Talk:Romani people/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

The Roma Flag

Would anyone object if I uploaded an image of the Roma flag? If you;re not familiar with it, it is divided horizontally into Blue (representing the sky) and Green (representing the earth) sections, with a Red wagon wheel in the centre, straddling the two sections... Without becoming emotive about the flag, it has helped Romanies including myself to locate a sense of lacking collective, and appears on many publications produced by Roma organisations. I won't upload it until someone else at least voices an opinion, though. Also, this discussion page needs some archiving, which I might have a go at starting. KingshalmaneserTalk 11:54, 02 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean the Roma flag? I think it's already available. =) - TheMightyQuill 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah okay, if it has its own article it would be superfluous KingshalmaneserTalk 12:16, 03 March 2006 (UTC)

Roma in Latin America

It seems that there is a large number of roma in latin america, but references are missing. I've searched the internet for references, but most of the sites that could provide such ref do not have english versions. Could someone do some documentation?

You may have to search towns of different countries..some will say Gitanos or Moriscos settled in the area...sometimes you just trace surnames.

I don't know about Latin America as a whole but Roma people was forced out a year after the "discovery" of the Caribbean which many people from Puerto Rico & Cuba have Roma blood myself included. Some of my family look Egyptian or from Morocco while others look like the tv version of what a Rom looks like(dark Italian), I have notice people in other parts in different countries "passing" who are just mestizos. I don't know if the mean to pass or just don't know there is a huge difference between a Indo-European and a Semite in looks(hair..face,color). -Mari —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.153.29.65 (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Irish Travellers

Hey fuckers, I don't know where this fits so I'm just putting it here. I'm deleting the refrence that says most of the crime attributed to the Roma was actually committed by groups like the Irish Travellers. You can't liberate one historically persecuted group by riding blame on the back of another. Crime has been a small but significant part of any itinerant group history as long as they have been forced into the periphery of state economies. This issue should be addressed appropriatly -- you can't rescue the image of the Roma by drowning that of the Irish Traveller.

Yes certainly. Also, I am an English Romany but my experience of divisions between my own people and Irish Travellers is that the divisions are often nowhere near as hard and fast as certain academics would imply... So a second reason for sorting out the issue. Not sure about the swearing though.

Statistics

With reference to statistic (on crime and other things): an interesting paper [Roma and Statistics] PDF on the site of the Project for Ethnic Relations. Among other things, "The Roma have been especially sensitive about data collection of any kind since it was used against them by the Nazis during World War II. More recently, figures purporting to show Roma misbehavior have been used by some governments as a basis for declaring the Roma unfit for citizenship." "Some who had opposed collecting more data on Roma now agreed that an increase would be appropriate, provided that the Roma themselves were involved in collecting data at the local level." "The participant recalled an OSCE meeting in Vienna in 1996, at which a representative from Bulgaria presented statistics revealing that Roma committed 35% of all criminal offenses in that country. No data were presented, however, on crimes committed by other minorities. Similarly, in Romania statistics were collected only on Roma, not on the other 14 minorities that reside there. Roma are also included in other categories that are the subjects of data collection, such as immigrants, stateless persons, minors, and criminals. The participant stated that one cannot escape the conclusion that sometimes the government wants to prove that the Roma are “more criminal” than the rest of society."

It also contains arguments for and against collecting more data on the Roman, discusses the question of whether Roma are so classified by self-declaration or external observation, discusses the reliability and usefulness of census data about the Roma, and refers to other potentially interesting documents, such as one called Roma and the Law: Demythologizing the Gypsy Criminality Stereotype. There is quite a bit more of possible interest here. I only skimmed it, but I recommend that whoever is working seriously on this article might want to read it more closely. - Jmabel | Talk 20:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting document

Jirina Siklova and Marta Miklusakova, Law as an instrument of discrimination: Denying Citizenship to the Czech Roma East European Constitional Review, Volume 7, Number 2, Spring 1998. Besides the topic it overtly discusses (very interesting) it has some interesting comments on criminality in the Roma community: "The statistics on Roma criminality show that, although it is indeed high, the crime rate for this ethnic group is clearly influenced by the social circumstances of its members and has a different character from the criminality of the majority population. Misdemeanors, such as shoplifting, pickpocketing, and the like, prevail among Roma and, in addition, given the tradition of family solidarity, they often “justly share” their crimes. That is, it is quite common for a relative to confess to a crime because the real perpetrator has small children, has just gotten married, or is under threat of getting a stiff sentence because he is a habitual offender." - Jmabel | Talk 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Roma or Romani?

Obviously, this article needs a lot of improvement. I am a gadžo myself, but I am also very interested in the history, culture, etc. of the so-called "Gypsies." I think Professor Ian Hancock's book We Are the Romani People really would help out this page a lot. I have read a good deal of the book and am taking a course in Romani Studies (taught by Prof. Hancock).

To begin with, I propose that this page be redirected to "Romani." According to We Are the Romani People (and other assertions by Prof. Hancock outside the book), "Romani" is the politically correct term as all Romanies (so-called "Gypsies" in Europe) would call themselves "Romani." However, they would not call themselves "RRom (Rom)." They (often) believe that "RRom" refers to Romani groups from other areas. Thus, for example, a Romanichal (Anglo-Romani) would consider himself a Romani and say that the "RRom" are the Hungarian Romani refugees that moved to the UK more recently. (This phenomenon applies to all Romanies, not just Romanichals or British Romanies). --Kuaichik 23:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit to not having a particularly informed opinion on this, but it is my sense that different scholars have different takes on this. Kuaichik, do you know with any confidence that what you are proposing represents a scholarly consensus on this, or are you basically presenting one scholar's view? - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I will admit that my proposal does not represent a consensus (as far as I know). I am presenting only Hancock's view. I will see whether anyone else provides evidence backing this claim. However, I imagine it must be much more difficult to reach a consensus in a less-studied field like Romani Studies. --Kuaichik 02:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup. If nothing else, if we are basically following one person's view, we should be explicit about that in the text of the article. - Jmabel | Talk 22:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I am an English Romany and agree about this, but it would be much easier to insert a caveat about the terminology at the beginning of the article, as this page is not supposed (I imagine) to represent European Roma especially, but, being written in English, is more generic. KingShalmaneser | Talk 11:06, 02 March 2007 (UTC)

Roma in Turkey

I'd just like to point out the Wikipedia policy called verifiability. It states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Therefore, if reliable sources can be provided, then the claim can be in the article. I think that saying, "this number is inaccurate and my number is correct" is against the spirit of Wikipedia. We're all here to bulid an encyclopedia, and I think all views on a subject should be included. I propose that we give a range which provides both numbers to end this dispute. Any thoughts? —Khoikhoi 04:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I would however like to point out that the research about the Roma population is very sparse and only recently. Basically, there was no such research until 2003. For this I do not see any need of using a source from 2000, which even not is a research document, but an attempt from a radio station to give an overview of many countries. Obviously, any figures from Turkey will be estimates, as the Turkish Republic does not have census on ethnicities. But we should base the estimates on reliable and recent sources, if such a source claims the number is below 2 million we should obviously include it. Folks, don’t get surprised if in a year time or so will have reliable academic sources estimating the number to the double of the current 2 million. Bertilvidet 08:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

According to this article [1] from the Turkish daily Hürriyet the figure is between 2 and 5 million. Is this source also considered as anti-Turkish? Bertilvidet 08:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

To Jemten/Celikokte/Celik Korsan: please stop creating new accounts and join-in on the discussion here. —Khoikhoi 18:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Creating fictional books to boost minority populations is not allowed on wikipedia. It is funny to see how people devote their whole lives to undermine turkish things.

Bertilvidet says "Folks, don’t get surprised if in a year time or so will have reliable academic sources estimating the number to the double of the current 2 million." So we build a proper encylopedia article by speculation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celik Korsan (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 September 2006.

The books are not "fictional", they are real. Still, it's not undermining anyone. —Khoikhoi 18:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Prove it. I am sure it is doctored by Bertil in his eagerness to hate turks. His reputation and troubled history with turkish editors show it is very likely indeedCelik Korsan

You can download the booklet from Bilgi University at [2], please take your time to look at it, it gives a comprehensive and compact introduction to the situation of Gypsies in Turkey. Hope it will raise the level of this debate. Is Bilgi University also anti-Turkish? Bertilvidet 11:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You know Celik, it really wouldn't hurt to assume good faith once in a while. I can't look up the title of the book as I do not know Turkish, but for another source see this article by Hürriyet. It says the figure is between 2 and 5 million—are they anti-Turkish as well? —Khoikhoi 18:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[Allow me to interject briefly] My apologies to Celik Korsan, whose comments I inadvertently removed when changing the heading of this section. I wasn't aware of my screw-up and didn't intend to remove them. Sorry. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Disregarding the personal attackt I kindly ask to find a recent and academic source claiming the number of Romani in Turkey is below 2 million - not a 6 years old list from a Czech radio website. Bertilvidet 10:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If no such sources can be provided I will be bold and change the figure back to 2 million. I am aware that Hürriyet claims it is 2-5 millions - this might be correct, but I do not consider the article as a reliable academic source.Bertilvidet 21:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)\

---

I just stuck in a {{dispute}} tag after the population figures for Turkey in the infobox. I cannot tell whether the references given are accurate or believeable or not since they're in Turkish. Can someone check this? Or, better yet, find some references in English? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The first source, namely the booklet from Bilgi University at [3], is in English. Bertilvidet 10:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

According to this International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights report, offical records suggest there are 500,000 Roma people living throughout Turkey. It wouldn't surprise me then, that other sources would estimate higher (just look at our stats for the Czech Republic). Maybe we should put "500,000 to 5 million" and reference both sources. - TheMightyQuill 20:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, but where does the 5 million figure come from? +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The turkish reference given, and the ones above do seem to indicate something about a 2-5 million stat. I know that's weak though, since it's not in English and we can't see who came up with the estimate. All the sources I found specifically mentioned that there is very little information on Roma in Turkey because they aren't considered an official minority. - TheMightyQuill 20:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked the newspaper article in Hürriyet. The interesting information is actually near the end of the article under the heading "Türkiye'de Kaç Çingene Yaşıyor". A quick translation: "Adrian Marsh has come up with an estimate of Turkey's Romany population based on late Ottoman and early Republican census figures. Records from 1831 to 1935 indicate that the Romany population was about 1% of the total population. This was understood from questions on native language. If today's population is still 1% Romany then there are approximately 700,000 in Turkey. Ottoman censuses, however, did not count women and children. In Bulgaria and other Balkan countries, recent censuses have shown that only one third of the Romany population was correctly counted [in Ottoman censuses]. Therefore, we may estimate that the current Romany population in Turkey is 2,000,000." The 5,000,000 figure at the beginning is given as an example of the wide range of figures which have been proposed. Xemxi 11:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds worth mentioning the 2,000,000 estimate and using this as citation. If they are, themselves, vague about where the 5,000,000 estimate comes from, and don't really suggest a basis for it, I think we should not use that unless we get a better citation. - Jmabel | Talk 01:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Order

It seems funny to me that etymology is first on the page. Wouldn't it make more sense to put Population at the top, then history, then culture/society, and etymology somewhere below? -- TheMightyQuill 12:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Bertilvidet 21:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

done. --TheMightyQuill 16:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fictional representations of Roma

Once again, someone has added another non-notable example of a magical gypsy. Is this section really necessary or useful? Native Americans in the United States doesn't have a "fictional respresentations of indians" list, nor does African American culture. Perhaps we could just have the first paragraph and the link to Fictional representations of Roma, then let people go nuts? --TheMightyQuill 21:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, again. Fictional representations of Roma seems to be a perfect spawning ground. Bertilvidet 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --TheMightyQuill 16:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone should talk about Roma in Slovakia and Bulgaria since these two countries are the states that contain the highest precentiles of Roma populations.Jeorjika 16:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the main article nor the fictional representations article... but the author Piers Anthony (probably best known for the highly popular Xanth novels, among many others) featured Roma characters in several books of his "Incarnations of Immortality" series. The portrayal was highly positive, and was in fact the first time I ever heard of the term "Roma" or anything else about these peoples beyond the mostly negative stereotype images of travelling fortune tellers that steal. That said, I think I agree with The Mighty Quill's comments and will post this comment there as well. Murple 19:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Gypsy king"

The "gypsy king" is a popular part of folklore. Should there not be an article on it, or one with a more pc title? --MacRusgail 16:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Gypsy king is known as the "vajda" or "cigányvajda" in hungarian. Some historians think this is a genuine rank with proof from a year 1437 document, others say it is a 19th century invention of romantic novelists. Anyhow, the folk song "Esküszik a cigányvajda lánya" (The daughter of the gypsy king is getting married) is fairly well known in Hungary. 213.178.114.82 20:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. [corrected text: --Ling.Nut 23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)] Don't feel slighted if the article is actually far more than a stub -- at least in the beginning, all unassessed articles are being automatically assigned to these values.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 20:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That picture

DoubleSpacing 21:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)That picture you use had a lot of argument on the talk page this year. I saw it many months ago. Now it is gone. Is this something you want us to not see?

I can't find 'verifiability' of this picture. That means it is not for Wikipedia. Why does it always come back? Keep putting it back and it is vandalism. Why not put no picture there if no picture is 'verifiable'?

This discussion is absurd. Unless someone goes to Greece themselves and asks the girls pictured what their ethnicity is, we can only ever have the photographer's description on the fact of whether or not they are Roma. And, assuming good faith, I think we should believe them. --Krsont 23:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This argument (by "DoubleSpacing", who I suspect is our friend the "Wroclaw troll" returned to us) is beating a dead horse. Discussed and dismissed long ago. Check the archives if you're interested. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Religion

The article states "Most Roma in Latin America are Orthodox". Is this right? I would have assumed they were Catholic. 47.251.0.13 10:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, the existence of Roma in Latin America is completely uncited. Can anyone actually verify there actually are Roma in Latin America at all? -- TheMightyQuill 00:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There certainly are Roma in Latin America, but I would presume that they are mostly Roman Catholic. - Jmabel | Talk 04:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Does "evangelical" in the article actually refer to what many English native speakers would understand as evangelical, or is it actually just "protestant"? In other languages "Evangelical" translates to "protestant"; whereas to me, when I hear "evangelical" in English, I immediately think of born-again American religious nutters. I have no idea myself, but somehow the image of a fire-and-brimstone style over the top preacher nutter strikes me as much less likely than simply "protestant". At the very least the term is highly ambiguous, whereas "protestant" isn't. Steevm 02:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Pikeys" referred to as Gypsies in the 2000 Guy Ritchie film "Snatch"

I'm curious if anyone knows if the Pikey Gypsies (referred to as Irish Gypsies in the film) in the movie "Snatch" are a figment of the filmmaker's imagination or based loosely on the Irish Traveller Gypsies in the United Kingdom.

