever made to "gypsies?" There is no end to it, and it dilutes the useful material in the article.

In that spirit, I am going to delete some of the more outlandish or insignificant references. Wachholder0 15:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, start by pruning a couple of the most extreme ones, like video games.. To try to keep the list from growing in the meantime, might put an introductory sentence along the lines of "Popular references to Romany in culture and literature are abundant and numerous, too numerous to list all of them but here are some of the more significant ones..." (okay, work on that a bit!) Glad you like the Shirley Temple reference, since that's the one I added, and could be culturally significant to more than one generation... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Dcabrilo's recent editing of this list: I reverted your edit because you simply chopped the entire list out (minus a few items you pulled into the text). Don't you think we could find something between the existing list as you edited it and nothing? Keep in mind that that list was once far more overgrown and was pruned down fairly well just recently. I appreciate the effort to keep the list brief and relevant, but think you went a little too far. --ILike2BeAnonymous 01:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Not really, you see. We talked about trying to find a pattern before. As it stands now, there is a list of works in which Roma appear. People come, see the list, and think of the last book they read or last movie they saw where Roma appeared, and include it (Podgorec - A White Gypsy, Pushkin - The Gypsies, Blyton - The Famous Five, Time of Gypsies, Black Cat, White Cat, etc). So, what exactly is the purpose of that list? I left three or so works which demonstrate a certain pattern, and was hoping others would start adding such information. --dcabrilo 04:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

article with questionable merit

There's an article at Gypsy origin that seems to be a bit of a rant. I can't tell if there's any information there that needs to be here (I actually doubt it), but someone might want to take a look at it. If nothing else, maybe that should redirect here. Joyous | Talk 15:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh; you think that's bad? You ought to take a look at Saint Sarah (as should other editors here as well). There's a lot of "ooga-booga" stuff there (the kind of belief that only the very religious seem capable of). Not to mention really bad writing. --ILike2BeAnonymous 05:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Contributor" who needs to have his ass blocked

I think our old friend 82.143.162.72 is back, this time in the guise of 212.127.78.73. (Check out the latter's recent "edits", including blanking the article.) I'd like to have it blocked. --ILike2BeAnonymous 17:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

you may be on to something - the IPs both trace back to Wroclaw in Poland, and the latter is semi-cloaked. Its a shame because this article has come a long way since friend 82 was banned. I hope we are not in for another period of chaos. Istvan 23:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if it is the same person, then goddamnit, have his ass blocked! I swear to god: the people who run this thing are absolute pussies. Wusses! What does it take to get someone this malicious blocked: 15 votes of consensus, fifty committee meetings and a bunch of other bureaucratic nonsense? And in the meantime he (she?) gets to put in (or delete) whatever nonsense they want to? --ILike2BeAnonymous 04:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting that 212.127.78.73 vandalized this page (discussion) by replacing it with the following:
This is the Wrocław Destroy Wikipedia project.
We heard about the Roma argument so we are going from internet cafe to internet cafe.
We can't find 'verifiable' proof of that picture. The rules are simple. Remove it.
Otherwise block every cafe.
--ILike2BeAnonymous 02:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Another disguise appears to be 83.16.144.67 (responsible for some recently-reverted vandalism edits). --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Also located in Poland. (I didn't realize how much cyber-fun I was missing until I got myself a demo copy of a program that does traceroute.) --ILike2BeAnonymous 02:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs need help, badly

Someone has once again screwed up the opening of the article. I'm referring specifically to the recent changes by 200.107.175.178, including a lot of strange stuff about "thick bearded" folks, and a lot of other statements which sound suspiciously like mythical nonsense. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about this to verify. Can someone look these four opening paragraphs with a critical eye and try to rectify what needs rectifying? One specific problem is that the last two paragraphs seem to refer to the Roma in Rajasthan, not the Roma in general; this ambiguity needs to be resolved, as well as any factual problems here. --ILike2BeAnonymous 21:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps its best to go back a week or two (when the introductory paragraphs were very concise; simply identifying the Roma and their Language) and use the former version to replace the present version in total, moving the present one over to talk.
The intro, in its present form, has balooned to include more "origins" information than the "history" section itself, and almost all of it unreferenced. Moved to talk, we could allow the material to be brought back over, but into the appropriate spots, and with proper references. Istvan 22:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
OK; here are the opening 3 paragraphs as they stand now (stood, I should say, as I'm about to replace them with the original more concise ones per your suggestion):
The Roma people (singular Rom; sometimes Rroma, Rrom), often referred to as Gypsies, are an ethnic group who live primarily in Europe. They are believed to have originated between the regions of northwestern Indian Subcontinent and central Pakistan as a confederation of soldiers that defended the old Hindu territory against invading Muslims and Mongols. These soldiers where basically Kshatriya and Brahmin, and were descendants of Indo-Aryan invaders who came from Central Asia, although they also took in some Dravidian households and farmers; this is why some Roma have a Middle-Eastern or Iranian (Punjabi, Sindhi, Kashmiri) look, while others have a more Dravidian or even Mongoloid trait inheritance.
As the descendants of these soldiers, the Roma also lived a semi-nomadic way of life, but after their defeat at the hands of Muslim and Mongol armies, they left their kingdoms in the Sindh and Punjab regions and became totally nomadic. One group migrated to Europe and North Africa via the Iranian Plateau about 1,000 years ago; the other group left for the harsh conditions of the Rajasthan Desert, where they still live as outcasts who claim to be descendants and proud ex-soldiers of the hero Rama. They say that they will not return to their lands until his dynasty is reestablished.
In order to survive as outcasts, they have become musicians (often singers of Hindu epics in the state of Rajasthan), poets, actors and dancers. They have also mantained their martial abilities as weapon-making blacksmiths (they are proficient makers of daggers, lohar knifes, etc.), and they are skilled horse trainers. Roma women in Rajasthan often make baskets and jewelry. Some of the Roma people have maintained certain medical and spiritual traditions of the Indian past.

