Talk:Romani people/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Edit request

Romani people in Austria are about ~50.000. Another source say about 40.000 Romani in Austria. Can someone include this number in the infobox? 212.241.98.39 (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

-- There was a suggestion above, done by somebody else an year ago about the name of the Romani people in Georgian language: "A Romani person in Georgian is called like ბოშა [bosha] or აწინკანი [atz'ink'ani], but not ციგანი — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.241.74.222 (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)" I am a native Georgian speaker and I confirm that the above is correct. The use of the word "ციგანი [tsigani]" borrowed from Russian is on decline, while ბოშა [bosha], used for centuries, is both a literary term and a more widespread one. Its origins are probably linked to the lifestyle of the Romani people as ancient Georgians saw it - in some Georgian dialects "bosha" is still a general word for "poor wanderer" http://www.nplg.gov.ge/gwdict/index.php?a=term&d=28&t=4229. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C6C:6040:19C8:F8C9:5CBA:D52 (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Simplify some of the language used.

In my opinion, the article could be rearranged to provide the historical and less technical information near the top of the article. I appreciate the linguistic analysis; however, I do not think the average person cares about that subject.

I think that some of the technical language that is used in the article could be simplified. For example, the use of the terms exonyms, endonyms, agglutination, etc. Also, the exonym article linked to in this page is equally confusing. I feel as if the writer is trying to educate the reader on the finer details of linguistic analysis. Perhaps that is the intent. If it is, then I would recommend simplifying the language to make it more accessible to the general audience.

AndrewMcGraw1970 (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Redirect suggestion

"Gypsy" and "Gypsies" redirects here, but the Romani are not the only Traveller groups traditionally called by those names; the Pavee, the Yenische, Scots Travellers, and more share that name and have faced the same discrimination and abuse as the Romani people.

Suggestion: redirect "Gypsy" and "Gypsies" instead to a page something like "Traditional Traveller groups"? From that page we could link to the individual pages, rather than the current erasure of indigenous European Traveller groups (some of whom do still use the word "Gypsy" for themselves). Zentomologist (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

A Romani person in Georgian is called like ბოშა [bosha] or აწინკანი [atz'ink'ani], but not ციგანი — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.241.74.222 (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I like the "Traditional Traveller groups" article suggestion. It would also be helpful have a section, or separate article, that would explain the relationships (overlap, separateness, etc.) between the various Romani, and the Irish Travelers, Scottish Travelers, Scandanavian Travelers, etc. I myself, not an expert, do not understand these relationships. Is it possible that indigenous Travelers and co-local Romani in Europe formed relationships based on common experiences of persecution and/or being forced together by persecutors? I cannot tell from the articles currently available in EN Wikipedia, except for a few references to Traveler "cants" that include Romani and Yiddish words and/or influences. Acwilson9 (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Gypsy is a racial slur that means Romany. It does not mean traveller. It means romany and its not a colloquial term. Its a racist slur. Crycakes (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Exonyms vs endonyms

Who has decided what's an exonym and what an endonym?

Catalan Gypsies call themselves gitanos, but in this Wikipedia gitano appears as an exonym. If you are in France and you find a Catalan speaking Gypsy and ask them what language they speak, most probably they'll don't answer Catalan but «Gitano». They even call the language, Catalan, Gitano. So, imagine how an endonym it is, however, you consider it an exonym. Nonsense.

For more information on the subject, read *Els gitanos catalans de França - Llengua, cultura i itineraris de la gran diàspora*, by Eugeni Casanova. ISBN 978-8499758053

https://www.amazon.com/gitanos-catalans-Fran%C3%A7a-Casanova-Solanes/dp/8499758053

--77.230.102.45 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You say that "Catalan Gypsies call themselves gitanos"; can you give a specific citation? I don't have access to the book you listed; since you do, how about listing the page number that supports that assertion, and quoting a paragraph or however much is needed to support that claim? (Please quote the original; not a translation.) Any reliable source that supports that assertion is fine; doesn't have to be that one.