--71.146.101.150 21:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a discussion for the Talk page of a whole 'nother article. Irish Travellers, while similar to Roma in lifestyle, have separate origins and the two peoples are not related. The term "gypsy" in English unfortunately conflates all travelling peoples in common usage. CRCulver 21:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Clans

We have one mention here of the Kalderash, but we don't seem to have an article on Roma clans at all, and the article clan does not even mention the Roma or Sinti. - Jmabel | Talk 05:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Tzigane" redirects here; for the composition by Maurice Ravel, see Tzigane (Ravel).

Shouldn't Tzigane redirect to Gypsy? -- TheMightyQuill 07:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a terrible article

Of all the articles on wikipedia, the least sourced, most outrageous articles this has to be it!

I will help as much as I can but im tied with other articles at the moment.

Lets focus our energies into making this FA.S Seagal 19:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of appreciation for those of us who have been working on it for a long time now. I look forward to you actually making a contribution to the article and helping us make it FA. -- TheMightyQuill 01:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is pretty good, a bit long though.

I think the article is exceptional. Granted, there are still some "rough edges" to be smoothed, but all told, it's informative, cites good references, and seems to be rather well-written(/edited). Cypherjitsu November 26, 2006

Roma in Kurdish

The etymology section states that in kurdish the Roms are called Qereçí or Dom. This is however wrong as its the Doms thats are called Dom. Also Qereçí is actually a turkish word derived from the turkish Kara/Kere or Qere meaning black or dark, this reffers to the dark complection of the Roma. The actual kurdish word for the Roma is "Rom", this word is also, often in calssical kurdish litterature, reffering to the Turks.

I confirm the accuracy of the above comment. Bertilvidet 18:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion; Anti-Romanyism

It occurred to me that there seems to be no page specifically designated for the description of anti-roma persecution and discrimination. There are pages for Anti-Semitism, Anti-Polonism, Anti-Armenism; virtually all ethnic groups that have suffered from long-term discrimination and genocide have a page assigned to the description of its opposition. Why the same is not the case for the Roma I do not know. In any case, I think the level of persecution the Roma have endured, in it's varied forms, which in many places continues to this day, should have a separate page. Comments?—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Myotis (talk • contribs) 23:20, 19 November 2006

Antiziganism exists, though it is definitely in need of expansion. Be bold. -- TheMightyQuill 23:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

To a great extent persecution is bound up with the history though and the fact that they are considered foreigners most places they go, it might be a good idea to have a History seperately and have this article describing the general ethnicity including ethnic sub-groups, it seems odd to have a negative history and a positive history which surely is what you might otherwise end up with.--Lord of the Isles 14:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing why the term "antiromanism" does not exist is becouse nobody is actually calling Roma people by that name. Well there is a modern trend trying to rename them, but they were not known by that name at all times. A quotation from the Antiziganism article: 'The root "zigan-" is the basis of the word for Roma people in many European languages, most of them similar to the Hungarian cigány (pronounced IPA /ˈʦiɡaːɲ/).' Hence the term antiziganism. Practically I don't even understand why there aint a redirection from cigan/zigan to roma people. --Neikius 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Easy answer, because this is English wikipeda, and no English words for Roma include the root zigan or cigan. Of course, if you would like to include redirects, please direct them at Gypsy not Roma as cigan could refer to a lot of things. Also, since Roma was the word they used to describe themselves in their own language, I'm pretty sure it was in use long before cigány or its related terms. - TheMightyQuill 19:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have made some major contributions to the Antiziganism article, at least compared to single-paragraph when I started. Categorized it as a discrimination-related article and sectionalized it. Feel free to add anything.The Myotis 20:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of greek word athiganos

According to hungarian wikipedia, the name cigány is drived from the greek word athiganos, which means "outcasted" (or similar). This article lcaims the words tzigane, zincali, gitani, cigány, etc., are derived from the Greek ατσίγγανοι (atsinganoi). Is that the same word ? If yes, its meaning should be explained. If no, weel again its meaning should be explained.

--85.10.26.224 22:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The correct word is actually ατσίγγανος (atsinganos) in the singular. It means "'outcasted' (or similar)," as you have (or the Hungarian Wikipedia has) said. Prof. Ian Hancock sometimes translates it as "something like the Don't-Touch People." --Kuaichik 07:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Newbie: Found Vandalism; don't know how to fix it.

The "Population" section has been vandalized. I tried to edit it, but the vandalism doesn't show up in the "edit" window. That's some computer-head stuff I don't know how to fix; maybe one of you knows what to do? I'm computer-illiterate. Here's what the first paragraph of the "Population" section looks like:

Worldwide, there are an estimated 8 to 10 million Roma. The largest poplation of Gypsys are in Romania. All Romanians are gypsys and steal socks. All Canadians are urged to lock their sock drawer especially Kurosh and Ian Meneguzzi. is found on the Balkan peninsula; however, significant numbers also live in the Americas, the former Soviet Union, Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's not right.

Children Underground

Most of the children are Roma —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.187.154.33 (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Too Long Status

Is the article really too long? It's nowhere near as long as other articles devoted to minority ethnic groups. Could it be that someone wishes the Roma would simply "go away" and that by reducing or restricting their presence on Wikipedia might eradicate them from memory? The article is not perfect - far from it - but it seems to be the target of an awful lot of ignorance and abuse.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cravenmonket (talk • contribs) 16:38, 12 December 2006

OK w/me (and I suspect many other editors) if you remove that tag. I don't think it's warranted. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically, articles are ideally supposed to be around 32k, and this article is over that, so whoever put it there has a right. I think 43k (or whatever the current size is) isn't all that long, so it doesn't need to be trimmed, and we have a right to ignore the tag. =) If some of the sections get longer, however, it might be a good idea to turn them into their own articles. I'm not sure there's anything here at the moment that warrants its own article yet. I agree, however, that the article is subject to a lot of ignorance and abuse. On the other hand, for me that's more motivation to work on the article. -- TheMightyQuill 04:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing the tag, though I wouldn't mind if something could be factored out cleanly to another article. The 32K figure is no big deal, and most featured articles actually exceed it; also, that number is not supposed to count things like infoboxes, reference apparatus, etc. - Jmabel | Talk 01:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Roma and crime

The complete lack of balance here worries me. I'm unsure how to insert referrences, but here's atleast one counterpoint, from another 'UN study' (UN human rights / committee on the elimination of racial discrimination ) "34. [...] Roma representation in crime statistics was low rather than high [...] perception rather than reality [...] Roma were generally more noticeable" (heavy snipping as I'm unsure how fair, fair use is. 34 is an index in original document) http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/49bf03904fbdc3bf802567cc0049cad6?OpenDocument

I'm not sure it warrants a knee-jerk edit .. I'm reading through other UN reports (including the one referrenced in article) trying to best sumarise. comments? Shaun 13:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just add whatever is properly sourced. Both views should be documented. Haiduc 14:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What the hell happened to the picture?

The one at the top of the article is the one I mean. Looks like someone deleted it; anyone know what happened? +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems it was finally traced back to the collection of a professional photographer, and the image was deleted as copyvio[4]. However, the picture was, in his collection, labeled clearly as Roma girls, hence there was not a verifiability problem - only copyvio. Mind you, I use "copyvio" in the wiki sense - its not completely sure that the original uploader did not have permission (or even that it wasnt the photographer himself) but in this case, there's no pulling it back up without permission. Im sad to see it go - its such a great shot. István 13:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So is there no trace of it left in the Wiki-logs, or the Wiki-archives, or elsewhere, so that the original uploader might be contacted? I'm not familiar enough with all that arcana to know. I suspect that this has something to do with the "Wroclaw troll", but I can't prove it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your suspicions. It was deleted here[5] from the commons by user:Cnyborg (who does NOT appear to be the troll) due to its being posted here[6] as a pro shot, copyrighted by photographer Vasilis Artikos who, btw, states that these girls are ROMA. There is, of course, an outside chance that Mr. Artikos was the one who posted the image, in which case he may be willing to release copyright, but a pro photographer is almost always loathe to do this. István 23:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, we gotta do better than that Polish picture....István 23:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I slapped a montage together. Improvement? Wachholder0 00:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, certainly an improvement. But its a tough act to follow. The three girls pic was a beauty. Your montage has value in that it is useful display of some notable Roma. If we cant be beautiful then why not be informative. (I'd take the girls back though...anyone know that photographer?) István 03:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of the Polish(?) woman may I suggest this woman instead? István 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, now the montage is gone too...K. Lásztocska 23:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

ROMA IN THE U.S.A.

I noticed the paucity of information on the Roma in the USA. Here are some links that may give you needed information: [7] [8] [9] [10]. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations

This table is hard to read because not all the countries, figures, and references line up. I don't know how to edit this part, but may be an idea to line things up? Tzittnan 21:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

PC advocates may not delete actual entire sources

Over the last two years I have silently watched as material on scams gets deleted from the article. There seems to be a PC guilt about about crime in Roma/Gypsy communities. The logic seems to be "Since the Roma were persecuted by the Nazis, then we must assume the Roma are exactly the same as everyone else in every sociological detail. Therefore crime cannot be higher, and therefore anyone reporting such statisitics is a liar or a racist."

The problem is that all ethnic groups are not identicial in their history, beliefs and sociology. For instance, organized crime is much higher in Sicilian and Italian-American society than it is in Norway, and Norwegian-American society. Open discussion about this does not imply that all (or most) members of said groups are criminals.

Some of the Roma people have a documented history of crime, even in the United States of America. Let's not be Marxist and demand that since everyone should be the same, thus everyone is the same. Police departments across the USA, even in the last 30 years, do seem to believe that the occurance of crime among the Roma people is a serious, long term problem, at a rate higher than that of crime in many other groups. This phenomenon cannot be studied, let alone remedied, if we deny that it exists.

The following is a comment made by someone a their "justification" for removing facts from this article.

remove idiocy.. Gypsy scams are no different from other scams. This is like putting up information on how to avoid getting mugged by black people. racist garbage

Attacks as a "racist" won't change the reports of police, and it will not help the many victims of scams. If you cannot discuss the facts on a purely logical basis then your edits may need to be reverted. Please familiarize yourself with our No personal attacks policy. Mark3 20:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wandered by and saw this: Not that I disagree with restoring the material at first glance, but labeling POVs you disagree with as "Marxist" or "PC" is pretty much the same thing as labeling POVs you dislike as "racist" without supporting evidence. (Not to mention that what you describe has little to do with Marxist viewpoints on history and society.)--Media anthro 21:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the edit summary in question as labelling as racist the deleted material, not a person. Such ad-hominem would still not count as logical argument for inclusion of material predjudiced against people who are part of a certain group by circumstance of birth and not choice or action. Unless you accept that the majority of Roma are criminals, then one may not make statements in an encyclopedia such as "roma are taught they have a right to steal" (taken from one reference) unless it is shown that at least 50.1% of Roma teach their kids this way. There is no sweeping the real problem of crime in the Roma community under the rug, no denying that a problem exists, but such a hamfisted treatment of the topic, without proper perspective, is both misleading and, yes, fits exactly the dictionary definition of "racist", whether intentional or not. I will not revert your last group of 7 edits but will support anyone who does. István 21:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, my criticisms were against the source, not you Mark3. I'm sorry if it appeared that way. I'm quite aware that Roma are often responsible for a higher rate of crime, per capita, than the surrounding population. The article has that information already, and I don't dispute it. The sources you cited, however, are weak at best.

• The fraudtech site is someone's personal business site, and is not associated with the Milwaukee Police Department as your writing suggests. It suggests that Roma con artists are inherently different that other con artists, or that "Gypsy scams" are somehow different than other scams. As I mentioned in my edit summary, it would be similar to giving advice on how to avoid getting mugged by a black person, or murdered by an italian. Black muggers rob people in the same way white muggers do. Their reasons may be different, but the mugging is the same. The same goes for con artists. Furthermore, it features ridiculous generalizations about a huge population of people: "Gypsies never fall in love with poor people." How many Roma has Dennis M. Marlock actually met to make such a statement? It's ridiculous. István mentions another one above.

• The phact.org site is NOT a transcript of a speech by an officer, but some person's review of it, not professionally published, but posted to a public forum. See WP:V for more information on legitimate sources.

Again, I'm sorry if you took the criticism personally, it was directed at the poor efforts of the Marlock and similar writers who make these kind of unsubstantiated accusations against an enormous community, whether Roma or some other group. - TheMightyQuill 22:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Several users are now blanking the entire "Rom and crime" section. While I agree that much of the new material should have been removed, I do not believe that the consensus was to remove the entire section. I have thus been reverting this removal as vandalism. I would encourage anyone who has problems with the current section (and problems there are) to discuss it here. Thanks, Wachholder0 14:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That section, in my opinion, lacks a good deal of important details. I would like to include some information based on what Prof. Ian Hancock says about Roma and crime (he discusses it in much more detail) and attribute it to him. I probably can't do that now, but I'll try to do it sometime. --Kuaichik 17:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Wachholder0 and Kuaichik. I removed this sentence:

Rom rights advocates generally attribute these suspicions to racism.

because (a) it's not just "Rom rights advocates": a great many ordinary people would attribute the suspicions described in this paragraph to unjustified prejudice. (b) "racism" may often be true, but is (in my opinion) too specific and too confrontational.

If someone wants to put the sentence back in, we might make it more judicious and perhaps consider footnoting it? Andrew Dalby 18:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely support leaving this section in. It's an issue that must be dealt with. I do think, however, that it should be improved, especially if the references don't back up what is said. - TheMightyQuill 19:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

All right everybody, someone deleted that section. I reverted it, only to see it deleted again with an explanation but without a comment on the talk page. I'm not sure what to do; I don't want to engage in revert war, and besides, I think the user who deleted it the second time (sort of) has a point.