Looks a lot better now (again) - the "history" section is now segregated to better accomodate material such as the above in a more appropriate place (but referenced, please!) Istvan 07:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hah! Brahmin soldiers!!! anyone with ever cursory knowledge of Indian scoial startification will know that Brahmins being presists never took up fighting as a profession. Some imaginative writing there i s'pose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMbroodEY (talk • contribs)

OK, I'm going to start marking out the stuff above that's no good. Feel free to join in. (You meant the Brahmins were priests, right?) --ILike2BeAnonymous 08:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Their view of persecution

It's not just the Roma who "view themselves" as persecuted. I removed the unverified and unreferenced insinuation. That the Roma were persecuted on a widespread basis is about as uncontroversial a fact as stating that the Jewish people were persecuted on a widespread basis. --ScienceApologist 07:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Some German princes, who could often travel around their whole state in a day, disliked them. They were absolute souvereigns and could make laws upon pleasure. So they hanged all Roma avaiable close to the border. There was often a special symbol errected nearby, to show any illeterate Roma, that the souvereign here did not like them alive in his territory. But avoiding certain princes in Germany was nothing limited to the Roma. Wandalstouring 14:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Languages

Two similar passages in the article; this one is from the lead. "Most Roma speak Romany, an Indo-Aryan language likely derived from Sanskrit. Today, however, most Roma speak the dominant language of their region of residence."

This is ambiguous/contradictory. Are we saying that most Roma today speak the dominant language of their respective region in addition to Romany, or rather than Romany? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is ambiguous. As I understand it, what this is trying to say is that the Roma have historically spoken Romany, but that today most of them speak the dominant language of their region instead. If this is so, I can fix it so it isn't ambiguous. --ILike2BeAnonymous 01:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ban all IP addresses from Wroclaw, Poland from editing this article

I'm serious.

The latest vandal (our old friend 82.143.162.72 in a new disguise?) is 80.55.199.19. They just vandalized both this page and the article.

And please, don't lets use that nicey-nice "thank you for experimenting, use the sandbox" message. These assholes are obviously intent on causing the maximum disruption here. They have no intention of playing by any rules except their own. Why treat them with kid gloves? Ban their asses! (If someone legitimate from Wroclaw wants the edit the article, I'm sure that can be accomodated.) --ILike2BeAnonymous 18:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Wroclaw Troll, (I will call him Michał) in a recently reverted edit wrote: "3 girls yes gypsies? dont know." repeated at least 100 times.
Just for fun, lets indulge ourselves to apply Michał's verification standard to this statement. Here goes: (ahem), How do you know they're girls? (if you've not been following this edit war - Im being ironic). By Michał's verification standard, one cannot make this statement. There are males without facial hair, who wear jewelry, who grow their hair long, who have dark/olive skin, etc. and we see nothing distinctly female in the image itself - no breasts, etc.. In short, the image does not prove the statement, therefore one cannot make it. (end irony here) You see how friggin' absurd that is? its an image, not a reference or a fact, but an illustration. Stop vandalising this article.
If there are any UK admins watching this, please refer to 82.143.162.72 edits of Stephen Lawrence, you will immediately recognise exactly the POV being pushed by 82.143.162.72/80.55.199.19/212.127.78.73/83.16.144.67. (once again, this belongs on his talk page, but which one?) Is it possible to block anonymous edits? I know its not wikipedian, but this page was doing so well when 82.143.162.72 wasnt disrupting it. Istvan 22:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Add 84.40.137.140 to the list of vandals/sockpuppets/alternate Internet cafe IP addresses of the Wroclaw Troll (see a reverted edit of the article today). Please disallow editing by any anonymous IP addresses from this part of the world. --ILike2BeAnonymous 18:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • IL, I don't see that happening. It's one thing to block vandals, or even semi-protect the article, and it's quite another to decide that entire parts of the world are not kosher to contribute. If vandalism becomes too rapid, drop me a line and I'll semi-protect for awhile. --Improv 03:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, semi-protection seems like a good thing to do here. If this crops up again, please let me know, and I'll also happily semi-protect this article for the time being. -- The Anome 11:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do consider it. Its nothing against Wroclaw, per se (there's no guarantee that our Troll isnt under some other town's bridge using proxies) but rather one single person. This article made very good improvement during the week or so after the WT's initial ban - when we were left undistracted, and there's still lots of work left to do. Thanks for your consideration. Istvan 13:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm requesting an immediate and significantly long ban on user 83.16.144.67. Yet another manifestation of the Wroclaw Troll (check out their edits, and vandalism by pasting sections of Wikipedia policy into the article). ILike2BeAnonymous 21:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Starting here, I'm keeping a list of Wroclaw Troll IP addresses (in other words, addresses that we ought to keep our eyes on):

  • 80.55.199.19
  • 82.143.162.72
  • 83.16.144.67
  • 83.17.96.202 (added 4/3/06)
  • 83.30.85.151
  • 84.40.137.140—vandalized article 4/12/06 ILike2BeAnonymous 15:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 212.127.78.73
  • 82.160.253.238 (again with deleting the picture, 4/21/06) ==ILike2BeAnonymous 22:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC) and again, 4/29/06 (this time 82.160.253.42; must be a dynamic IP address) ==ILike2BeAnonymous 08:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ban Burgas00 too, he thinks too highly of his knowledge of everyones ancestry on List of Roma People

Um, I don't think so. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 04:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Romale Shavale Dikh!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2181669920911563723&q=gypsy

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&n=2&videoid=559632772&&Mytoken=133E4510-13B2-12F1-F8E71217A38BBF3040594584

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=639341993064928476&q=romany&pl=true

Figures of population are wrong

At least the ones on Spain. Perhaps we need adequate sourcing on the Roma people. This page needs alot of work. Wow actually ALL the figures are wrong: Rumania has well over a million (I would say more than 2) Gypsies, Bulgaria has about the same number as Spain (600,000 to a 800,000) (maybe even more)--Burgas00 22:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to know for sure,Roma people are known not to say they are Roma to officals, and mixed bloods can be both. My granddad was Gypsy and Im certain he would never put that fact on paper or tell people he was.

The latest 2005 census offered my the Spanish government (www.cis.es), places the number of Spanish Roma within Spanish territory at 650 000 people. I yet have to find this source on the internet though... Other sources below.

Sources

http://www.fsgg.org/acceder/observatorio2002/carac_personas_gitanas.pdf

  • EU report between 500 000 and 800 000 Roma in Spain, estimate 2002.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:d9Nw_UMzSDsJ:www.eumap.org/reports/2002/eu/international/sections/spain/2002_m_spain.pdf+Roma+in+Spain&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2

No 2006 estimates place the number of Gypsies in Spain below the 650 000 mark.


