Talk:Crimean Roma

name chanching

Unfortunately the name was changed from gypsy to romani. But that's where the problem lies. This group does not call themselves Roma or Romani. Rather, consider themselves Qırım çingeneleri (Crimean Gypsy). The term Gypsy is not always a swearword, it depends on the respective group. The Tatar language speakers in particular distance themselves from the Roma. Also in English these groups are called Tatar Gypsy. The term Romani has been an English phenomenon since the 1980s. It is wrong to make everyone who has been labeled as Gypsy to a Romani. Many are not romani but other once nomadic groups that may have indian origins. Many of the Crimean Gypsys roots come from Central Asia, so no European Roma. Tatarsko (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Article title

Looking at the history of this article, it seems like there has been some debate about the title of this article, but as far as I can tell, none of it has cited reliable sources.

I believe the question here is: what is the English-language name for this group? Other names can be included in the lead sentence, but this is how we should choose the article title. (See guidance on article titling here).

Of the four reliable sources currently listed in the article (not counting the dead links or the blog), three are English-language and the other has an English-language title/summary. One uses "Gypsy" and three use "Roma" in their titles.

@Tatarsko: & @CambridgeBayWeather: are there any more reliable sources that support the page's current name? Otherwise, we should reassess.

Thanks! Wracking ^💬 08:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wracking: When searching on Google Scholar for various names with direct results only, I get the following results:

• "Crimean gypsies" - 40
• "Crimean Roma" - 73
• "Crimean Romani" - 44
• "Crimean Tatar Roma" - 1
• "Crimean Tatar Romani" - 0
• "Crimean Tatar Gypsies" - 0

It seems that the name should be "Crimean Roma". --Glennznl (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wracking: The article seems to be a bit of a botched translation from the Russian page, we could use that page to fix this one up. --Glennznl (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Glennznl and @Wracking

Not every group that has the name gypsy in English are Romani people. Unfortunately, English speakers make the mistake. It doesn't get along with the real Romani groups.

For many Romani groups, the word gypsy is a slur. But some used it, and not every group referred to as gypsy are also ethnic Romani people. So it doesn't fit to describe groups as Romani who don't even profess to be Romani themselves. Tatarsko (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The word roma from gypsy is formed by you English speakers. I think they should be called like that in Crimean Tatar: Crimean çingene Tatarsko (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

oh if i had known that, i would not have written it in english wikipedia. It would have been better if the article had been left in the Crimean language, and other languages, because here everything is changed according to a pattern that I don't understand. Here the links to other languages are simply deleted. I don't understand. Also everything written about the Agrizhan is wrong. Oh it would have been better if I hadn't written anything. a post stamp showing ukrainian christian roma group is incorporated here, that is totally wrong. Tatarsko (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems for me this is Tatarophobia Tatarsko (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tatarsko: Please assume good faith and refrain from such accusations. Also please use sources to back up your claims, and do not make any more disruptive edits. --Glennznl (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Glennznl

That's the argument to us. I renounce.

I noticed.

Better not to write anything in english wikipedia as foreigners. Better for us. Tatarsko (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Since others have now taken this article about the Tatar Gypys, I found something here for you all: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355873685_Turcoman_Gypsies_in_the_Balkans_Just_a_Preferred_Identity_or_More, this article also says interesting something about gypys in crimea Just one question, to what extent are the Tatar Gypys related to the Ursari or Ruska Roma, and in what connection? Could you also possibly revise the article by the Agrizhan? I no longer write in English. Just wanted to give you this tip. Make something of it. By Tatarsko (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This is interesting too, with names of 4 different crimean gypys group; https://montescalearning.com/GLOBVillage/files/SMILE/MUS_49_Segmentation.pdf

Here about too with there group names: https://languagehat.com/tatars-and-non-tatars-in-the-crimea/ Tatarsko (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• According to article, now it is stated that Ayudzhi/Krymy are not a subgroup but umbrella term for all Crimean Roma, even though the Ayudzhi/Krimurja/Krymy are different subgroups of Crimean Romas. Devlet Geray (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Tayfa

The Taifa are a Crimean ethnic group of Turkish origin who speak the Turkish language. In the Crimean Khanate, the main concentration of this ethnic group was observed in Karasubazar; the Tatars considered them gypsies because of their darker skin color; in fact, this ethnic group actually has nothing to do with the gypsies. Dilaver Memetoğlu (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)