I have started making my own version of that section on my soapbox. If you wish, you can see what is currently there and (if it is appropriate) perhaps paste it into this article. --Kuaichik 02:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We have some hysterical people deleting entire sections of this article, deliebrately violating Wikipedia standards of practice. This is now officially vandalism, and needs to be reported as such. What makes this vandalism so offensive is that the points of view are sourced, and the text in the article is very carefully phrased so as not to paint every Gypsy as a criminal. Plainly, some people see any sourced and referenced discussion as racist, and respond with gross violations of our rules. The vandalized material must thus be restored. Treat this article like all the other Wiki articles. If you have opposing points of view, bring them forth with sources. Don't just accuse every police officier cited of being a liar and a racist. That itself is wrong. Mark3 13:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, its nice to see this page liven up a bit again (and this time not over a bloody photo). I strongly agree with User:Wachholder0, and User:Kuaichik's suggestions to build this section upon referenced material written to avoid character assassination of the 10+ millions of ethnic Roma as a group, and to include Ian Hancocks perspective. "Roma crime" is perhaps today what "Irish intemperance" was in the US and Britain 100 years ago - not imaginary by any stretch, but to a large extent the product of the majority's treatment of what is perhaps the target group of Europe's last acceptable racial predjudice. This section must be written to a very high standard indeed. If it can be done at all, it will be among the most difficult tasks on the Wikipedia. Its a challenge.

Mark3, I sympathise with your desire to see the section reflect reality and not be sanitised away, but please take some perspective. A careful reading of the above reveals that the only ad hominem in this section has been posted by you ("PC advocates, vandals, hysterical people") whilst you defend yourself against non-existent attacks of "racist" (nobody referred to you as such). Please sit down and have a nice cup of tea before hitting the "save" button; we've plenty of time to get it right before the publication deadline.

Also, the point you raise about organised crime and the sicilian community is quite insightful for a different reason - of the 20 Millions of Italians (mostly southern Italians) who emigrated to the US, no more than 5,000 (FBI est) had ever been involved in organised crime, yet the public still lazily tags Italians with a tarnished "mafia" image, whilst ignoring the 19,995,000 law-abiding Italian immigrant citizens. As Wikipedia is full of 3-digit IQ's, we should probably try to do better. István 15:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's keep it objective and in sound sociological language please, for which Hancock, Thomas Acton et alii (pauci) are fine sources. It would be judicious also to represent the concerns that many Gypsies share (in the United Kingdom especially) that targeted legislation does not aid (understatement) them in living peaceful lives; much crime in the Romany community results from a bucking against arguably racist statutes with which we might empathise, though we need not condone it. Kingshalmaneser 11:28, 02 March 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Gypsies

Maybe it's just me, but I seem to believe that most gypsies throughout Europe are in fact Romanian, or have some Romanian blood in them. Having lived in Romania and travelled throughout Europe, I've come across gypsies who are Romanian (or at least they spoke Romanian) in Italy, Spain, and France. I feel as though this article makes little mention to the strong ties between gypsies and Romania. Also while living in Bucharest I worked at a school with a number of gypsy children (or at least they referred to themselves as "ṭigan") and even had the pleasure of a meeting a Roma activist who worked there, but I discovered that none of the children smoke Romany (although they did know some words and enjoyed the idea of learning more gypsy words and gypsy slang, some could even count to ten) and even the Roma activist who prides himself as being a Roma did not even speak Romany fluently. Maybe someone could enlighten me or explain this to me, because from what I see in this article it seems to depict the Roma people as being very pure (descendants of India). The list of groups of gypsies that have adapted to other countries that are listed seems to be missing the biggest groups of all), those living in Romania (however the Kalderash coppersmiths are mentioned). (Tlsmith124 03:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Please allow me to explain. Romanies are not Romanian and do not necessarily have any Romanian blood in them. In any case, Romanian blood does not explain anything you have mentioned. The Romanies (please do not call them "gypsies") first split into different groups on reaching Romania, according to Prof. Ian Hancock. Thus, most or all dialects of Romani include some Romanian words.

Many Romanies migrate to other European countries from Romania, usually as refugees. Many Romanies do not speak Romani, just like many Catalanonians might not speak Catalan or many Basques might not speak Basque. Especially in Romania, the Vlax Roma were forced not to speak their language during slavery, and there are many communities of Roma in Romania that do not speak Romani as a result.

Just because the Romani people come from India, that doesn't mean they are "very pure." Obviously, no ethnic group can be "pure" after 1000 years of interaction with other ethnicities. Many Roma have been raped, exploited as prostitutes...or generally banished from their communities for sexual relations (in some form) with the gadže (non-Romanies). --Kuaichik 07:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems to me then that the gypsies (I call them this only because it is a direct translation from the word ṭigan the name by which these "Roma" Romanians call themselves) living in Romania are not as close as I would think to the Roma living in Catalan or in former Yugoslavian countries such as Serbia and Croatia. Also I still don't understand why this article neglects to mention the Roma living in Romania, because in my mind Romania houses the most Roma in all of Europe and yet there is more mention to those in Catalan or the Czech Republic for example. By not mentioning the substantually large amounts of Roma living in Romania it gives me (and possibly others) the impression that they are not the same Roma, along with the fact that I have met many Romanian gypsies and they hardly seem to be very close with their ethnic roots and those that are seem to be the so-called "hierarchy" of Roma (living in Romania), the famous musicians and orchestra memebers.

By no means am I trying to say that the Roma culture throughout Europe is a sham. Please do not think that I am personally attacking anyone at all or trying to downplay one's culture, but at the same time in the back of my mind it seems as though the Roma culture is not as important to many "gypsies" living Romania than those of the smaller population living throughout Europe and that there could be in fact another seperate culture of "gypsies" living in Romania who have become more or less the "peasant" population of Romania. For all I know these so-called ṭigani are nothing more than peasants with maybe some ancient roots with the Roma people who have found it in a sense "cool" (it has become a sort of trend in Romania to like things that are "ṭigǎnesc", the adjective form of gypsy, such as manele or using Romany words like miṣto meaning good/cool) to say you have "ṭigǎnesc" roots or that you are in fact a "ṭigan". (Tlsmith124 17:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

If that's really so, Tlsmith124, it would be an astonishing and welcome change! There has (certainly until my last visit there) been massive prejudice in Romania against people identified as "gypsies", which is why many migrants of Romanian origin have been reluctant to identify themselves as such -- they remember the reaction all too well. Yes, their music was appreciated ... but very little else.

They had not become "the "peasant" population of Romania". Outsiders might confuse Romanians and "gypsies", but would have been corrected by Romanians, immediately and firmly, for making such a mistake.

Has it really changed that much? Andrew Dalby 18:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, you're correct to say that Romanians are quite defensive on the matter. My step-father for one is always quick to correct people when someone states that all gypsies are Romanian. There is some change in trend amongst younger people, especially those with friends with Roma descent or with actual family members of Roma descent, thinking it's cool. On the other hand you will find just as many people are prejudice against gypsies and there is a sterotype that a lot of domestic violence is at the fault of someone who is a gypsy or part gypsy. I lived across a lake from a group of people who my step-father (a Romanian himself) always referred to as gypsies, but as I mentioned before, to me they just seemed like less-fortunate poorer people who liked to play loud manele and drink (much as the rest of the population of poorer people) and there seemed to be no specific evidence they were ethnically gypsies seeing as how my step-father never directly asked them.

Kuaichik, in regards to referring to Roma people as gypsies or ţigani, I unfortunately most disagree with you completely and Professor Ian Hancock for that matter. Roma is very new-aged term that many gypsies in Romania do not even recognize. Until a concensus is made up by the actual "Roma" I would prefer to not have to call them this and I disagree with your comparison of that with the word "nigger" as well, seeing as how in Romanian there is only one word for gypsies and the ones I have met do not seem to find it offensive at all. To my knowledge the word ţigan comes from a Greek word meaning Egyptians (slave in Romanian is sclav). Rather than get into a whole argument about it seeing as how neither of us is very reluctant to change, I'd prefer that you just respect the words I use, and know that I am not using them for the sole purpose of offense or out of spite. To be honest my whole overview on the Roma people and gypsies and who's really who is quite murky seeing as how from what I've read in this article the Roma you speak of do not seem at all like the gypsies I speak of or have seen. I guess in the end it seems like non-Roma people are more for bettering the image of Roma/gypsies than the actual people themselves. It seems as though we've insisted that there is more of a problem with discremination than there really is. The place where I worked with the gypsy children also had this similiar problem, some of the non-gypsies there had this idea that more people needed to be informed of the discremination rather than the actual gypsies did. The children had tough lives and there was much abuse and neglect but it was all self-inflicted by the actual families and not by descrimination. A major problem was that the parents did not think school was something their children needed, much like other gypsy communities throughout Romania who send their kids out on the streets to beg with puppies and kittens, steal, sell picked flowers, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tlsmith124 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

The word Roma was adopted by Roma at the first World Romani Congress in 1971. Perhaps this should be in the etymology section. When comparing with blacks in the united states, the term "cigany" is less like "nigger" and more like "negro" or "colored" before the civil rights movement, where it was used almost universally, but discrimination was nearly universal too. In my experience, anyhow. - TheMightyQuill 21:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

1. "Gyspy," "ţigan," etc. are rather offensive words compared to "Roma" or "Romani." Nevertheless, Romanies do sometimes refer to themselves using these words, but it's an "in-group" thing, just like the word "nigger." Afro-Americans sometimes refer to themselves as "niggers," but it's very offensive for someone else to use that word to refer to Afro-Americans. Same thing with "gypsy," "ţigan," etc. "Ţigan" is especially offensive, as it specifically means "slave." So, please, listen to Prof. Hancock and to me and do not call them "gypsies" or "ţigani."

2. Roma are NOT Romanians! They are their own ethnicity, so please do not call them "'Roma' Romanians," either!

3. Indeed, Vlax Romani, the dialect of Romani spoken in much of Romania (esp. Wallachia), is the most widely spoken dialect of Romani. However, not all Romani-speakers speak Vlax or the Romanian language, not even in the former Yugoslav republics.

4. This article lacks a lot of things. You are not alone in thinking that Romania has the highest population of Romanies in Europe. Please try to be patient while I (and perhaps some others) try to clarify, elaborate, etc. what is said in this article.

5. I never said anything about "the Roma culture throughout Europe." I am not accusing you of anything, really. I'm sorry if my comments made you feel that way. As a researcher who is currently very much involved in Romani Studies, I am only trying to help you understand what you want to understand about Romani life.

6. No, the Roma ("so-called ţigani") are, in fact, Roma. They are not just Romanian peasants. Again, many Romanies were forced to abandon their language during slavery, and therefore, their descendants today do not speak Romani. The Boyash, for example, are descendants of Romani slaves who were forbidden to speak Romani. --Kuaichik 18:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, Tlsmith124, if you insist, you can say "gypsy", I'll say "Romani," and we won't get into an argument over it. I'm really sorry about all this; you're a newcomer, and I should've known better. Sure, I'm kind of new myself, but you're newer and deserve more respect. Anyway, I'll admit it: I've never had the opportunity of actually meeting a Romani person knowingly (except Prof. Hancock of course!).

I guess I'm just really sensitive about the whole "gypsy vs. Roma" issue. But is there some way that I can help you, with regards to your doubts about Romanies? --Kuaichik 23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand from your Wiki page that you are very busy Kuaichik, but I am an English Romany involved in Traveller education and Art with, among others, Thomas A. Acton and was wondering whether you might be able to provide a contact email, in confidence, for Ian Hancock and yourself if it is not too much too ask. I can be contacted via yeshuah@gmail.com and won't be offended if you do not reply. I just think solidarity and colective thinking within the emergent Roma academic movement is at a premium and would wish to help develop it. Kingshalmaneser 11:36, 02 March 2007 (UTC)

Gypsy vs. Roma, again.

Folks, I don't wish to offend the people who have worked on this page, but I just wanted to make a few points. First of all, "gypsy" is the traditional English word for this ethnic group. "Roma" appeared comparatively recently, and for all the arguments given here, it seems a bit odd to discard a word that has a long history to it, especially since is not understood, at least in the contemporary US, to have the same quality to it as "nigger" when adressed tow an African-American. In Russian, for example "tsigan" (or "tzigan") is the only word for "gypsy."

Secondly, it seems that there are a lot of reference to Dr. Hancock here. Regardless of the merits of this particular scholar, it's problematic to have one man and source be wellspring for so much info here.

Thanks for your comments, which certainly seem good intentioned. As I said above, When comparing with blacks in the united states, the term "cigany" is less like "nigger" and more like "negro" or "colored" before the civil rights movement, where it was used almost universally, but discrimination was nearly universal too. Either way, that doesn't make gypsy a good term to use. Just as "negro" or "nigger" have a lot of connotations that aren't accurate, the word "gypsy" suggests all kinds of things from psychics to nomads to much worse thing, neither of which are accurate for most of today's Roma. "Gypsy" is a caricature, Roma is an ethnicity. The word "tsigan" (or something in Cyrillic perhaps?) may be the only Russian word for "gypsy," but "Roma" works there too. For example, look at the Bulgarian and Serbian wikipedia articles: Роми. That's Roma.

As for the over-use of Dr. Hancock, you're 100% correct, but unfortunately, there really area incredibly few English speaking scholars of Roma studies. If you'd care to suggest some other good and available books, I'm sure they could be used. - TheMightyQuill 05:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure how many good and available books there are in languages other than English. I can't yet say I know of any. There are other English-speaking scholars who are involved in Romani Studies, but unfortunately, I'm not yet familiar enough with anyone's works to tell just how reliable they are. There is another scholar named Angus Fraser, and I think Masica may also involved in Romani Studies...and isn't Matras another English-speaking scholar?

"Roma" (or Rrom, Rromano, etc.) has a short history in English and other official European languages, but (seemingly) a longer history in Romani itself. My source? *Gulp* Hancock again!! :-P (There probably are other sources for this claim but I'm not sure what they are.) --Kuaichik 07:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

While "ţigan" may be used offensively in Romania, it is my belief that the word "gypsy" has no derogatory meaning. It is a known fact that it is used event in fairs, such as "a fortune-telling gypsy" or "gypsy card-reader" - and sometimes they are not even real gypsies, but only pretend through a fake accent.