As for the figures on the Balkan Gypsies, many people over there (especially Rumanians) are traumatised by the number of Gypsies in their countries, and they believe that Gypsies give them a bad name (well...they do). For this reason we must not trust many governmental and non-governmental (especially the latter) Rumanian sources as they will minimise the figures to ridiculous levels. I have changed the Rumanian estimate to the more credible number of 2.2 million--Burgas00 12:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have found a site explaining precisely this problem: http://www.radstats.org.uk/no069/article4.htm (RUmanian authorties "deny" at least one million gypsies.)

and why are the Dom peoples in Egypt, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon Iraq etc... ignored in the figures and in the article as a whole?--Burgas00 17:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The official census made by the roumanian gouverment in 2002 established the number of Gypsies in Roumania to 535140 acording to the official site http://www.recensamant.ro/pagini/tabele/t20.pdf I took part in that census and it envolved intervewing the entire population. The etnicity of a person was stated bye that person. So the roumanian gouverment is not denying any milion of gypsies. I don't know who is making this "estimates" but I belive that the offical census should be taken in to account not some "estimate" made bye biased organisation.

500 000??? Come on!!! You guys have serious issues. There must be at least 100 000 Rumanian Roma in every large country of Western Europe. Offering these figures, only works against Rumanians, as people will start mistaking Roma with Rumanians. I am sure you dont want that... I know many Rumanians and most are good, honest, hard working people.--Burgas00 20:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Burgas00 you are not a reliable source, You need to be banned, Mr. Know it all.

Burgas, please stop insinuating all these things that have no source backing. On one hand, you say the Romanians are minimising the numbers to "avoid being mistaken for Roma", on the other hand, you're saying that they should raise the numbers to also avoid being mistaken for Roma. The point is that this shouldn't be an issue of national image, but ethnic statistics. Your attitude here, IMO, has the intenntion of playing on national sensibilities and is quite offensive to Roma people. The 2002 census claims that there are 535,140 Roma in Romania. This is the figure we should be using, not because we want to minimise the number of Roma in the country, but because we can't allocate Romani ethnicity to someone who didn't declare such ethnicity. I have argued the same case at the Romanians article, where people were claiming there are 1.2 million Romanians in the US when the census only stated about 300,000. Ethnicity is gauged by nothing better than self-identification, and if a given person declares himself as, say, Romanian on the census, then he has to be counted as ethnic Romanian. The census in Romania is not filled in by the government, but by the citizens themselves. And the 2.2 million-2.5 million figure had been backed by nothing else than your personal assumption. Also, if we use this stats, then there will be overlap between the figures for other ethnic groups in Romania. For this reason, I propose that we list the census data first, and then in the footnote say that other estimates claim there are between 1.5 to 2.5 million Roma in Romania. Ronline ✉ 23:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Ronline, the EU estimates says that about 1 mil. Rroma are living in Romania. I understand that the 2.2-2.5 mil very exagerated, but the 500,000 figures it seems a bit to much, because remember just how many poors that were seeking in the blocks garbages were treated as Rroma or Gypsies. Personally I think that 500,000 is the an enough accurate figure. Is simply: at 2002 Romanian census were 19.4 Romanians, and 1.4 Hungarians. Added together, these are 21.8 mil. Romania has population about 22.3 mil. 22.3-21.8=500,000. It would says that 500,000 is too much, but anyway the census is right.

NorbertArthur 7 April 2006

I don't think the 500,000 figure is exaggerated at all. Poor people were not considered Roma in the census since the people declare ethnicity themselves. The Romanian census is accurate, particularly the 2002 one, outside of a few marginal and localised errors. Do you have a source for the EU estimation? I think that may be the upper limit on the number of Roma people, and we should put that in the article perhaps as the estimate, in order to counterbalance any perceived census undercounting. But I agree that 2.2-2.5 million is very exaggerated. Ronline ✉ 09:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to say anything since I produce such hostile reactions. Im simply going to offer a few sources on the number of Gypsies in Romania:

I could look for some more but I think this is enough for the moment.

--Burgas00 09:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just one more thing, on the validity of this type of census you are talking about. I remember once being very surprised by finding on a Rumanian census an Egyptian minority. Asking why there are so many Egyptians in Romania I was explained that many Roma had decided to call themselves Egyptians when asked their ethnicity... So according to your logic they are Egyptian.--Burgas00 09:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Burgas, my intention isn't to scare off other points of view or respond with hostile reactions. I was just making a point that you based a lot of your evidence on assumptions. Anyway, the sources you give above, while they are valid, are mostly secondary sources (the media) and are hence unreliable since the media not only often exaggerates but uses various selective sources to try and prove a point. Sources like CEReview, which claims that the census states 2 million Roma, are clearly wrong, since they are directly contradicted by the census results they claim to show.
This source is, however, quite trustworthy. So, this is what I propose: that we leave the census results in the table, since they are the official data, and then in the footnote, we list all of these estimates, attributed to the source you have given. This is much better than just giving a bracket like "2.2-2.5 million".
As to the "Egyptian issue", it is similar to the Jedi census phenomenon that faced the UK. Whenever there is a census like this, it is normal that some people will state a false ethnicity, sometimes in protest. So, things like this exist, but at the same time I also find it hard to believe that only around 30% of Roma actually declared they were Roma. Ronline ✉ 10:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok I agree, that is the best source since it gives multiple sources itself (including the official figure). But I think it would be better to give the official figure, and the estimates in brackets rather than in a footnote. I think we all agree that in every Eastern European country there is a tendency to underrepresent Gypsies in census. And one thing, how do we know all Gypsies are registered in these countries? Perhaps a majority arent! This was the case in Spain until not long ago (not so much nowadays since the obligatory military service no longer exists).--Burgas00 12:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Many Gypsy people don't document who they are or what they are. But the fact is that many don't, they don't have to be Gypsy unless they are dark skinned. For one thing Gypsies dont like to be pigeon holed and classified. Another is the Holocaust, why identify yourself when it can be used against you at a later time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Robbyfoxxxx (talk • contribs)

