Talk:Romani crucifixion legend

Sources and more versions

The introduction to Gypsy Folk-Tales by Francis Hindes Groome, 1899, pages xxvii to xxx, includes both of these stories in a much fuller and earlier form, along with geographical detail and citations:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.%24b59033&seq=31 2604:CA00:128:B563:0:0:C62:C02A (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that page says (for me): "This item is not available online — Limited - search only — due to copyright restrictions." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Obvious non-academic source and possible deletion of this page

I noticed that the paragraph about the alternate version of the legend has a non-academic source. It references "Sting Shift: The Street-smart Cop's Handbook of Cons and Swindles". Upon further research, it seems to be a guide for cops recognizing scams. It isn't even about Romani people. One of the sections is called "UFOs Big Foot and other hoaxes". A few of the commonly used phrases in the book are "Gypsies" and "psychic surgeons". Apparently, the entire second paragraph was made in 2016 without a source for four more years until the dubious reference was added in 2020.

I don't know how to edit this page without deleting it altogether as its the whole point of this page. I found this page when people on a forum were justifying their hatred for Romani people. They used this page a source. I believe that this page should be deleted altogether as clearly no one cares about accuracy and it's just used to justify racism. Pigstuck (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Well-spotted. A quick online search for better sources for (at least parts of) the alternative suggests: this, this, and this. But ideally we need some academic source(s) that predates 2016, and probably predates Wikipedia. I think at least the existing source should be removed. Perhaps the whole paragraph should be commented out until any better sources can be found. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any issues with the sources for the traditional version? If we are left with a very small article it would probably be wise to merge it with Romani society and culture. That article currently makes no mention of the legend at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be best to remove the paragraph. It existed without a source for over 4 years so it's safe to say that it isn't accurate. Eventually the page should merge with the main article when better sources are found. The reason this error has existed for so long is because it's a small and obscure topic. Merging to a bigger article would help get more eyes on it and have more people catch errors.

The first source seems to be from a magazine oriented towards Romani people. I'm not sure if it belongs in Wikipedia but I'm not an expert. The second and third source seem solid upon a cursory glance. It's interesting stuff. I found myself reading the second and third sources for a lot longer than I imagined.

It would be important to add that this legend is passed down through oral history, so there are many different variations and not all Romani people believe the same one. Also, some of the legend variations that are negative were spread by other groups, not the Romani themselves, as pointed out by the second source. Beyond that, I don't have any more notes. I'm not an expert, or a historian, or a Wikipedia editor. I'm glad I spotted the error though! Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can come along to correct the record. Thanks! Pigstuck (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think all of your points are perfectly valid. Although, from the viewpoint of pure logic, the fact that it "existed without a source for over 4 years", doesn't necessarily mean it isn't accurate. It might be a good idea to raise this as a question at Talk:Romani society and culture? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I've now raised the question there. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)