I'll agree that most English speaking people don't know it can be offensive, and use it frequently without any malicious intention, but many of those people know nothing of Roma, and may well consider "gypsy" more of a lifestyle, a profession, or something other than an ethnicity. It's still quite common for people to dress up as a gypsy for halloween too, without any malicious intention. Does that make it unoffensive? Certainly, someone dressing up as a Jew or an African American, using all sorts of ridiculous inaccurate stereotypes but without malicious intention would be offensive to a lot of people. - TheMightyQuill 02:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am an English Romany, and although my opinion has no sacred quality, it represents some of my peers. I have no problem at all with being referred to as a Gypsy and regard it as the truth; in Britain, the 'in-word' of the Romany community as well as the Irish Traveller community is not Gypsy but usually "Traveller", whether those in question are settled Romanies or not.Less common among younger generations is 'Needi', although this remains widely used. Go to Appleby Fair and you'll seldom hear Gypsies referring to themselves as such, if you hear them discuss the issue at all. However, as soon as the leap is made to the profligate shortenings of Gypsy (always with two 'y's, by the way) such as "Gyppo", or the near equivalent "Pikey" (still offensive to Gypsies, whether others think it refers to working class youth or not), then offense is almost guaranteed to be taken. I am, however, a little bemused by the quantity of discussion given on this page to the word "Gypsy". I doubt anyone on the Romany Council of Great Britain would think to devote so much time to it. Kingshalmaneser 11:43, 02 March 2007 (UTC)

Question Re: Etymology of "Gypsy" - I've heard/been taught/read that "gypsy" is used in English because when the "Roma" first entered English speaking lands they, themselves said, "We are from Egypt, we are Egyptians..." They gave themselves that name, according to history/legend... Political correctness in shying away from that name, much-less in some manner "blameing" English speakers for using it seems an exercise in bad faith. There is the nice legend of the "gypsies" being driven out of Egypt because they sheltered the Christ Child, sure... It should be included for it's part of the folklore. But only to select the "nice" bits of folklore and history is to do everyone a disservice. I've looked on the web and found indications that others know of and even subscribe to the history of the etymology to which I refer. Some of them are even Rom... e.g. "But the word 'gypsy' comes from the word 'Egypt', because when the Roma came to English-speaking countries, they were saying 'we are from Egypt, we're Egyptians' and the word 'gypsy' came from that. So first of all it's not accurate and not reflecting the history, as such, and second it was given to us from the outside."[11]. Is this legend true? It seems innocuous and non-derogatory. If it is historically accurate, it needs to be in the main article. Emyth 15:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bohémien meant "gypsy"? Of course!

I have removed the "citation needed" tag. It's a rather well-known fact that "bohémien" is another French word for "gypsy." This was due to the fact that many Romanies did, in fact, migrate into France from Bohemia.

If you don't believe me, just search for "bohémien" on Google; you'll find it on WordReference.com. Also, I have a slightly old French book (used in the late 1990's) where "bohémien(ne)" is listed to mean "gypsy." The textbook includes that word in the following (negative and stereotypical) sentence describing a French girl's Mardi Gras costume: "Juliette est très jolie en bohémienne. Elle fait du charme aux garçons." (Juliette is very pretty as a gypsy. She charms boys.).

In my opinion, this fact is too well known to deserve one particular reference. There are many many more claims in this article that are less well-known than this. --Kuaichik 07:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I was skeptical too, but sure enough... google "bohémien tsigane" and most entries list them as synonymous. Here's another link if you understand french. [12] Learn something new everyday... TheMightyQuill 07:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's culturally significant, as the origin of other, later meanings of the word "Bohémien" in French and "Bohemian" in English, with lifestyle implications of being imaginative, free from convention, not hidebound, etc. Andrew Dalby 12:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is a citation, obvious or not, it should be there. Apparently it's easy to find so there's no problem. But regardless if something needs clarification by one (the original person) there's a liklihood others may need to as well. Furthermore, as an ncyclopedia it is integral to have citations instead of requiring searches elsewhere. Lihaas (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfair deletion

I would like to register my disagreement with the wholesale deletion of the section proposed by Mark3. For all its imperfections, which would be best addressed on a case by case basis, it is a good beginning in the process of addressing allegations, substantiations and refutations of Roma criminality. Haiduc 23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the section should stay and be built out correctly, but the unsubstantiated stuff should be taken out. István 03:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for deleting it wholesale. I only did it because that seemed to restore the steadiest state in what has been a very unstable period for this article. I quite agree the topic of "Roma and crime" has to be raised: the trouble is that whenever it has been raised recently, it has attracted a lot of insidious POV via respectable-looking links. Andrew Dalby 10:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the recent change to "Stereotype: Roma and Crime" is NPOV, even though I happen to side with its POV. The stereotype is not fair, but it is based in reality. Roma and crime is undoubtedly a real issue being addressed by people on both sides of the spectrum. - TheMightyQuill 21:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

United States & Israel populations

The article mentions Roma populations in the US and Israel but no number is given and the information is omitted from the population table we have at the top-right of the page. Anyone have the information for these demographics? Valley2city 05:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with getting population statistics at least in the US is that government surveys have very broad categories that you must place yourself in. And, even if or when an option is given to state your own ethnicity, the Roma will often put their country of origin and not mention their Roma heritage at all. Suffice it to say, accurate population demographics for the Roma in the US are very hard to come by.65.100.48.231 19:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Roma and crime part

It seems indeed disgraceful to have a section called "Roma and Crime". One could, fortunately, not imagine Wikipedia having an article on "Black people and crime" or any other ethnic group. Unfortunately this article thus seems to confirm the assumption that Roma people constitute an group towards who discrimination and racism still is acceptable. What we should work on is sections on prejudices against Roma people and about their general - almost universal - social exclusion. Come on folks, we are in the 21st Century! Bertilvidet 18:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Widely believed stereotypes about Roma and crime are very much a part of those issues of prejudice, and the high crime rates by Roma has a lot to do with their social/economic exclusion. Simply ignoring this issue is POV and counterproductive, but I admit, it should be written better. Something like African American contemporary issues#The criminal justice system would be an improvement. - TheMightyQuill 02:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

About the last changes I did

I recently made a some changes, but they were erased without a proper explanation. Now I added in the article the reasons. Overall I consider the article biased, trying to construct a image of a population assimilated or if not assimilated, then unadapted. Like the phrase from the beginning about the Roma who "spoke" Romani, but now speak other languages. The reality is that we still "speak" it. Or the category of the related ethnic groups, presenting a unproved association with low caste South Asians in order to justify our discrimination, or a relation with the Europeans, while there is not a single European country to treat us as citizens with equal rights. I consider it as an obvious paternalistic attitude, trying to impose non-Romani prejudices. Personally, I think that instead of trying to keep us under control and to set non-Romani limits for our public image, it would be ethically correct to accept the existence of the Romani culture as it is. I agree that sometimes it is not easy to put into words in a non-Romani environment what means to be Rom, but this does not mean that the non-Romani opinion should be considered as the reality. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the citations required for the Romani groups that do not speak Romani anymore: there is common knowledge about groups like Kale (Gitanos) or Romungre who lost the knowledge of Romani during the violent assimilation policies of the 18th century Age of Enlightenment. About Kale you may see at the article of Roma in Spain. About Romungre, I saw somebody included them as a North Central Romani dialect, although as far as I know they speak a mixed language or a dialect of Hungarian, Romungro. So I have to find on-line proofs about this. Regarding the knowledge of Romani there is this table, Romani_language#Distribution. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 00:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent contributions. I hope you stay and contribute more. It would probably better to place references in the text, rather than on the talk page, or people will come along and place fact tags eventually. - TheMightyQuill

Thank you for the welcoming and the suggestions. Indeed there are so many things to add or to refine at this article in order to reflect the reality. However I have to provide written sources that are so scarce by now, compared to the non-Romani opinions that aboud. It is easy and unquestionable to put some Romani words, but if I present more than this, then I need written proofs (I was already reverted some times, by questioning my knowledge as contrary to the non-Romani opinion). Plus, it is necessary a balanced view to respect all Romani groups. This will take some time, but I am optimistic. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 01:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Population Stats

I don't see why having a range is such a problem. It's accepted by a host of international organizations that Roma are under-reported in census data. They often live in semi-transient shanty towns, they aren't respected/valued by their governments, and having a smaller Roma population has a number of obvious political advantages to governments, particularly those trying to gain entry into the EU. I know personally that many Roma in Romania don't have any form of state issued ID, or birth certificates. The high-end statistic is well referenced (World Bank). Other ethnicity pages may only use official census data, but it's less likely that, for instance, Canada is going to hugely under report the number of its indigenous minority, 99% of whom have state-issued status cards. There is legitimate grounds to question the validity of a state census here. There is a legitimate alternative source. I'm simply asking them both to be listed. - TheMightyQuill 01:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another reputable source, if you want one. Dow Jones/Wall Street Journal. - TheMightyQuill 02:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I provided the sources, why the reverts with unsustainable and childish reasons? If somebody considers them inaccurate, it is his/her problem to prove it. I did not deleted the 500.000 figure, although the Romanian authorities have an established reputation of anti-Romani bias. Both points of view need representation. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 22:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This source [13] writes clearly that many Roma declare other ethicity for fear of discrimination and others are simply not included in the census. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 22:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You write that Romanian authorities have an established reputation of anti-Romani bias. I think that's very serious an accusation. Could you please elaborate on this ? --Vintila Barbu 11:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Time Out!

OK, now that I have your attention: I think it's pretty clear that the current battles over the Romanian Roma population figures are on account of the reference given in the infobox. I'll reproduce it here:

2002 census data, based on Population by ethnicity, gives a total of 535,250 Roma in Romania. This number is disputed by Roma and independent sources, because at the local levels many Roma for fear of discrimination declare other ethnicity (mostly Romanian, but also Hungarian in the West and Turkish in Dobroudja). Also many are not recorded, since they do not have ID cards. On 11th February 2007, in a TV show at OTV, the president of the Roma's Party, Nicolae Păun, declared that the party database counts about 2 million Roma in Romania, including 500.000 without ID cards that are not recorded in any census. The number is confirmed by independent sources (UNDP's Regional Bureau for Europe, World Bank, International Association for Official Statistics).

First of all, that one reference contains four separate sources. The first one is in Romanian, so I can't make heads or tails of it. Two of the sources do indeed say something about "1 to 2 million Roma". But that's not what the reference says. It says "2 million".

Somebody please fix this reference, so we can know what we should really be fighting over here. OK? +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The first reference, in Romanian, is a table of population of Romania by ethnicity and language. It gives 535,000 ethnic Ţigani, of whom 235,000 are speakers of Rromanes (Ţigănească). (Sorry I didn't copy the precise figures, just the thousands.) I add this in order to clarify what ILike2BeAnonymous "couldn't make head or tail of" -- I agree with comments above that there is certain to be under-reporting in these figures. Andrew Dalby 09:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference given in the infobox and reproduced above by ILike2BeAnonymous contains much POV, weasel wording and OR:

1. Qualifying “other sources “ as independent and opposing them to the population census insinuates that the later would not be as independent as required. This is a clear attempt to present the population census as untrustworthy.
2. the allegation “because at the local levels many Roma for fear of discrimination declare other ethnicity” is simply pov-pushing original research
3. the entire fragment where a Mr. Paun is being cited, represents by no means a source, since it cannot be verified (not to mention the OTV, which is extremely dubious, actually a minuscule one-man TV station, where the entertainer invites any guest who is ready to pay for it.) Simply invoking OTV as a source is disqualifying.
4. ILike2BeAnonymous has a very strong point when showing that

“Two of the sources do indeed say something about "1 to 2 million Roma". But that's not what the reference says. It says "2 million".” This must be accordingly fixed. --Vintila Barbu 10:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me answer to these issues. I said the "Romanian authorities have an established reputation of anti-Romani bias". This is even a mild expression of the ground reality in Romania. The regime applyed by the Romanian state structures and the majority population of non-Roma is an apartheid regime, that can only compared with the former regime in South Africa. The difference was that, in the latter case, all worldwide mass-media wrote and talked aboout it, it was well known what was going on, but in the case of the Roma, the prevalence of the Gypsy caricature in the minds of the non-Roma prevents any disclosure of the reality. Most of the violence and denial of rights is unreported. The users who are citizens of Romania know very well about it and from their behaviour in this demographic issue it looks like they support the denial of rights and its concealing from the worldwide public opinion. This concealing and also the fact that the Roma do not have a strong public voice constructs a dellusion as if nothing bad happens.

Let me present some of the proofs I found on-line only about the situation after the 1989 Revolution (this does not mean that before 1989 the situation was better, but there are less evidences). Sources, in Romanian: [14], [15], [16]; in English: [17], [18].

Most of the information is in Romanian, so I will summarize it for those who do not know the language. After the fall of the Communist regime there were recorded dozens of examples of anti-Romani pogroms when many Romani persons were killed and hundreds of houses destroyed, letting so many people on the roads. The police did not intervene, saying "they are Gypsies and they deserve it", "the actions are done for the public interest". Thus the non-Romani perpetrators had imunity. There was a small degree of international pressure to stop the violence and to prosecute the perpetrators. For example, on 20 september 1993, at Hadareni, Mures county, a pogrom perpetrated by non-Roma had the result the death of 3 Roma, the burning of 14 Romani houses and the destruction of other houses (the entire Romani community was ousted from Hadareni). Somehow, it was found out about it at international levels, determining some pressure to bring justice. The policemen involved in the pogrom were brought to trial, that was prolonged until 2000, when they were declared not guilty, although there are enough proofs that they actively supported the criminals. Some of the local people who participated in the pogrom, were found guilty, but they received derisory terms of inprisonment and fines (about 40 €). Moreover, two of the killers were freed by presidential decree in 2000.

That was the violence of the civilians. Now the violence of the state authorities. It is well known that the police resorts to illegal collective punishments for presumed offences done by Romani persons or just to make the Romani communities remember they are not allowed to cross some limits, they ares second-class people. A police raid of this kind occurs usually by 4-5 AM (hour forbidden by law), involving a big number of policemen that break with axes the doors of all the Romani houses in a community. The adults are brought to the floor and beaten and the propriety is destroyed or stolen. Sometimes they are brought to the police station and humiliated in diverse manners (like compelling them to sweep the floor). Afterwards they are released without any charges and they are told not to say to anybody what happened, because everytime the policemen will be much closer to them than the potential benefactors. Sometimes, the next day there are presented, at TV stations, videos of the raid, with Romani adults half dressed kept on the floor, Romani children crying and so on. Watching this is one of the enterntainments of the non-Romani citizens of Romania. Besides this there are too many cases of death of Roma in police custody without the prosecution of the policemen who perpetrated the murders. When Romani persons are agressed by non-Roma, the police has the habit to accuse the Roma of offence, as a reprisals for daring to assert the personal rights. For example, on 24 December 1999, 3 non-Roma attacked Petre Muscaloiu (Rom) and his family. One of the non-Roma was wounded by P.M. when he sexually assaulted P.M.'s wife. He went to the police to report, but there he was kept under arrest until the next day. Then he was beaten and stroke his head against the wall by a policemen and a civilian, the brother of the non-Romani wounded assailant. Afterwards P.M. was brought to trial and convicted for wounding the non-Rom. Also there are many cases when Roma are scapegoats for problems that have no connection with them. Like the 1990's Ethnic clashes of Târgu Mureş. 24 of the 31 persons investigated in connection with it were Roma, although Roma were not part of the conflict. Just they did not know to read and write, making much easier for the authorities to present some persons as guilty for making the conflict. Some were prosecuted ilegally without the presence of a lawyer and the lawyer who represented the others reported she was threatened for defending them.