Ronline I didnt notice you are Romanian. I should have had more tact when talking about this issue. But surely you must know as a Romanian living in Romania that the figure of 500 000 is completely crazy? The place is crawling with Gypsies. I live in Spain right now where we have around 700 000 Spanish Gypsies (Gitanos). But you do not see them everywhere in the way you do in Romania and Bulgaria... Btw I dont understand the person who is trying to remove the picture on the article. Its a really nice picture and you can visibly tell the girls are Roma. It is especially useful in English wikipedia where many of the readers have never seen Gypsies and do not know what they look like in general. --Burgas00 20:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say Romania is "crawling with Gypsies". Some parts of the country do have large populations of Roma, but I wouldn't say that there are 2.5 million Roma people in Roma, that 1 in 9 people you see is of Roma ethnicity. I think the difference in perception is that in Spain they are better integrated, and for that reason not as visible. Also, proportionally in Romania there are double as many Roma per total population. Combine this with lesser integration/more visibility, it does seem Romania has significantly more Roma than Spain. As to the picture, I agree that it should be kept, as many people don't know how Roma look like in general. On the other hand, it's important to avoid stereotyping - there are many Roma who are more light-skinned than the girls in the photo, and others who are more dark-skinned. I think it would be good to have more photos (PS: You didn't realise I was Romanian!? My signature has the Romanian flag in it :) Ronline ✉ 00:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are right on this. Spanish Gitanos, contrary to what is believed among the urban population, are largely integrated and only a minority live in shanty towns. It is funny that in general, as soon as a Gypsy has a normal job and lives in a normal house, he is only dimly percieved as a Gitano at all by other Spaniards. I have heard from Spaniards here than, in the 50s and before industrialization and mass migration to the cities, no one had any problem with Gitanos, they lived in villages all over Spain, had good jobs and were respected by everyone. This is still the case in many parts of Spain, but not in large cities, where racism against this minority is very strong. Perhaps in Romania, rural povery may have also pushed many Gypsies into crime. On the otherhand maybe it is better that most of them are poor, otherwise you would have 2 million pink Tajmahals dotted all over the country.

In anycase, back to the population figures, Romania is still listed by all sources as being the country with most Gypsies in Europe. Considering that Bulgaria and Spain have around 700 000 or more each. Romania must have at least over one million.

--Burgas00 09:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Burgas00, as always you are wrong.

---

Ronline: A romanian source (Radio Romania International). Apparently I was wrong to accuse the Romanian authorities of purposefuly ignoring Roma. It is simply that a large majority of Roma did not declare belonging to this ethnicity in the 2002 census. According to this source, there are 2.5 million Roma in Romania (unofficial estimates).

http://www.rri.ro/index.php?lmb=11&art=3663

(see 3rd paragraph)

As you can see I found it on the Spanish version of the site. I imagine you can more or less understand written Spanish. Perhaps you can find the same article in Romanian or English by browsing the site.

Burgas00

A recent edit by a brand new user added uncited population stats for Albania, Croatia, and Greece. Anyone know if these are legit, or if they should be removed? -- TheMightyQuill 18:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this too and tagged them with {{fact}} (which leaves [citation needed] in the text). ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Burgass00 should bee banned from this discussion. He shows a bias against Romania, uses obscure references and frankly as a romanian I find some of his remarks offensive both to romanians and gypsies. DArhengel 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it highly doubtful that Romania has the highest percentage of Romani in Europe. Nicolae Ceauşescu slaughtered and sterilized Romani during his time ruling that country. Prior to his reign, maybe. Not after, I fear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.215.134 (talk • contribs)

I'm prety sure it is correct. And while some Romas were doubtless killed or sterilized under Ceauşescu, most simply were not. Ceauşescu was generally awful, but at times he actually favored the Roma over others when it served his purposes. A good example of this is in the historic Lipscani district of Bucharest, where he seems to have brought in poor, rural Roma in an effort to "bring down" the neighborhood, which he doubtless hoped would deteriorate enough that he could bulldoze the bulk of it, as he had several nearby historical neighborhoods.
As far as I know, Bulgaria and Spain are the only other countries that are even in Romania's range on the number of Roma (with Hungary somewhat behind). The problem with getting decent numbers is that the Romanian census tends to classify a lot of Roma as "Romanian": they have to pick one nationality, and, unsurprisingly, any that are the least bit assimilationist (or fearful) tend to say "Romanian". So, officially, there are only about half a million, but I gather that pretty much everyone who has written on the topic says that is absurdly low. - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

+2d sprotect

I have sprotected the article for what I intend to be 2 days to deal with anonymous problem edits. --Improv 14:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

History Revert

The recent additions to the history section need references; I have reverted to the old version.

Ban user 84.40.137.140

The Wroclaw Troll has struck again in this guise, this time by reducing the article to a single word: "arse". Someone please ban this user, preferably for a significant length of time. Take off the gloves! ==ILike2BeAnonymous 15:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


JEW

Can a Roma be Jewish? it doesnt say in the article, but could that be?--80.230.208.187 22:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

wrt Judaism; While I've never seen such thing, it's technically possible. Rom is an ethnicity, not a religion. In my experience, however, most (in the UK atleast) are Christian. ( Shaun 18:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC) )

Judaism is an ethnicity as well as a religion. I would guess that for a Rom to be Jewish he must have converted into Judaism (NB. conversion into Judaism is rare) or be a Jew that has taken up the Roma culture.

Conversion into judaism is very common, i myself know 3 unrelated people who have converted to judaism (all for marital reasons). And it was even more common in the past, where, in many places in the world, whole populations converted to judaism. It is no wonder that Algerian jews look just like Algerians, Ethiopian jews look like ethiopians and German Jews look like Germans. Anyways this topic is off subject, there are no roma, to my knowlege, who are of Jewish religion. Roma generally share the religion of the dominant culture. Many Roma, particularly those living in marginalised conditions, are vulnerable to "evangelisation" by US-based protestant sects. --Burgas00 23:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason you don't see an article about that is because they are not Jewish and not related to them, Roma are of Indo-Aryan, Iranic descent and most are Christian or Muslim, I've never heard of Roma converting to Judaism, atleast not in Europe.

Probably not enough to be worth counting, but conversely, certainly there must be someone somewhere. It wouldn't really require a conversion: you could be Jewish in the female line (which is what halakha goes by), and still predominantly Roma. To give an idea how such things can happen, I know someone from Norway with a Norwegian father, a Scottish Presbyterian maternal grandfather, but she is Jewish in the female line, so she is considered Jewish, and so will her children be, though I'm sure no one around her usually thinks twice about her being anything other than Norwegian. - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fictional representationsof Roma people

Since several people seem to want a longer list, maybe there should be a page dedicated to Fictional representations of Roma people??

Just a thought...ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont think people want a longer list, rather people just stumble onto this article and decide to add yet another fictional representation they remember...

No, no, no! That's the last thing we need here. More stupid lists! ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Burgas00's recent deletions from this list: this is exactly what's needed. I'd like to propose something: that this list (in this article) be maintained at its present size, with no additions allowed. The only changes would be if someone finds a better item than one already in the list. And no works where Gypsies appear in a brief cameo role! ==ILike2BeAnonymous 19:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that the inevitable Fictional representations of Roma has been created anyway, someone needs to go through all the past versions and put all the extraneous stuff there, to keep it short here! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

I removed the following from the Etymology section:

"Tsoan, however, is the place in Egypt, that pre-dates the Hungarian source, since it is mentioned as one of the stops in Hebrews' wanderings (Num 13:22)."