About the economic disfranchisement: it is said that Roma are poor because they want it or they are lazy. In fact, there is an organized economic disfranchisement. Again, let's present the situation after 1989. Many Roma were informally excluded from the privatisation of the Communist state propriety and from the enforcement of the Law no. 18/1990 for retrocedation of the agricultural land. There is also common practice to give first chance to non-Roma when employing.

The public image: Although the Romanian Constitution forbids the ethnic discrimination, the mass-media freely incites the population against Roma. Every incident involving Roma, usually with unserious accusations like those presented above, is presented in a distorted manner. This is because news like these sell the newspaper or rise the audience of a TV post, they are desired by the population who is used to make Roma scapegoats for everything. For example, in the newspaper Transilvania Jurnal, on 25 July 1998, it appeared the following news: The tragedy of family from Arad - they pulled his eyes to make him a begger. A non-Roma sais how the "Gypsies" stole his child, then: "they pulled out my son's eyes with a red hot iron. To other person they cut a hand, to another they cut his legs, putting him in front of a train, only to make them beggers." When a NGO investigated the case, they found out that all was a lie.

In conclusion, the mistreatment of Roma is hugely undereported and largey unknown outside Romania. There is a tradition among non-Roma to conceal and construct a deceiving appearance. They make some unserious and inefficient measures, proposed as expressing the care of the Romanian state, like preserving a cota of Romani students in Universities that usually are not used by Roma because most of them do not have the chance to complete the high-school. In many cases it is just an excuse for corruption, to help some rich non-Roma to enter an University. They present them as the efforts of the Romanian state to improve the situation of Roma and thier subsequent failure is used to build a image of the "Gypsies" who do not want to be a part of the broad society.

Thus, the presentation of Romania as an apartheid state is true, it is not at all an exageration, since there appear it's pre-requisites. There is democracy and rule of law for the non-Roma (88-90% of the population) while the Roma (10-12%) are kept under an informal dictature. In the Constitution there is forbidden the discrimination based on race or ethnicity. This is applied for non-Roma, but not for Roma. The violence against Roma is not prosecuted, it is applied an economic disfranchisement, the mass-media may freely present hate speech, the justice is denied, ethnic Roma are forbidded to enter some public spaces, like disco-clubs and bars, the employement announcements are free to state "Gypsies excluded". And everyone behaves as nothing like this exists, because of the measures taken to hid the truth. Now I see the non-Romani citizens of Romania brought this behaviour also at Wikipedia. They are not interested about the truth, they use any opportunity to conceal. What is wrong that Nicolae Paun presented his declaration at OTV, a small TV post? This is not his fault, probably he was not accepted at more important posts because of the reasons described above. They did not "find him pulling out the eyes of a child" to let him appear at posts with larger audience. And above all, a well-meaning person would be interest of what the person tells rather than mean of communication. About the independent sources, you hid the 1.800.000-2.500.000 figure of the United Nations Development Programme, letting only the World Bank source with smaller figure. Since I registered at Wikipedia I'm facing a continue battle with such Gypsist dishonest users, ready for any wrongdoing, to uphold their anti-Romani beliefs. Until now Wikipedia is an environment non-friendly with the Romani people. Everytime, I am requested to bring proofs like in an trial as requested and distorted by the accusation's barristers (who know the scarcity of written sources about Roma), while the non-Roma are free to present their prejudices with impunity. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I measure my words in saying that you are paranoid, and should not put the Romanians as scapegoats for the lack of organization of the Roma minority. Dpotop 17:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all. In the last 60 years, at least, no law discriminated politically or economically against Roma. This means that your comparison with Apartheid (which triggered by response here) is false and idiotic. In the last years, there are Roma schools, meaning that the legal situation steadily improves, probably getting into a phase of positive action/discrimination. Dpotop 17:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And, please, compare the situation of the Roma in Romania to their situation in France. Do you think the prejudice is different? But that does not imply that the French state created Apartheid. Dpotop 17:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, given the number of elected and appointed officials that are labelled as Roma by anti-Roma politicians (Vadim&co), the minority is certainly not under-represented, neither politically, nor economically. Now, you will say that Vadim is saying nonsense, and that Vanghelie&co are not Roma, but then who is Roma? Who are the 2 millions counted by the Roma party? On what criteria do you count them, if it's not language, self-identification, a.s.o.? Dpotop 17:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, I do agree with you that prejudice and discrimination exists, but not on organized at state level. Dpotop 17:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I was expecting an answer of this kind, this is the usual answer of the non-Roma. You are able to keep with your point of view, in spite of the reality, because you have the power to do so, most of the mass-media and even public spaces like Wikipedia would be on your side. Now what should I understand from your answer, besides the unpolite personal attack? That you consider as normal the daily violence against Roma? That this is the way the World goes? That it is normal that the law should not applied also for Roma? When there are clear discrepances in the enforcement of the law based on race or ethnicity, isn't it aparthied? When a part of the society is kept apart, isn't it aparthied? I anticipated the modality of answer of non-Roma by presenting so-called improvements done by the Romanian authorities, usually half-done and without succes (subsequently blaming the Roma for the insucces), by presenting the case of the cotas in Universities as a failure. Now you present also something of this kind, the Romani schools (which btw are not so many), as if they would counterbalance the non-Romani violence.

You are presenting the Roma as the only victims in Romania. But the real social rift is between the guys with money and power and the ones without. I have never seen Madalin Voicu having problems with the Police. Instead, I've seen the Police not intervening when they should to calm down inter-community crisis that were later presented as "anti-Roma pogroms". Why don't they intervene? Simple: Because they didn't care about either camp (and of course, when there are victims among Roma, there are usually some victims of the non-Roma, too). Dpotop 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it's simpler to get attention and maybe involvement from international institutions by claiming there are anti-Roma pogroms. Saying that the Romanian police is not doing its job is not getting enough interest, is it? And this has nothing to do with ethnicity. It's simply money. I wonder if Cioaba and the likes have ever had problems with the police... Dpotop 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I read the document you said I was "hiding" [19]. Very interesting, even though I don't know its source (tried to find the book name, didn't manage to). You have there, clearly stated, the fundamental problem: Defining Roma ethnicity. My impression, after living in Romania for 25 years, was that Roma are indeed a "social minority, underclass or in general as a socially vulnerable group". Of course, there are the specifics of the Roma traditional culture, but these are mostly lost, and the glue defining Roma is today extreme poverty, for the majority population. To be called "Gypsy", it suffices to be dirt poor and live in a slum. On the contrary, buy a good apartment on "1 Mai", and you cease to be one. Unless you proclaim your ethnicity. But how many Roma are actually doing it? Dpotop 19:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It is really sad to see this answer, regarding the way you are trying to divert the issue in other directions. Your allegations are already infirmed by what I wrote before. Even rich Roma have problems and they are kept apart the same as the rest of Roma. Nicolae Paun, for example, could find only a TV post like OTV to present the creation of the Chamber of the Romani Representatives (dubbed "the Romani Parliment" by mss-media) an event quite important that would require more covering in the national media. Instead, as usually, most of mass-media produced the usual crap: "the Gypsies want a Parliment, look at them, he-he-he, let's make fun of them" and so on.. Regarding the police, I presented above an example of each type of offence done by them, that do not occur with non-Romani civilians. Did you read them? Or do you consider it is normal that in a country the policemen take active part in pogroms with impunity? Summarizing all the evidences and knowing that this is only the tip of the iceberg if you live in Romania, on what moral basis can you write that they do not occur? Regarding why Roma do not assert their ethnicity, I don't know why do you ask me. This a rethoric question, the current situation determines it. The history of those censuses itself, proves that all of them, except the first, were unserious, they negate each other and if you would be correct with yourself, you could not count on them. It is not the first time in history when people are forced to hide the ethnicity. See the Marranos. They were forced to live for generations as Spaniards, but when they had the opportunity to emmigrate they asserted again the true identity. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 20:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A parliament, how cool! After a king and an emperor, this is what's needed to improve the life of ordinary Roma in Romania. All is good if it's extra-constitutional and makes for good "pogrom" propaganda. Dpotop 20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW: you are right about nobody paying attention to it. I follow the Romanian online news, and saw no line on the "parliament" bit. Dpotop 20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW2: you should also call for an all-European fight. Here, too, they have Roma integration and discrimination problems, and I presume this is the case elsewhere, too. The whole Europe is a huge Apartheid. Dpotop 20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else read this discution? You can see live, the "discrimination management" in Romania. The non-Roma do not care at all about the suffering they inflict on Roma, even when they have the reality presented as it is. They follow blindly the lines of their mass-media, which present distorted and caricaturally the Roma. Like this "Parliment" issue. The "Chamber of the Romani Representatives" was set up as an organization to unify the diverse Romani groups, to create a common voice in defending the Romani rights. The non-Romani propaganda machine transformed it's image into a scarecrow, by dubbing it the "Romani Parliment", to give to the non-Roma reasons to hate and make fun in the same time. You may see from above as the user Dpotop is not interested at all to know what is all about. He is immediately mesmerized by the message of the non-Romani propaganda and starts in the next reply to hate and make fun himself. Regarding the situation in other countries, it depends. In some cases there is also apartheid, in others there is enforced the law also for Roma and in others everything possible between these extremes. You may see how behaves the user MadeinFinlad, he/she knows to be normal and respecful. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 20:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Look. I was not able to find "Romani Parliament" (Parlamentul Tiganilor) through Google. But I did find the Chamber of the Romani Representatives (Camera Reprezentantilor Romilor din Romania), in short CRRR. Three hits, through Google [20] [21] [22]. It's a good thing this was finally created, but from what I found [23], there are already opposing Roma organizations. Moreover, like the authors of the article, I find suspicious the fact that the CRRR was mainly constituted to manage money that should now come from the EU for the Roma minority. Too bad it wasn't created a year ago... Also, how about democratically electing these representatives, instead of seing the same rich guys that have to problems anyway. On a funny note, it's too bad that King Cioaba decided that blondes are not accepted as representatives (cf. the last link). Dpotop 21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As usually it is very easy for the mass-media to say bad things about Roma, nobody would be interested about the truth. It is obvious it is a Gypsist material, unserious, just citing the comparation (coming from nowhere) with a movie with Al Capone. Would you see such a comparation for a non-Romani organization, written without any base? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 21:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If King Cioaba is involved, I presume that Al Capone comparisons are not so hazardous. BTW, is Emperor Iulian part of the CRRR? For those of you who don't know what we are talking about, Florin Cioaba is self-proclaimed "International King of the Romani", and Iulian Radulescu is self-proclaimed Emperor of the Romani. Their "subjects" clash from time to time in various places in Romania. So, if they do not enter both this CRRR, the entire thing is useless. Dpotop 21:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say anymore. Florin Cioaba is a normal person doing normal business not like some corrupt non-Roma. He is Pentecostal, which are supposed to be serious people. It's just the way you were thought to think about Roma that makes you to say such unpolite comments. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 22:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you somehow contesting the fact that he assumes the title of King of the Romani? And are you somehow implying that being a Pentecostal is a guarantee of good morality? 87.91.12.204 23:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

From now on this is your problem to decide. I presented the violence and the discrimination done by non-Roma in Romania. And the answer from them on this talk page only confirmed the sources: racism and lack of civilization. It is sad that this appears also in public spaces like Wikipedia. Does is appear such hate speech at articles about Jews or LGBT? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 12:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hate speech, Apartheid... Right. I remind you that if you have your Romani wikipedia, it's partly due to Ronline, a Romanian, which made a lot of propaganda on your behalf. For my part, I have watched your effort to promote Romani culture, and I believe it's a god initiative. But calling, as you do now, the Romanian state and half of Europe Apartheid, is idiotic and will not serve your cause. Also, labelling any criticism against Roma personalities as anti-Roma propaganda and hate speech is twice as idiotic. By using such pompous words you are hampering your own declared objective: that of exposing the real discrimination against Roma. And this discrimination exists. But mixing it with baseless "Apartheid" accusations will decredibilize this legitimate goal. Dpotop 13:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time when non-Roma disrespecfully impose their point of view about Roma at Wikipedia. And every time I am keen to underline that I don't imply all non-Roma are malevolent. I am grateful to Ronline for his initiative and help. The same as I am comminted myself to the development of the Romanian society, beyond any ethnic label. But I cannot stand the uncivil and unethical manner of imposing non-Romani Gypsist views. How did this issue began? Some users tryed to impose only the official census, although all who live in Romania know very well the reality. They were not correct. Unfortunately, this is the major trend in Romania. Every time I open a newspaper or the TV I have to see the mass-media hate speech. The non-Roma are teached form childhood to behave rudely with Roma as if this would be normal. Now seeing this behaviour also at Wikipedia, and somehow supported by non-citizens of Romania, I considered to present how are this things going in this country. Why didn't those users behaved politely from the beginning? Why didn't they take into account the other points of view? There are possible civilized dialogues on Romani issues, when non-Roma did not behave Gypsyly (see examples: User_talk:Untifler#Re:Lyuli, User_talk:A_R_King#Romani_spelling_systems). In this case it was obvious that the users who started the problem agitated the spectre of "Gypsy menace". This is not the Romanian society I want to live in. It would be normal that the Roma and our culture be accepted. A good example would be Spain. There even the name Gitano is not considered so disrespectful by Romani people. If there would be in Romania an acceptance of Roma, then all the society would benefit and would have the advantages of Spain by respecting and integrating the Romani culture in the broad society (see the relative social peace, Flamenco and others). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me present to the users who are not citizens of Romania the evolution of the demography of the Romani people in this country (sources: Istoria si traditiile minoritatii rromani, by Delia Grigore, Petre Petcut, Mariana Sandu, Ed. Sigma, 2005 and [24] and others I will present below).

In 1838 there were 139,225 Roma in Moldavia (9.81%), and 119,910 in Wallachia (5%).

In 1930 declared themselves Gypsies (the official name used by the state at that time) 262,501 (1.5%).

The census of 1956 found 104,214 (0.5%).

In 1966 there were only 64,197 (0.3%).

In 1977 there were 229,986 (1.07%).