Reason - Although interesting, the similar-sounding name alone does not prove a link with the Roma, (aka "tsoanim"). At the time of the Roma exodus, most Hebrews were already in the diaspora, and spoke Ladino, Yiddish, or their regional languages - mostly far from Egypt. If someone has a closer etymology on the Hebrew word itself, (first recorded uses etc.) as Fraser has done with the Hungarian, then this is the time and place to post it. Also, the original Hebrew usage of "Tsoan" in Numbers 13:22 (recorded as "Zoan" in KJV, NIV and Luther) may also be helpful. Istvan 21:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Medieval Jews had the habit of taking place names fron the Bible and applying them to places, countries and peoples which were obviously not what was originally meant. A conspicuous example, the Bible mentions a place called "Tzarfat" which was on the shore of what is now Lebanon. Medieval Jews applied it to France, and it still is the Hebrew name for France. Similarly, the names "Sfarad", "Ashekenaz" and "Tograma", all names of places or people in the Bible, were applied respectively to Spain, Germany and Turkey. So it is not at all impossible that in the same way Jews, aware of the legend which made the Roma into Egyptians in origin, applied to them the name of a place in Egypt. That actually would make more sense than the application of the above-mentioned names to European countries. Adam Keller 22:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Very enlightening - I suppose then the question is when i.e. first use - perhaps "Tzoanim" via the Egypt legend or perhaps phonetic similarity with "Zigeuner" (also Yiddish) - or perhaps both? European Jews encountering people called "Zigeuner" claiming to be from Egypt may very plausibly infer their stated origins as "Zoan" (as the Yiddish would be "Zo-an'-er") - i.e. not too far off. After all, there werent many other Egyptian Geography texts available in the 15th Century other than the Biblical ones... If someone can find first use, especially whether it came to Hebrew via Yiddish, Ladino - or even conceivably via Hebrew (Sfad) - then it may throw a lot of light on it.Istvan 02:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the claim that "gypsy" stems from "Gitano/Gitane" whereas it is much more likely that "Gypsy" is a derivative of "Egypt" whereas "Gitano" is not. Gitano is in the "Zigeuner" family. Its almost inconceivable that "Gitano" became "Gypsy" - Hard G to soft G is not unlikely, but "t" to "ps" is plausible only in a stretch, and dropping the final "n" would be virtually unique in Europe. Given the (recorded) "Egypt myth" in England, it is much more probable that "Gypsy" stems from "Egypt" and not "Gitano". Finally, there is no lack of precedence for the English using naming conventions different from the rest of continental Europe.Istvan 04:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC

Istvan you are wrong on this. Gitano is a corruption of the older Spanish word Egiptano.--Burgas00 11:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Great, post the source and we can accept it. However, the issue focuses on the Etymology of "Gypsy" and not "Gitano". I have a source - Fraser 92 - (and illustration even) of period English language reference to people & language "of Little Egypte" but have not yet seen period English-language reference to "gitanos". If you have one, please post it.Istvan 19:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Old Spanish "Egiptano" -> Spanish "Gitano" -> French "Gitan". Source: Dictionnaire de l'Académie Française. I agree that the English "Gipsy" is probably an independent derivation.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Gypsy

Hello, the etymology of the word "Gypsy" is derived from the Greek word Aiguptos (Egypt), modern Greek gyphtoi EGYPTIAN LOAN-WORDS IN ENGLISH. The terms tzigane, zincali, gitani, cigány, etc., is theorized that was derived from the Greek word atsinganoi, modern Greek tsigganoi, which means itinerant fortunetellers, ventriloquists and wizards, this term is what the Roma were known under in the Byzantine Empire. In latin its adsincani. Roma (Gypsies) in the Byzantine empire In modern Greek both terms gyphtoi and tsigganoi are interchangable and both can be used when refering to the Romas. :) ~Mallaccaos, 1 June 2006

That's certainly a reasonable option, but it's perfectly possible gitani game from aiguptos, isn't it? Etylmology isn't an exact science. -- TheMightyQuill 09:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if we are taking its Greek etymology, aiguptos (Greek: Αίγυπτος) its derived from the early Mycenaean Greek a-ku-pi-ti-jo written in Linear B, that is more then likely derived from Hut-ka-Ptah which literally translates to "House of Ptah", the name of the temple complex of the god Ptah at Memphis. :) ~Mallaccaos, 27 June 2006

Rom and Crime

Clearly, there is a popular and historical perception that Rom tend toward criminal activities. I propose a thorough but well-balanced section should be introduced on the topic, rather than simply sweeping it under the rug as part and parcel of anti-Rom discrimination. Wachholder0 16:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough; I agree that the first sentence you wrote above is true. What do you propose would go in this section? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 19:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that in today's world that if anyone has criticism (true or not) about someone, it has to be suppressed, or in other words censored, all in the name of the so-called political correctness. Well, despite that, I have to give my personal experiences here to this topic to refute the statements in the Roma article. Among other things, it is written in the article such things as, "Roma religion has a highly developed sense of morality...", "Virginity is essential in unmarried women....", and "Common complaints are that Roma steal and live off social welfare...". Let's address the implied denial of crime and vagrancy in these and other statements in the article. I have personally been a victim of Roma children trying to beg and steal off me in Russia; I have spoken personally to people from Russia, Germany, the US, and elsewhere who have had other personal experiences with Roma stealing, cheating, etc. Their morality is actually what Western Civilisation deems "immorality". They do steal, cheat, etc. In Scandinavia, where the social welfare system is quite strong, Roma are a tremendously huge problem, not just from their misuse of the system, but also their almost blatant refusal to assimilation or integration. I know this from personal experience having spent much time in Norway, for example. As for "virginity", for another example, personal accounts by Russian men will refute this. The women will not marry out of Roma culture, but they will "date" other peoples. These kinds of facts, being they are personal accounts, cannot be refuted. Roma people are not as innocent and clean as the article makes them out to be. I regret it, if this is not a kind thing to say, but truth is truth. --Wittenstein 01:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's deal with it. I've personally had Russian people beg and steal from me in Russia. Should Russian culture then list begging and stealing among Russian traits? In Canada, there is widespread abuse of the welfare system by all kinds of people. Should welfare fraud be listed as a common activity of Canadians? I know very few Catholics under 30 who remained virgins until they were married, yet can virginity not be listed on Catholicism as trait of the religion? Jews may have a reputation for "cheating" people, but I doubt you'll get it stated as "fact" on the Jew page. Maybe you feel these traits are more common among Roma than other people, but unless you have statistics to back it up, and show that it's a product of Roma culture, not simply poverty, it's just your opinion. You quite openly admit that your "facts" are based on personal research not legitimate sources. Personally, I think it would be a good idea to have something about negative perceptions of Roma, their poverty, and their resistance to assimilation (which I, personally, don't consider a bad thing), but I don't think someone, such as yourself, who believes they are somehow morally bankrupt, and who has no evidence but insists that "truth is truth," is the person to do the job. Come back when you have more to offer than your own personal impressions. -- TheMightyQuill 09:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some potential source articles for this issue. Notice that I am not vouching for their quality; this is just to getthe ball rolling.

And that's just from 3 minutes of googling. Clearly there is plenty of info out there on this topic. Please post other sources and discussion here. I will begin writing the section in a few weeks.Wachholder0 21:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

A Romanian (herself not a Rom) social worker told me, that the established ways of income Romany had, crumbled with the downfall following the economic changes after the end of Communism. Social prejudices and lacking education often make situation even harder. Therefore several do, what people in such hopeless situations usually do, drink, steal, prostitute and feel pity. Thats nothing ethnically specific, only the percentage compared to the major population differs. That is a point to discuss, because it has reasons and listing of such would help to understand.

The existance of a strict morale code for Romany puzzles many people with the usual prejudiced picture. Wandalstouring 22:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

These are all good points. The UN report specifically says that the issues of Rom crime and poverty are confounded. It is not my intention to caricature the Rom as a "criminal culture", but rather to attempt to discuss popular perception, actual "criminality", and popular prejudice. Certainly, the existence of a "strict moral code" does not preclude crime among some members of a population. Please, consider adding your commments (if you have cites) to the rom & crime section. Wachholder0 21:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest removing this part altogether, especially describtion of the alleged criminal techique. There is clearly a rasistic tone here, not approriate for a dictionary. A dictionary is about knowledge, not prejudicies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Auku (talk • contribs) 3 August 2006.

I have removed the unsourced and rather curious little description of supposed Rom pickpocketing methods, and added some of the information I mentioned earlier. Noting the widespread perception of crime in the Rom community is not racist, and I believe I have addressed it in a sensitive and non-dogmatic way. If you disagree, feel free to rewrite the offending passages. I believe it is important to include this information, and I feel it would indeed be NPOV not to include it. Wachholder0 21:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty Dyana

I want to include something about the documentary film "Pretty Dyana" by Boris Mitić, but I'm not sure where to put it. Non-Fictional Respresentations of Roma ? -- TheMightyQuill 10:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you say something about this film, describe it, tell us why you think it's relevant to the article? I don't want to take the trouble just now to view it. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a realistic, unprejudiced documentary about the daily life of Roma in Belgrade. Here's how it has been described:

"This documentary shows how a group of Roma on the outskirts of Belgrade makes additional use of the cars – by taking them apart and contriving them for their own purpose."
"To a certain degree, the music used in the film...expresses the unbroken will to survive of these families, who had to leave their home in the Kosovo because of the war in the former Yugoslavia. The Roma act open and unprejudiced towards the filmmakers, which creates a closeness that allows for a profound insight into people barely tolerated by society."

-- TheMightyQuill 18:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Shiromani Akali Dal Movement realted to Romani and Kali

Im not saying this is true but it can be a possible theory and these facts can realte to the origin of Gypsy Roma People and how these warrior classes never fit into the acutal Hindu theme.

Khālistān (Punjabi: ਖਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ) (lit. "pure-land") is the name given to the proposed nation-state, encompassing the present Indian state of Punjab and all Punjabi-speaking areas contiguous to its borders.

Shiromani Akali Dal Movement (Romani and Kali terminogly)

Linguistic issues cause civil unrest in Punjab In the 1950s and 1960s, linguistic issues in India caused civil disorder when the central government attempted to marginalise regional languages in favour of Hindi, which was imposed as the national language on all Indians by the ruling Congress elite. It was as a reaction to this act that the Shiromani Akali Dal, the party representing the Sikhs in Punjab, initiated its first major movement.

The true test of democracy, in the opinion of the Shiromani Akali Dal, is that the minorities should feel that they are really free and equal partners in the destiny of their country...to bring home a sense of freedom to the Sikhs, it is vital that there should be a Punjabi speaking language and culture. This will not only be in fulfillment of the pre-partition Congress programme and pledges, but also in entire conformity with the universally recognised principles governing formation of provinces…The Shiromani Akali Dal has reason to believe that a Punjabi-speaking province may give the Sikhs the needful security. It believes in a Punjabi speaking province as an autonomous unit of India.”[23]

As Sikhs ralted to old vedic warrior classes Guajars, Jatts, Rajputs (whom came from Rajasthan) and the Hindko people and themselves related to people fro Pothohar and Kashmir, this could be a reason why gypsies dont feel Hindu or Indian atleast they might have practiced a similar cultur that came from the old Indo-Iranian invaders that later developed Hinduism.

Gypsies might indeed be descendant from these peoples that where from Central Pakistan and extrame northernwestern India (Kashmir and Punjab valley) since Romani resembelce a Sanskrit closer to Pothohari and Dardic or past Punjabi.

Gypsies indeed have a warrior spirit inherited by Jatts, Rajputs and Guajars whome gathered in these mountains to defend against Muslims.

Hence the blacksmith skills, horse delaers or tamers and rituals realted to old nomadic Aryan (Indo-Iranian) elements found in Kalashi: traditiona magic, tarot, celebratin weddings (virginity must be proven for women) and also the tradition of eating Lamb, wine etc in the Kalash region of Pakistan

It can be said that Roma People are closest to Hindu Sikhs (orignally the true hindu warriors, horse nomads and priests) and themselves derived from mingeling of the Rajsthani Conderation composeed of Rajputs, Jatts and Guajars that mingled with other peoples from the Pakistan mountainous region called Pamir sucfh as the Kalashi People

That is Roma People are Old Rajasthan Kindoms combined with Kashmiri and Kalashi soldiers.

Terminogies close to Gypsies that hence the more extrame North Indian ways like the Sikhs, Guajars, Punjabis and Kalashis (Chandras etc)

-Shiromani Akali Dal Movement (Romani and Kali terminogly) -Sindh (Sinti) -Srinagar in Kashmir Mouintains (Singaro gypsy in Italian)

Gypsies are Old Sikh warriors famous for their daggars, blacksmith skills, horse riding skills, traditional long hair, priest (hippie outfit etc) and the tragic music and magic they inherited them their warriors of Rajasthani and Kalashi that gathered in the mountainous Pakistan.