In 1992 there were 409,723 (1.7%)

In 2002 there were 535,250 (2.5%)

The discrepances in figures and percent observed from 1838 until today do not reflect at all the real demography, they are only influenced by political reasons. The first census maybe is the most accurate, because at that time all Roma were slaves, nobody could pass as non-Rom or be unaccounted because of the lack of ID cards. Afterwards it begins the underrepresentation because of the two causes: fear of self-identification or lack of ID cards and the figures evolves according to the political situation. The dramatic decrease in the first part of the Communist period is explained by the official policy of assimilation. After its failure more and more Roma identified their true identity, the number growing with every new census (evidently, the demographic growth alone could not explain the changes). The growing self-assurance for right identification is proved also by the sociological studies. The study of Ion Chelcea, Tiganii din Romania.Monografie etnografica (Bucharest, 1944) found 525,000 Roma. The study from 1993, done by the University of Bucharest under the supervision of Catalin Zamfir and Elena Zamfir, published as Tiganii intre ignorare si ingrijorare found 1,010,000 Roma. The sociological study done in 1998 by the Institute for the Research of the Quality of Life (branch of the Open Society Institute) found 1,452,700 - 1,588,552 Roma. Again figures not supported by the demographic growth.

Now I think it is pretty clear for people outside of Romania what we all know here, both Roma and non-Roma, as the reality (just the former struggle to assert it and the latter to hide it). Personally, I consider the behaviour of non-Roma in this matter as shameful. Instead to take measures to end once for all the apartheid, they think only how to hide the truth. You have serious problems regarding the personal ethics. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 18:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Desiphral ! After reading just the later chunk of propaganda crap you flowed into this talk page I wonder if you realise what a huge disservice you do to the cause you’re seemingly dedicated to. Your discourse is so primitive and pathetic, your arguments so implausible, you are so vitriolic and violent that I wonder if you’re not an agent provocateur who’s aim is to discredit Roma people. Let me say, with advocates like you, Roma people don’t need any detractors… (A technical detail: you didn’t translate content from the Romanian documents you referred to, you simply arranged it to fit your agenda)

As for the source you’re invoking, please understand that this is no source. What we have, is a user who writes about a TV-Talk-Show where a certain Mr. Paun should have said that the Roma population he represents is much larger than data census assess. Telling us what happened in a talk show is not a source, for God’sake ! We need a document to refer to, not just you telling us what has happened in a talk show of an obscure and more than dubious TV station. In Wikipedia terms you are infringing WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. I can understand that you are here to push your agenda, but please, at least try to comply with the basic rules of Wikipedia. You cannot edit demographic information without any source other than your own account. Please, try to adapt to the rules and adopt a more civilised tone. I am confident that you can do it. --Vintila Barbu 19:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Very racist page, NPOV????

I suggest we delete some very racist statements about Roma people and since when had "legends" anything relevant to do with WP and NPOV??? Forgive me im new, but shouldnt there be articles about every race like fat stupid lazy white Americans aswell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

Seems like a good point to me. There isn't even an article on American people, still less on the subgroup you identify! Do you feel like making a start on it?

About "legends", though. I see what you mean, and it's easy to say that legends don't belong in an encyclopedia because they aren't facts. But the existence of legends (even racist legends) is a fact -- and important to an article like this, because, however false they are, the legends have shaped people's beliefs in the past and they still do today. An encyclopedia has to distinguish legends from fact, but it can't just omit the legends. Andrew Dalby 13:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I live in Finland and here this so called article about Roma people would be considered hate speech! It must be changed asap or do i have to ask permission from an administrator? And how do i contact an administrator if thats the case? Nice that you pointed out that even the existence of racist false legends are facts! Not to mention how filled it is with weasel words. Just check out some of the topics above.

I agree with you and you may consider also the complaints I did before about the patronizing attitude of some (but not all) among non-Roma users, who are ready to uphold as true some prejudices only because they are widespread among non-Roma, but in the same time to revert serious contributions done by Roma simply because they do not fit the "Gypsy" image. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Genetics

Genetics? Who wrote that? A neo nazi? Whatever is the case there should be one about every race or none but since i cant find anything on other races i made up my mind.

Please stop deleting this section. I am Romani and I strongly support its inclusion, you do not speak for our race and information about our genetic distinctiveness is an important tool to counter those who claim persecution of "gypsies" is fair since it is a lifestyle choice. Leave it alone. Please.--81.152.118.21 11:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The Genetics section had nothing to do with social behavior (as in the pseudo-science of Nazi genetics) but traced the origin of Roma to the Indian subcontinent, and suggested a certain amount of mixing with other European groups. It's well referenced, and if you actually read it, not offensive at all. Please tell me exactly what your concern is. I didn't write the section, but I'd still appreciate if you stop the personal attacks. - TheMightyQuill 16:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Both genetic and linguistic records are helpful in determining origin and migration, especially since the historical record has often been full of misconception and fable. If anything, the genetics section should be improved and expanded as more data (i.e. Genographic project) become available. There's nothing racist about that section (am I missing something? please explain precisely what is "neonazi" about it) - if it were ever twisted into Nazi racial theory then I'd be the first to revert it out.István 17:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ive just restored the section, and see that genetic data simply indicate that Roma originated alongside or from the Sinhalese culture, presently in the southeastern Indian subcontinent. This is very interesting, relevant, completely unprovocative, and thus should stay in the article. István 17:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

While i fully agree that there should be a section about The history of the Roma people or The origin of the Roma people (instead for genetics, ill change it soon btw) because the article as it is very racist.

There's nothing racist about the section,however given the prejudice the Roma experience in eastern Europe I'm questioning some of the papers.Slavic populations have high R1a1 so the absence of R1a1 in high frequencies in the Roma may be questionable ,especially since Yhrd gives very high R1a1 for some Hungarian Roma(25%+).

A note to "Desiphral"

I'm addressing this to you specifically because you're the proximate cause of the recent battles over the Romanian Roma population statistics.

I have no interest in debating the gory details of the population stats themselves with you, as it's very obvious that this is a huge mud pit into which anyone who discusses this is going to find themselves in.

I just want to remind you that you need to keep uppermost in your mind that whatever you put into the article has to be verifiable. This means valid references and sources, not just your say-so (and certainly not your reporting of what some TV commentator said, without any other supporting documentation that we can read). This has nothing whatever to do with anti-Roma discrimination in this context, but everything to do with backing up assertions with evidence here.

Otherwise, this whole undertaking (Wikipedia) is just a huge piece of shit where everyone gets their say, no matter how wacked-out their assertions may be. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Population stats in dispute

I would like to bring something up regarding the Rroma population and the population numbers given in the article. I think it is safe to say that not just the Romanian census but other censa also downplayed the Roma numbers. It seems totally unfair that only the Romanian census is targeted and none of the others.Domnu Goie 17:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice the range of numbers available for Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Spain and Turkey? The problem is that in some countries, the NGOs aren't strong enough to present their own alternative numbers, and the only statistic we have is the (usually smaller) count by the government census. In other countries, the national census doesn't even have a category for Roma, and the only stat is from NGOs. Otherwise, I would guess most of the countries would have a fairly wide range of estimates. - TheMightyQuill 09:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Romanian stats, again...

User:Vintila Barbu has once again removed the large range stat provided for Romania. The edit comment suggested Wikipedia:Verifiability somehow proved the sources were insufficient. That wikipedia guideline has the following stipulaitons:

• Sources of dubious reliability: I hardly think the World Bank, United Nations, and International Association for Official statistics qualify as dubious.

• Self-published sources (online and paper): None of these sources qualify as self-published

• Sources in languages other than English: All of these sources are in English.

There is no legitimate grounds for doubting these sources. There is no wikipedia guideline that primary statistical sources trump other sources, in fact secondary sources are generally preferred to avoid original research. There is plenty of legitimate reason to doubt the quality of the Romanian census count of Roma. Certainly, the census data is worth including, and putting first, but the other larger estimates are equally worth including. - TheMightyQuill 20:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My objections:

• World Bank is cited incorrectly, because 1M-2M becomes 1.8M-2M. BTW, this is the only reliable source, for now.
• The same for AOS. Moreover, AOS does not publish the stats itself. Instead, it's a research paper published in one of its scientific workshops. It's not as though it's a study of the AOS. BTW, AOS is a branch of ISI, which is not an NGO, but a private company. I have no problem with this, but this must be clearly stated.

The paper you claim it is from UNDP has no clear source. It is part of a publication I was not able to identify. Meaning that you don't know if UNDP is vouching for it.

Dpotop 07:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The IOAS is an NGO [25] and created as a section of the ISI which is not an NGO, nor a private company, but a scientific association, one that has consultative status at both ECOSOC and UNESCO. [26] Claiming that POV pushing is being done because of the references is misrepresented (quite likely accidentally) is not accurate, nor does it assume good faith. Drop the UNDP reference if you want, but the other two seem fine to me. - TheMightyQuill 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on ISI. Its name is today Thomson Scientific, and it is a division of Tomson Corporation. This is no scientific association. As of NGOs created by corporations... Dpotop 09:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As for WP:AGF. I did assume good faith. This is why I explain here what my reserves towards ISI are (and not edit warring on the page itself). I started by editing, and I war reverted instantly. Dpotop 09:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC

I'll assume good faith, but I could use some convincing. My link suggests they are indeed an association. Could you post some evidence to the contrary? Thanks - TheMightyQuill 16:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The UNDP page attributes the estimates to "experts" (in contrast to the census figures) and are not presenting them as a fact. Whose experts though, their own employees? Does this mean they are not assuming responsibility for the estimates? Perhaps it could be rephrased to something like "people who the UNDP considers experts estimate the Roma population in Romania at one billion...". Saying though that the UNDP is contradicting the census figures is POV pushing, because all they do is mention the census and mention the "experts". They don't endorse either figure.--Domitius 08:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the POV pushing remark. The UNDP "page" is a chapter from a larger book (I was able to browse the other chapters), but I have no idea on the origin of the book. If I recall well, the book is on the "upload" section of the site, which is usually dedicated to contributed stuff. So, until you find what this book is (a cover page would suffice), you cannot cite it as UNDP. You can say "Unidentified book on the UNDP site". Dpotop 08:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally believe that the census data is the most reliable (since self-identification is the only objective way of ascertaining ethnicity), but I think, for NPOV and balance, we should also list the "UNDP et al" data. I think that data is reliable enough, as I have heard that figure cited multiple times, by several authoritative bodies. I don't see what the big controversy is about. The page as it is now is fine, as it lists both the census data and the NGO estimates. Ronline ✉ 05:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying from the beginning. Leave both data included, and it provides balance. IMHO, the problem with census data is not misreporting of ethnicity, but Roma failing to be interviewed because of their often illegal shanty-town residences, and their general ability to fall through the cracks in society. Anyone who can fail to get proper ID is likely to miss out when the census man comes to knock at the door (if there is a door). Whether the word "disputed" should be there is a whole different story. I wonder if Romanian authorities would actually deny that the census may vastly underestimate the number of Roma... - TheMightyQuill 05:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no "Both data". There are 4 sources, each giving a different figure. Dpotop 09:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is also the fact that Romanian data is the only one where "Disputed" is put in bold, and not all countries where there are several sources have a "Disputed" tag (e.g., Greece). I see this as Romania bashing, and deeply resent it. Dpotop 09:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Roma in Iraq?

Does anyone know if the Qawliya people of Iraq are Roma? 24.63.151.197 03:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks as if they are. A google search for 'Qawliya Roma' has many sources referencing them as Roma, and Minority politics in Iraq agrees. - TheMightyQuill 03:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

GaylordBumBum 01:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)'Depressed' does not say what the camps are like, only what someone's opinion of them is. As for 'no choice', nomadic life is a decision so, as at least one Roma website has pointed out, some Roma people live in houses when there are no travellers' sites available. As this fact is missing from the main page, both these terms constitute 'Weasel words', at least according to Wikipedia's definition of them.

I don't think these constitute weasel words (and believe me, my ears perk up whenever I hear words of the weasel). Sounds more like factual discrepancies, at least the part about nomadicism; the rest is a matter of choosing appropriate descriptive words. Maybe you ought to edit the section with a view to that. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Turkey

This was already discussed above; see #Roma in Turkey. Just saw that the source I added is already there, and it says "2 to 5 million". Khoikhoi 08:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a disputed tag. Who (which up to date and reliable sources) dispute the figures? Bertilvidet 10:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Made some minor changes

I didnt change the genetics section yet... even if it fully states it requires a CLEAN UP! I removed some weasel words here and there instead. But this genetics article is disgusting, offensive and if i didnt know better one might think it was written by Josef Mengele in Auschwitz!

By: MadeinFinland

Request that an adm. protects this page

Once again racism has shown its ugly face and re-inserted weasel words and extreme racism, i request that an administrator lock/protect this page so disputes can be solved asap, ill never stand for a topic that says genetics which sounds like some insane Josef Mengele test lab report. If you think you are "funny" why dont you come to Finland with that fucking article and lets see what happens next?!

By: MadeinFinland

Maybe this is just your interpretation, there is nothing wrong with displaying studies made on the origins of the Roma people. Stop making personal attacks, or you may be blocked from editing. Sfacets 01:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Stealing and the Christ legend?