Gypsies are northern Pakistan and northwestarn extrame Indians like the Sikhs

Roma Stub?

I was thinking there should be a Roma-stub for all the small roma related articles. If you have an opinion, you can vote here. -- TheMightyQuill 15:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It took some work, but I got it approved. Template:Roma-stub. Please add it to Roma-related stub articles. -- TheMightyQuill 13:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of Doma

It is written that the etymology is of Sanskrit langauge but according to discussion in the Indology list by linguists it is either of Dravidian or Munda origin, hence we need to bring that aspect of the etymology also.RaveenS 16:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

See updated Domba article for explanation of Dom etymologyRaveenS 20:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Gipsy Kings

I noticed in the music section of this article there is no mention of the Gipsy Kings. That's a bit odd since they are probably the most widely known Roma musical group in the world...in fact, I bet most people outside of the Roma community only know about Roma music through this group. Could anyone tell me why you have decided to leave them out? (if it's deliberate) .Rosa 11:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd assume they've just been forgotten. Go ahead and make an addition to the article yourself! Jonas Liljeström 12:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
They're not here because, to be blunt, there's no reason for them to be. It adds no useful information to the article. There might be a place in the Roma music article, but I'm not even sure of that. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 05:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. They are undoubtedly, the most internationally known Roma musical group in the world. They definitely belong in Roma music and I'm not sure I have a problem appearing in the main article. And you can't accuse me of bias, because I dislike the Gipsy Kings, and don't particularly like that style of Roma music in general. -- TheMightyQuill 19:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do they belong in this article? What about them is important to telling the story of the Roma? I agree they might be relevant to the music article, but I don't see what purpose mentioning them here would serve, other than to add yet another piece of jewelry, like all those examples of fictional Roma representations. (I don't care for them either; they're basically faux-gypsy musicians. There are many more examples of better musicians who actually do Roma music. But I'd be willing to admit them to the music article based on their popularity; you can't argue with the vast unwashed masses of the world.) ==ILike2BeAnonymous 20:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Gipsy kings do not play "Roma" music as such. They play a commercialized version (for French audiences) of Rumba Catalana, which, in turn is a commercialized version of Rumba Flamenca, an Andalusian style of music within the different styles of Flamenco (Rumba is probably the least artistic form). In any case Flamenco as such is not Romani in origin, it is rooted in Andalusian musical tradition, although Romani culture has heavily influenced it.--Burgas00 00:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that observation. I'd say that the French band Les Yeux Noirs are slightly more authentic than the "Gypsy Kings", as they play a mix of klezmer, other Eastern European music and some bona fide Roma stuff, although they're slightly less well known than the G.Ks. I still wouldn't put either of them in the article. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 07:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm convinced. A reference should go in Roma music but not here. -- TheMightyQuill 10:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Template

I see this article's neutrality is disputed but I can't find the reasons in this discussion page. Could anyone direct me to them? Personally, I don't see any flagrantly biased info here...I think the neutrality template should be removed.Rosa 12:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer review, revisited

Since there seems to be new interest and new blood in editing this article, I'll raise the peer review issue again: I think everybody agrees the current peer review is a joke. Why not move it into an archive or whatever, and get rid of the notice on the talk page? My reason for proposing this, both then and now, is the fear of crying wolf: when we'll have a proper peer review on this article, everybody will ignore it, assuming it's the same old farce. What do you think? --Gutza T T+ 00:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Approve moving it to Archive and removing notice. Actually, is there enough interest in this topic for a Roma wikiproject? -- TheMightyQuill 19:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Done; moved in Archive 2 (at the end), along with Istvan's request to delete. --Gutza T T+ 20:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Gutza. Now, can anyone define "peer" in the context of this article? Istvan 15:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a Wikipedia conceit; there is no peer review in the conventional and proper sense of the word. (What, get experts' opinions? Get outta here!) ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Istvan, ILike2BeAnonymous is right in a way: the "peer review", as understood on Wikipedia, is indeed quite different from what scientific communities refer to. On Wikipedia, a peer review is ideally requested to all Wikipedians--and it goes without saying that all Wikipedia contributors are not experts in all fields.

However, ILike2BeAnonymous is also wrong in his/her dimissal of the concept, as used on Wikipedia. A peer review request here will (ideally, at least) bring you people who can write properly (thus polishing the article's form), people who can think properly (thus polishing the article's structure), and not least, people who have knowledge in the topic but didn't think of checking out the article so far (thus polishing the article's content.)

A "proper" Wikipedia peer review is basically a collection of thoughts from people who haven't been involved in editing the article before. It brings fresh perspectives and ideally also builds interest for the article among people reading it for the first time.

Not even the tiniest speck of a Wikipedia's peer review spirit could be found in the existing version of the peer review, and that's why I had also risen the issue before you did, and why I moved the notice in the archive as soon as I had a couple of people agreeing it was a farce. --Gutza T T+ 19:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

missing aspects

By the way there are some Romany institutions, like some kind of formal king in Timisoara Romania. In German he is called "Bullypasha". Romany people tended to have certain economic functions (renowned for sharpening knifes and scissors) for a long time and were well organized. The first constant settlemt of Romany in Knees (German spelling, an ancient Tartarian village) in Romania is neither mentioned in this article. Like for Jews for Romany evolved either certain family names, mostly out of the Medieval Guild system and its limitations on professions avaiable. Most people with such a family name dont even know anything about its origin.

Wandalstouring 14:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Roma minority in Hungary section

Half of the section is about Roma in post-communist states and about EU, which is a bit confusing when one expects it to be about Hungary. I also don't get the actual meaning of this part:

Only a small fraction of Roma children graduate from secondary schools, although during the Communist regime, at least some of these countries forced all children to attend school, and provided them, like other citizens, with all required basics such as textbooks and the compulsory uniform.