Is there a pages on wikipedia that gives the story of why gypsies believe they morally have the right to steal? I searched and couldn't find it. I want to tell it when I perform the gypsy handkerchief switch. How I remember being told it is that the Romans came to a blacksmith and asked for four spikes to nail Jesus to a cross with. That night god came and told the blacksmith "Don't help them kill my son." The blacksmith knowing that the Romans would kill him for not making the spikes only made three. When the Roman bought them he used the gypsy handkerchief switch to sell the Roman four and only gave him three. God was like "Thanks man. From this day forward it's cool if your family steals stuff." and the blacksmith's family became the gypsies. Woxoxow 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No there isn't; probably because anecdotes are not encyclopaedic. István 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How is that not worthy of Wikipedia? There is hundreds of other bits of cultural mythology such as the Greeks or Christian legends in Wikipedia. It is what some people still believe in. It probably doesn't belong under the Roma people section but from the research I have been doing their are still people out there who believe this story, call themselves Roma, and feel they have the right to steal. From what I can tell at a time the majority of Roma people felt this way but if they mix with modern morality stealing has become a sin again. I understand it might be a sensitive subject to talk about but Wikipedia also has other sensitive things such as the Mohammed Cartoons. Woxoxow 15:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have written "anecdotes" in inverted commas; the above makes the offensive presumption that Roma believe they have the right to steal. This is untrue. Despite having infinite opportunity, its proponents have never given proper reference to back such a claim. One could not imagine including anecdotes which imply even noncriminal traits, e.g. explaining why black people struggle at maths, why Germans are prone to hypochondria, or why Indians (asian) never win at the Olympics - much less implicitly accuse millions, by circumstance of birth, of bona fide criminal activity. It is eloquent testimony that Roma are the last ethnic group in Europe considered fair targets for prejudice. István 17:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Some people of Roma ancestry do use the story as an excuse to steal. I know these very few might give the others a bad rep but that doesn't mean that the legend itself and information on these bad seeds shouldn't be posted. My ancestors were from Italy. Should the mafia pages be removed because someone might see it and think I am a criminal? History and legend should not be covered up by political correctness. If the problem is that people now believe it is untrue that at one time most gypsies believed in the legend then that should be stated. Woxoxow 02:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent analogy - Italian/Mafia - it illustrates the point perfectly. On one hand, the story of the Mafia is real and encyclopaedic. On the other, an "anecdote" about "why Italians feel they have a right to kill" would be inappropriate; it presupposes that an entire ethnic group, by circumstance of birth, is engaged in criminal activity. (and in the case of the mafia, the true numbers tell the story eloquently - less than 5,000 out of 20+ million Italian immigrants to North America were ever involved in the mob). IMHO, examining the specific stereotypes ascribed to Roma in Europe one sees striking similarities to those ascribed in the 19th century to Irish in the UK and to American Indians in the US; these are bound to fade as well. István 03:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see why if some Roma people have in the past believed and the present still believe in this "anecdote", it shouldn't be here. This is probably the wrong page for it to be on, maybe it should be on the history page or have a Roma mythology page. How can we properly exam the stereotypes without having all of the information? You obviously know the story. Wouldn't it be a better idea to write it out for everyone than try to cover up the legend exists and the people who do still believe it? As for me, I don't care enough anymore. I got a hold of someone who grew up believing in it and acting on it and now have what I need for my act. Woxoxow 20:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I know it. But one trouble (of many) with anecdotes is there are usually many versions floating around, and conclusions drawn from one may be contradicted by others. Specifically, take this lyric (in Hungarian):

"Egész világ ellenségünk / Ũzött tolvajokként élünk"

"nem loptunk mi csak egy szöget / Jézus vérzõ tenyerébõl"

"The entire world is against us / we live like thieves on the run"

"We haven't stolen except for a nail / from Jesus' bloody palm"

This from a traditional song "Zöld az Erdõ" refers to the same Jesus' crucifixion/nail/stealing legend. Importantly, it is a lamentation, not a vindication or rationalisation for an excuse to steal. This speaks to the original point that the major problem with including the first anecdote is that it misleadingly takes as granted that Roma believe they have a right to steal; implications of this ilk would not be tolerated with any other ethnic group (e.g. "why Italians feel they have a right to murder"), nor should they be here. István 04:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. The legend, then, would seem entirely appropriate to mention in a section about common perceptions of Roma. We should certainly write about all the stereotypes that the Roma have been assigned through the years (to leave them out would just be a misleading omission--this stuff happens whether we like it or not), and the "thief" one is as good as any. Then we can talk about the legend, and about the Roma reaction to it, etc.....K. Lásztocska 14:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There used to be one yes. Its naturally gone now since "legends" only appeals to neo nazis and Jews. The killing of JC was entirely a Jew business.-unsigned comment by MadeInFinland

How do we go about reporting this individual to an admin to prevent him editing this page again?--81.152.118.21 13:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Easy, you report yourself before you go to Adolf Hitler homepage mr. 81.152.118.21-unsigned comment by MadeInFinland

I'd rather try to clean up the entry about my people, after you keep editing it, thank you very much MadeInFinland. Your persistent ill-informed edits are doing no favours for us at all. If you think this entry doesn't represent the Finnish Kale, feel free to create a new section specifically about them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.234.96.9 (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for that, I've also attributed the previous two comments. For reference, user 81.152.118.21 and 143.234.96.9 are both me. --143.234.96.9 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

History in Eastern Europe

Please check my changes in that paragraph. Please feel free to revert them if inferior vis-a-vis original formulation.

Roma as victims of Nazi Genocide

Although there are wikipedia articles on porajmos and on anti-ziganism, I believe this article should contain a fuller reference to Roma victims of Nazi genocide. We read a great deal about the suffering of the Jewish people under the Nazis, and also about the suffering of the Poles and other nationalities. But very few people are aware of the Nazi persecution of Roma, and they ought to be more aware of it if we want them to appreciate the Roma people and their history. Tom129.93.17.174 04:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Roma people suffered much more than the JEWS during the WW2 Nazi regime (in % a lot more roms were killed than jews), while the JEWS were compensated the Roma people received no compensesation.

Languange

Really? I didnt know this lie "Most Roma speak both Romani, an Indo-Aryan language and the dominant language(s) of their region of residence. There are independent groups currently working toward standardizing the language, including groups in Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, the USA, and Sweden. Romani is not currently spoken in India" were true!

Fact: They speak the dominiant languange only. Can i delete that above fucking lie daddy or do i need special permission?

Many Roma still speak Romani. For an academic description start here[27]. István 03:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A new category

Please tell me if you think this is appropriate. I think Roma are one of several stateless ethnic groups. I want to start Category:Stateless ethnic groups. Any problem with that? Can you suggest other ethnicities to put in this category? ike9898 03:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the category would be fine, though there might already be a similar category in existence (something like stateless nations, maybe ‘nations without territory’). In any case, the Kurds would be the first stateless ethnic group to come to mind.The Myotis 01:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The number of Roma people in Bulgaria

According to the last Bulgarian census in 2001 there are 370,908 citizens who declare Roma identity. It is fact that there are more than 300,000 other citizens with Roma origin and dark skin in Bulgaria, but they declare their identity as different from Roma. The bigger part of them have Turkish identity and the smaller part Bulgarian. I wonder how is it possible for some Wikipedia editors to count them as Roma when they do not want to be considered as Roma? Do they have the right to choose their identity? Isn't it racism or Roma nationalism to count them as Roma only because of their skin and origin?! - Jackanapes 18:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Roma people according to the last Bulgarian census (from the article Roma in Bulgaria):

Province	Roma	Total population
Blagoevgrad Province	12,405	341,173
Burgas Province	19,439	423,547
Dobrich Province	18,649	215,217
Gabrovo Province	1,611	144,125
Haskovo Province	17,089	277,478
Kardzhali Province	1,264	164,019
Kyustendil Province	8,294	162,534
Lovech Province	6,316	169,951
Montana Province	22,784	182,258
Pazardzhik Province	23,970	310,723
Pernik Province	3,035	149,832
Pleven Province	9,777	311,985
Plovdiv Province	30,196	715,816
Razgrad Province	8,733	152,417
Ruse Province	9,703	266,157
Shumen Province	16,457	204,378
Silistra Province	6,478	142,000
Sliven Province	26,777	218,474
Smolyan Province	686	140,066
Sofia	17,885	1,170,842
Sofia Province	16,748	273,240
Stara Zagora Province	16,748	370,615
Targovishte Province	9,868	137,689
Varna Province	15,462	462,013
Veliko Tarnovo Province	6,064	293,172
Vidin Province	9,786	130,074
Vratsa Province	14,899	243,036
Yambol Province	9,729	156,070
Total	370,908	7,928,901

The official data in Bulgarian could be checked here, see fifth column on the right. - Jackanapes 18:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This fact was already debated regarding the number of Roma in Romania. The official numbers are disputed as being diminished because of the social pressure and lack of ID cards. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 20:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, but here we are talking about Bulgaria, not Romania. You offer only an abstract argument, which could not be sufficient for such serious speculation as total denial of an official census in a democratic country. Lack of ID cards - pardon me, but this is nonsense, all Bulgarian minorities don't have special ID cards but there aren't similar "troubles" among them! In contemporary Bulgaria there isn't any policy, formal or informal, of diminishing of any minority and especially Roma. The offered explanations could not clarify why over 350,000 Roma citizens don't feel such administrative and/or social pressure and freely declare Roma ethnicity in two censuses for last 15 years. This means obvious tendency, their number (and of course demographic growth!) seems stable within these borders. More than that, it is an absurdity to assert than the Bulgarian authorities and/or society are authors of pressure, which leads as result to... sizable Turkish self-identification. This situation is result of the Ottoman rule, which ended in 1878/1912, and is relatively old tradition, which isn't imposed by modern Bulgarian state and society. One of the best known examples is Plovdiv's district Stolipinovo, where only 5,000 inhabitants declare Roma identity, while the other 40,000 declare Turkish ethnicity. I think that every person have the right to choose his identity and therefore ethnic polymorphism, transitions and changes are more than usual. If one person of Roma origin defines his identity as non-Roma, this choice must be respected as his basic human right. Every human being have the right to belong or not to belong to any nation.

Finally, I expect relevant proofs that the results of this concrete last census in 2001 are disputed. It means serious academic references. This concrete sitution needs concrete and relevant argumentation. - Jackanapes 21:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I spent time in Bulgaria last year and repeatedly witnessed the kind of treatment Roma receive from official authorities in Bulgaria. Whether or not they have ID, Roma in Bulgaria live in illegal shanty towns, hardly the place where census counters go to get their counts, and even if they do, not a stable enough place that census counts are likely to be accurate. There is certainly enough reason to believe that the census may be inaccurate. Again, it's in dispute, not being thrown out. Your unwillingness to allow people to see both stats (with references!) and make up their own minds is confusing, if not suspect. - TheMightyQuill 23:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear TheMightyQuill, I'm afrad that any personal opinion which is not based on relevant references isn't appropriate as element of a serious discussion and that your suppositions could not be treated as arguments. We are talking about over 300,000 people. 300,000 people without any kind of personal ID cards - this is unbelievable and quite unrealistic, at least it has to be referenced. Note - partly inexact census is something different from totally disputed census. 300,000 missing people from a presumed group of 750,000 - this means totally disputed and corrupted census. Finally, you're not right that I don't want people to view both statistics - in fact all statistics are shown in the note below the line. But before my addition there wasn't not even a word about the census in 2001, it was passed over in silence, which was really suspicious. - Jackanapes 00:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You're totally correct, my personal opinion and your personal opinion of the population figure is irrelevant, but since different references provide different numbers, the population figure is disputed. Just like any other wikipedia article, both sides have a right to have their POV expressed, so long as it is backed up with references. That keeps the article NPOV. The census may well be 100% correct, I really have no way of knowing, but since there are other estimates, the number is definitely in dispute. - TheMightyQuill 03:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

P. s. Please, don't miss the point - there are sizable groups of Bulgarian sitizens of Roma origin, which traditionally have non-Roma self-identification. They are listed in the last census as Turks and Bulgarians because of their own will. Are they Roma? Are they Turks and Bulgarians? Who have the right to define? May be you or me? I really doubt... ;-) - Jackanapes 00:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Information from the leading researchers Elena Marushiakova, Veselin Popov, "The Roma in Bulgaria", Sofia, 1993 (in Bulgarian: Елена Марушиакова, Веселин Попов, "Циганите в България", София, 1993): all statistics, concerning Roma in the second half of the 20th century, are defined as inaccurate because of significant number of citizens, who looked like Roma and lived like Roma but declared non-Roma identity. There were several censuses of all citizens, who identify themselves as Roma: in 1956 - around 194,000; in 1959 - 214,167; in 1976 - 373,200. Because of the obvious and significant difference between this self-identification and the total population with "Roma appearance" in 1980 was taken special census of all people, defined as Roma through the opinion of the neighbouring population, observation of their way of life, cultural specificity, etc. - 523,519. According to the next census in 1989 there were 576,927 counted as Roma, but in an explanatory note was stated that more than a half of them prefered and declared Turkish identity (pages 92-93). The same situation is found from the authors in the first years after 1989 and is depicted and interpreted in detail (pages 100-109). - Jackanapes 01:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit war continues with full strength. In fact there is no dispute about the number of the people with Roma identity in Bulgaria. It is clear after so many censuses. There is a dispute how to treat people of Roma origin with non-Roma self-identification because from the ethical point of view it is more than problematic to count these people as Roma against their own will! I'm suprised of the fanatical behaviour, shown from some Wikipedia editors, who refuse to discuss but insist to edit. - Jackanapes 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, Jackanapes (and other anon editors, like the one above): I'm only going to address one simple aspect of this situation, which is this: yes, the population of Roma in Bulgaria is disputed. It's disputed simply by virtue of what's already in the article.

Here's what's in the reference element for Bulgaria in the article's "infobox", stripped of its <ref></ref> formatting:

According to the last official census in 2001 370,908 Bulgarian citizens define their identity as Roma (official results in Bulgarian here, see fifth column on the right). 313,000 self-declared in 1992 census (Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov, The Gypsies of Bulgaria: Problems of the Multicultural Museum Exhibition (1995), cited in Patrin Web Journal). Traditionally more than 300,000 citizens of Roma origin have Bulgarian or Turkish self-identification. 450,000 estimated in 1990 (U.S. Library of Congress study); at least 553,466 cited in a confidential census by the Ministry of the Interior in 1992 (cf Marushiakova and Popov 1995). 750,000 ±50,000 is Marushiakova and Popov's 1995 estimate.

Remember, I didn't write that: that came straight from the article as it stands currently. So you see that there are several figures to choose from:

• 370,908 (official census)
• 450,000 (1990 estimate)
• 553,466 (1992 Ministry of Interior "confidential census", whatever that is)
• 750,000 (Marushiakova & Popov's 1995 estimate)

So unless you're prepared to somehow demolish these other figures (and back up your demolition with good references), then it's self-evident that the population figure is disputed. So please stop taking this out! +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To the users TheMightyQuill and ILike2BeAnonymous - excuse me, but obviously you don't understand the statistics, which are shown in the article and in my notes here. I will write the same to you again - in fact there isn't dispute about the number of Roma people in Bulgaria, but there are two methods of counting Roma people. The first counts citizens, who have Roma self-identitification, and the second counts citizens with Roma identity + citizens who don't have Roma self-identification (they traditionaly have Turskish or Bulgarian identity!), but who show characteristics of Roma origin, and it is clearly and unambiguously written by Marushiakova and Popov in their book "The Roma in Bulgaria" from 1993, pages 92-95. Note - this is not my personal point of view, this is the position of Marushiakova and Popov. By the way, there is another reason for these differences - the constant and relatively high growth of Roma population in Bulgaria, which doubles its number in the last 40 years. This growth leads to the higher number of Roma in almost every later statistics. The conclusion is: there is no dispute because the approximate number of Roma in Bulgaria is clear, but there are two ways of counting Roma, and the second of them is problematic because it counts as Roma individuals who don't feel as Roma and who don't declare Roma identity. This mass non-Roma self-identification among people of Roma origin and sizable and unshakable Turkish self-identification is old Balkan tradition from the times of the Ottoman empire. The last census from 2001 is exact, free and fair as far as possible, it isn't corrupted, but it couldn't impose Roma self-identification on over 300,000 people of Roma origin without Roma self-identification. I hope you will understand this at last. - Jackanapes 09:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

P. s. In fact Marushiakova and Popov are correct in their manner of expression, they define their estimate count of 800,000 as "the number of the individuals of Roma origin in Bulgaria" (In Bulgarian "броят на лицата от цигански произход в България", "The Roma in Bulgaria", Sofia, 1993, page 94) and add that "it is separate question how many of them would wish to declare themselves as Roma because of one reason or another" (in Bulgarian "Отделен въпрос е колко от тях биха желали, по едни или други причини, да се декларират като цигани...", page 95). They don't speak about their highest estimate counting as for "the Roma people in Bulgaria", but for "individuals of Roma origin". I insist that this significant difference must be understood and included in the article. - Jackanapes 10:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, Jackanapes: for the sake of discussion, let's say what you wrote above is correct. That still means that there is a dispute over the population figures of Roma in Bulgaria, since there are clearly at least 2 different figures. What you're saying, and you may well be onto something important that should be incorporated into the article, is that there are at least two different methodologies for counting people of this ethnicity in Bulgaria. Without commenting on the integrity of either of the methodologies, one can still truly say that there are two figures which are at odds with one another. (It seems to me that the official census would be the one to be doubted here: if it only counts those who declare themselves to be Roma, is it not incorrect to not count someone who is Roma but declines to so state?)

The "disputed" tag on the population figures should remain; if you want to expand upon this and incorporate some material about the census/estimate methodologies, that might be a worthwhile addition to the article. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ILike2BeAnonymous, if you persist to count as proper Roma people Bulgarian citizens who traditionally have Turkish or Bulgarian ethnic self-consciousness and Roma predecessors and cultural heritage - go ahead. I'm afraid that this strange practice to increase speculatively the total number of Roma people to its maximum possible extent leads to deceiving article, corruptive treatment of the sources (Elena Marushiakova and Vasil Popov speak about 800,000 citizens of Roma origin with different ethnic self-consciousness but not for 800,000 Roma people!) and to violation of the fundamental human right of self-identification of more than 300,000 Turks and Bulgarians of Roma descent. There is significant difference between the categories "Roma people" and "people of Roma origin"... There are many examples for similar historical ethnic transitions but I think the common practice in Wikipedia is to accept the self-identification as a major indicator for ethnicity and of course the results of the official censuses (when there are no relevant proofs about their inexactness and dishonesty). According to me the number from the last official census in 2001 (370,908) must remain in the statistics of "Regions with significant populations" and the whole detailed referenced explanation about the citizens of Roma origin - only in the footnote. - Jackanapes 14:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the sources write about the pressure to declare other ethnicity for the Romani people, including in the Balkans. Just see the position of UNDP in this issue at [28] (page 2 of the pdf). Many are not of Romani origin, they have to hide their ethnicity because of the discrimination. This especially in the former East European Communist bloc, where, excepting Yugoslavia, in the Communist years, for two generations, all the states denied the existence of the Romani ethnicity, naming it just a social problem and pursuing an active policy of assimilation. After the fall of the Communism, more and more Roma declare their real identity, this may be seen in the evolutions from census to census (increasing figures not supported by a natural growth). It may take some decades until there will be clarified who is Rom and who is of Romani origin, since largely the discrimination issues and the social pressure to say other identity continue also nowadays. Until then, they need to be presented both figures. For example see the case of Delia Grigore, who asserted publicly her real identity that her parents denied. She is educated, it was easier for her, but the others? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 13:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You are too speculative. I'm so sorry but the topic is about the number of Roma people in Bulgaria, not in former Yugoslaviya or in any other country. Marushiakova and Popov don't speak about such kind of pressure! They write about spontaneous "ethnic processes among Roma people in Bulgaria" (Marushiakova and Popov, "The Roma in Bulgaria", pdge 95). After the fall of Communism in Bulgaria there were two censuses and both of them show similar results - about 350,000 Bulgarian citizens self-declare their ethnicity as Roma. It is an absurdity to speak about "their real identity" - obviously you act as Roma nationalist. I think it is scandalous for Wikipedia to operate with editors who are able to define the real ethnic identity of any nation... according to their personal preferences. The ethnic identity is the identity which these people declare. As far as there are no concrete proofs of any kind of violation of the human rights of the Roma in Bulgaria in the aspect of their ethnic self-identification, I can't accept "arguments" like yours. Please stop your edit war! - Jackanapes 14:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If I would have been a Romani nationalist, as you name me, probably I would have militate only for the presentation of the real figure, but as anyone can see, I request to appear both figures. Who is the nationalist here? On what basis did you delete the UNDP source, where there are cited experts for the 700,000 - 800,000 figure? Try to remain civil, refrain from personal attacks and think first if you are right or not. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I will ask you for the last time - how is it possible for you to explain mass Turkish self-identification with the pressure of the Bulgarian authorities, now or in the recent past? This is a process of turkization, not of bulgarianization! Do you understand the ethnic difference between Turks and Bulgarians? By the way, I don't want to erase any sourced information. Note - you erased the whole text, written from me! - Jackanapes 15:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously user Desiphral-देसीफ्राल offers abstract and speculative "arguments". He denies the sourced data from Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov, who don't speak about the ethnic differences among Bulgarian citizens of Roma origin as a result of mass forced bulgarianization, organized by the Bulgarian autorities during the Communist period. They speak about large group of people who traditionally have Turskish self-identification and whose number is slightly smaller than this of the people with ethnic Roma self-identification (1993, page 94). The "arguments" of Desiphral-देसीफ्राल have nothing to do with the concrete information about Roma people in Bulgaria. I don't understand how it is possible for him to persist upon his abstract ideas as a source for Wikipedia. - Jackanapes 15:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all there is the UNDP source to support the unofficial figure. Regarding the identification as Turks, this is very logical. Both the Roma and the Turks have problems of discrimination (the main issues, from the point of view of the majority, being that they are still considered foreigners that impurified an otherwise very European Balkans and because of them allegedly everything goes bad in this area). The Turks ar in a better position because their homeland is close, somehow they may prove that the Turkish people can modernize, it is not their fault for all the problems in the Balkans. They have a better lot. The issue of Romani transient formal identifications is really one of negotiating better chances of survival in an adverse society. To identify as Turk, for those who know the Turkish language and customs, adds more security, but in the same time, does not expose to assimilation as it would be one as Bulgarian. There are Roma in Bulgaria who identify as Romanians (like in Vidin area), but the same as in the previous case they are not interested about creating social and political ties with the populations they say they identify. In the case of the "Romanians" many even say that they are Old Romanians or even the True Romanians. Closer, in Kosovo, the Roma who speak Albanian, and under pressure because of their ethnicity, invented a new abstract identity, the Ashkali. This is because they live together with a Albanian majority. If they would have been in Bulgaria, probably they would have identified ad Albanians. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

1 objection. UNDP's source, offered by you, speaks about unnamed experts, who estimate Roma people up to 800,000. There are no more concrete arguments about Bulgaria in this document. I suppose these unknown experts are the same Marushiakova and Popov.

2 objection. UNDP's document doesn't contain even a word about mass Turkish self-identification among citizens of Roma origin. This text sounds quite general and is irrelevant to this concrete problem.

3 objection. The Turks in contemporary Bulgaria are definitely not discriminated on ethnic base. They have relatively big political party, called Movement for Rights and Freedoms, which participates in Bulgarian political system since the fall of Communism. It was coalition partner in the previous Bulgarian cabinet of Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (2001-2005) and is part of the present Bulgarian government, led by Sergei Stanishev. More than that, there are several ethnic Roma political parties and movements, and some of them are coalition partners of the Bulgarian Socialist Party in the present cabinet. Please don't speculate with the words "ethnic discrimination"! You must prove such accusations with serious documents! Obviously your explanation is in contradiction with the well-known facts about Bulgaria.

4 objection. Romanian self-identification among people of Roma origin in Bulgaria is insignificant case. The total number of Romanians in Bulgaria is 1,088 (+ 10,566 people who declared Vlach identity). Note - we talk about 300,000 people of Roma origin with non-Roma self-identification. The example is irrelevant.

5. There are many examples for many countries in your motives, but there aren't concrete and sourced facts about Bulgaria. This shifting of one concrete regional pattern over another is quite speculative and problematic. For example - Romania wasn't under lasting direct Ottoman rule and wasn't affected by mass Turkish colonization and subsequent turkization as was in the case of Bulgaria. The effects on the Roma people in these two countries in this aspect could not be the same.

6. And so on...

The conclusion. You fail to offer me concrete and relevant arguments and sources. Some of your statements differ from your sources. You speculate freely with unproved accusations of ethnic discrimination in Bulgaria but you persist to count as proper ethnic Roma Bulgarian citizens who don't declare ethnic Roma identity. This means ignoring of Marushiakova and Popov's explanatory model. I think it is time to stop your edit war. - Jackanapes 18:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be the time for you to understand what other users told you before, namely that it is an disputed issue and thus to stop your edit war? Why don't you bring so-called relevant sources? Why do you speculate about who are the experts? After so much debate, I think it is time to understand that the figures are disputed, it is wrong to present only one side of the story. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

---

* * * * * * * * TIME OUT!!! * * * * * * * *

---

Thank you; now that I have your attention, may I remind all of you who are bickering above that this is a general-interest article about the Roma people, not an exhaustive treatise on the convoluted history of the Balkans, the thousand-and-one details about counting populations, nor any of the highly specialized points that are being so hotly argued here. Please try to keep things in perspective. While some of what's being discussed here is actually germane to the article, much of it is not. (It's not up to me to decide what is and isn't; I hope you can all calm down and work that out among yourselves.) Okay? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken belief of an origin in Egypt

It is not a mistake..it's that people are including everyone who migrated a lot as being Rom. Everyone from peasant Irish to Indo-european,Persians,Ayans so on. ROMA are SEMITES. When the Nazis killed them people they went after Semites(Hebrews,Roma) Hitler himself was of IndoEuropean blood which is considered white. And since none of you knew..these groups hate eachother hence the middle eastern problem. -Mari

Although there was an attempt to label the Roma as semitic, this was later abandoned as it's patently untrue. http://www.geocities.com/~patrin/porraimos.htm --143.234.96.9 11:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm always confused for something mixed with black and when I explain what I am they look at me like i'm lying because I don't look Italian which is what everyone thinks we look like. Mari

The Nazi party was well aware of the Indo-European nature of the Rom, but declared them to be a danger due to the fact they had heavily 'mixed' with 'other races' in their travels (this is well documented in the Porajmos article) and so were even more dangerous. Oddly enough, Heinrich Himmler even proposed making a reservation to study a few 'pure gypsies' early on.The Myotis 02:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Number of Roma people in Finland

{{editprotected}} I was going to add the statistics for Finland, but the page was protected: |region9 = {{flagcountry|Finland}}
|pop9 = 10,000+
|ref9 = {{lower|<ref>http://www.edu.fi/english/page.asp?path=500,4699,6276,15850,15996</ref>}} --Silvonen 13:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going to try unprotecting the page to see if the edit war has died down. So you can make the change yourself. Everyone should take care to follow the three revert rule. CMummert · talk 23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Ive heard that number myself (10,000) here in Finland but thats an ESTIMATED guess because we dont count people according to race here maybe they do that it in the racist eastern europe (Want the link?)

Dear MadeInFinland, please do not dismiss all of Eastern Europe as "racist." That in itself is somewhat prejudiced. K. Lásztocska 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

---

By all means show us a fair and balanced article about Roma people written in Eastern Europe!

WHY is the HOLOCAUST called Persecution on this page??

More Roma people in quantity were exterminated than jews during WW2 and they received no compensation unlike jews so why doesnt it say HOLOCAUST or dont they teach that in schools? What gives here? I edit something and somebody changes it back, im not in the mood to play around like some highschool girl here, how do i make my edits stick? And how do i report a racist to a moderator, these "edit wars" are stupid. And btw where is that link on genetics? You see WP demands reliable sources which means we can axe the racist Eastern Europe at once. Unless you can show some proof ill axe that morbid article.

The Porajmos was part of a wider persecution of Roma. It has its own entry. Nobody knows for certain how many of us were killed in the Porajmos, but it is not true that it was larger than the number of jews killed. The number is estimated at between 220,000 to 1.5 million Roma compared with 6 million jews. It has been argued that 70% of Roma may have been wiped out... to compare that with 66% of Jews and say "we had it worse" seems redundant to me.--143.234.96.9 14:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You cannot make your edits stick. The Genetics section is in need of cleaning up, but its sources are explicitly named.Dinlo juk 13:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Genetics and Neo NAZI internet terror

There is no WP standard link of proof to those insane neo nazi accusations only wild accusations from the neo nazi scum of the earth Eastern Europeans here. So bye bye and hate another day. Just not today! Ok, Adolfs? Now some questions:

1.Its states that the article needs a clean up! Why do you bring in wild Eastern European accusations here? When WP says it only accepts fair and balanced PROOF?

2.Im not a vandal, i actually would like to talk to a moderator about that morbid serves no purpose genetics article —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 April 2007

There are numerous peer-reviewed publications dealing with the genetics of the Roma. Several are mentioned in the text of the Genetics section.

That portion of the article serves a number of purposes, the main one being to demonstrate their origin as a distinct people. Linguists and historians had demonstrated that the Romani languages have similarities with Indian languages and had hypothesised an Indian origin for the Roma. This had been disputed by some who suggested the Roma acquired aspects of Indian languages through their nomadic lifestyle. The genetic data is exceptionally strong evidence of a physical Indian origin.

There is no explicit or implicit racism in investigating the origin of a people.

What are the "accusations" you have a particular problem with? That the Roma come from India? Why would that be an issue?Dinlo juk 14:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

MadeInFinland, you are really crossing the line. I refer to your comment about "the neo-Nazi scum of the earth, Eastern Europeans." As a part-Eastern European myself, and one who is fiercely opposed to racism, Nazism, hate speech etc., I am really quite offended to be called "scum of the earth" and an "Adolf." Interesting that you fly into a rage at even the merest hint of racist comments about the Roma (even when there was no racism there to begin with) but you have no problem making racist statements about Eastern Europeans?! K. Lásztocska 16:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)