The part after 'although' - Is it still about secondary schools, or basic school (Primary & Middle)? If it is about secondary schools, then I don't think children were forced to them, but the textbooks were indeed free. If it isn't about secondary schools, then the switch to the past ('although during the Communist regime...') is misleading, it looks as if it was different in these days. I can speak for the Czech republic only, here basic education (6-14 years) is compulsory and free (state high schools and colleges/universities are also free), textbooks are free on basic schools, high schools are obliged to have a reserve of textbooks for pupils who can't afford them. There is no compulsory uniform, nor was it during the Communist regime (it is maybe on some private schools, but the vast majority of schools are state schools). --Marvin talk 12:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It was/is the same in Hungary as you describe for CZ. The quote is indeed subtle POV. I dont have the numbers, but experience leads me to believe (strongly) that at *least* a simple majority of Roma children graduate from secondary schools. I cant speak for poorer countries (or those that have seen war recently) but the referenced statement is not accurate for Hungary either and should be amended. Istvan 15:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to say that the system fully enables Roma children graduating at secondary schools, although the opposite can be felt from the article. I am not sure how many Roma children actually graduate on high schools, I think the statement about the number of pupils shouldn't be changed before we find any sources for it, this is a potentially sensitive article. --Marvin talk 20:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
There is also the problem of Roma children being sent to special schools, this could be a major factor in the issue. I've just read about a case at Strasbourg about Roma segragation at Czech schools, an article about it says:
"In February 2006, the Court's Second Section ruled that although the Roma children suffered from a pattern of adverse treatment, they had not proved the Czech government's intent to discriminate." [6]
It's not a simple case and I still haven't found data on the numbers... --Marvin talk 22:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Theories on Aryan race?

Could it be that the Roma people and Aryans are supposed to derive from the same source and that this is the issue with those Indo-Aryanists? Who would have thought that scientific racism would promote the scoundrels of their society as eugenically sound, after all the Gypsies had been through. Who would have thought that Gypsies were a general European people, when always on the outskirts of European acceptance? Maybe the racists couldn't account for hidden Romas in their own blood; couldn't take a chance. All I know is that this is theoretical and nothing solid; wishful thinking. In all the history of the world, when has India been natively associated with Europe? Indo-Europeanism is a racist concoction to support the imperialism for tea and textiles, with no basis before the idea was published--only Alexander the Great and Greco-Buddhism (blown out of proportion, both of them) seem to have had truthful associations with India. When has Hinduism been European?--since the British Empire. In the words of J.R.R. Tolkien:

  • I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by 'arisch'. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. ... But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.... I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride.
    • One of two draft letters (25 July 1938) written for Stanley Unwin to select as a response to his German publishers inquiry about his ancestry.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien

Lord Loxley 12:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

problems with Roma in Romania section, marked as such in article

I understand that the article as a whole needs a lot of work, but I embarked on a general spelling/grammar/formatting cleanup of this particular section and came to the conclusion that it makes quite a few claims that are not neutral-point-of-view, and it doesn't back them up with any external sources. The population figure is completely uncited (although by the looks of this talk page it appears this issue has been heavily discussed). The section of the article relating to Roma refusing to accept places at universities, devoting their lives to petty crime, racial intolerance, vandalism, and rape (!) are completely unfounded. The sections about the abject poverty Roma live in while giving birth to many children is quite similar. I've gotten it from other (albeit unreliable) sources that the Roma birthrate is generally higher than that of the surrounding population, but some sort of official figure to back this up would be a very good thing to have. --Fedallah 06:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

...and most/all of the offending lines were just excised entirely from the article in the last three minutes or so by several anon users, and the various warning tags removed. Well, that didn't take long.--Fedallah 07:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the statements above. It is a known fact around Europe that gypsies have a much higher birth rate then surrounding populations. For example in Romania the average birth rate is .93 childern per household while the average birthrate in gypsy families it is about 3.42 childern per household which is when u think about it an enormous difference. In addition how can anybody say that gypsies devoting their lives to crime is unfounded? I invite anyone who believes that this is some sort of stereotype to spend the night walking around the outskirts of Bucharest or in a market place or bus and see that this is really a widespread problem with this ethnic group. I'm not saying that their aren't very nice hardworking people in this ethnic group I'm simple stating the facts that the crime rate in this perticular ethnic group is sugnificantly higher then surrounding populations. I'm glad that Wikipedia is willing to state the facts even when they are frowned upon as being racist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.201.61.182 (talk • contribs) 7 August 2006.

Language

Is Romani mutually understandable with other Indian languages? I know that some words and pronounciations exist in both Romani and some indian languages, but is there mutual understanding possible? Dpotop 13:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont think they are communicable in the sense that whole ideas (Sentences) can be communicated, but on a level of single words there is some understanding.

External Links

I am posting these links here since people like to revert

Picture

I've reverted the image of Chaplin, Mother T etc a couple of times now. If someone else thinks it is better than what we have, please say. Thanks. --Guinnog 21:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be the work of the "Wroclaw troll". In any case, it should be removed should it reappear; Chaplin, for one, was not Roma. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 22:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I did wonder. Well, it's been deleted now anyway as copyvio. --Guinnog 22:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Chaplin was not Roma, and Pushkin was not Black, but Chaplin did have Romanichal ancestry and Pushkin had black ancestry.

[[7]] TO Quote the son of Charlie Chaplin: My father [Charlie Chaplin] was born April 16, 1889, at 3 Parnell Terrace, Kennington Road, London... Both my father's parents were British subjects. My grandfather was a mixture of French and Irish--the Chaplin name is of French origin. My grandmother [Charlie Chaplin's father] had Gypsy blood--French or Spanish--inherited from her mother. My father has always been inordinately proud of that wild Romany blood.

Charlie Chaplin was proud of his Romany Blood.

And I'm proud of being white. Whoop-dee-doo. --mboverload@ 00:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

My point is Chaplin acknowledged that he had Gypsy Ancestry, I could care less about your pasty white ass.

And besides, nobody has "Romany" blood. You mean his blood spoke the language of the Roma? Any more, when I see this term (mis)used this way, I find the source can be discredited as a hoary old myth of some kind. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 00:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Gypsy blood? it has to be a myth, you can't discredit him for using "Romany" to refer to people instead of a language, for one thing, there is no standard Romany. What is a "Romany Rye?" Just because the term is'nt being used in a way you deem proper doesnt make untrue.

Most American Indians call themselves Indians, Just because they dont use the exact term they are expected to use, does'nt mean they are less genuine,

Let me say this again, Chaplin was not Gypsy, He had Gypsy ancestry, Was he part of the culture? I don't know.


Sherlock Holmes

I just wonder very much if fictional Sherlock Holmes was a gypsy man. Was he? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.208.39 (talk • contribs)

Well, I've read most, if not all, of the Conan-Doyle stories, and don't remember a single reference to this ever. What could possibly lead you to such a conclusion? +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Rom in Israel???

or Roma in isreal???100110100 06:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There are some roma people of course, they're everywhere.--Noisettes 10:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)