I can see from this interview that Casanova's book (oclc 981055263) is a thesis, and by his own claim, he discovered a lot of Catalan-speaking gypsies (tens of thousands) in France, who speak Catalan and who sometimes call it speaking "gitano". I don't see—in this article at least—where they refer to themselves as "gitano", just (sometimes) their language. (Some academics call the patois consisting of the local language, Catalan in this case, mixed with borrowings from Romani language as "Calò".) If they do refer to themselves as gitano, can you point out specifically where they do that? There's also this source, but once again, it's mostly about the language, and less about what they call themselves; see around p. 200. Mathglot (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You have the Federació d'Associacions Gitanes de Catalunya, for example. Or the Consell Municipal del Poble Gitano de Barcelona Which include, among others:

• Consell Municipal del Poble Gitano
• AGRUPACIÓ D'ENTITATS PER AL DESENVOLUPAMENT DEL POBLE GITANO DELS PAÏSOS CATALANS
• ASSOCIACIÓ DE JOVES GITANOS DE CATALUNYA
• ASSOCIACIÓ DE JOVES GITANOS DE GRÀCIA
• ASSOCIACIÓ DE LA DONA GITANA CATALANA D'HOSTAFRANCS
• ASSOCIACIÓ ESPORTIVA GITANA D'HOSTAFRANCS
• ASSOCIACIÓ GITANA DE BON PASTOR
• ASSOCIACIÓ GITANA DE JOVENTUT, IGUALTAT I PROGRÉS
• ASSOCIACIÓ GITANA TOTS ELS COLORS
• ASSOCIACIÓ JOVES GITANOS DE BON PASTOR RROMANE SIKILOVNE
• ASSOCIACIÓ VEUS GITANES
• FUNDACIÓ PRIVADA PERE CLOSA, PER A LA FORMACIÓ I LA PROMOCIÓ DELS GITANOSA CATALUNYA

In case you want more examples, check the Museu Virtual Gitano. In the interviews you can read things like «Per ser dones gitanes no se’ns ha de posar cap etiqueta» or «Els gitanos i gitanes que històricament han lluitat pels nostres drets [...]»

About a photo exhibition whose title was Som gitanos (We are gypsies] in a website whose domain is gitanos dot cat.

About the conmemoration of the 600 years of the arrival into Catalonia. It explains the name comes frome Minor Egypt, the region in Greece where they stayed for a while before the expansion into Europe.

I hope this is enough information.

--77.230.102.45 (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the organizations in your bullet list. It isn't clear to me whether they indicate self-identification, or identification by a municipal or regional government organization, much as the Bureau of Indian Affairs didn't indicate self-identification when it was created in the United States. The interview that you link to would be a better indication, and the photo exhibition may be. In any case, thanks for your research. It would be good to have the views of other editors on this issue. Mathglot (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Fringe theory?

The single source cited for Romani people § Endonyms is an academic paper in Romanian, which however has this English note between the author's name, Lucian Cherata, after the text, as a quasi-signature, and the bibliography:

  My work on "The Etymology of the Words "Gipsy" and "Rom" analyses from a different perspective the etymology of the words "Gipsy" and "Rom", underlining their Sanskrit origin, as opposed to the hypotheses almost unanimously accepted until now and which present other perspectives.

  This new interpretation rules out all the present ambiguities and confusions regarding the current use of the two words.

To me that looks just like an author's defense of their fringe theory.

--Thnidu (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Gypsy is not a colloquial term

Gypsy is considered extremely offensive by many Rom, please stop romantising the word. Its been used for centuries to persecute and opress us. It needs to be removed, you wouldn't say that African-Americans are colloquially know as the N word now would you? Crycakes (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, from the gadje side, you are saying more than is true. “Gypsy” has been used negatively, of course, but it is also the English translation of “Zigeuner” and “Cigány”, and thus is found in the English titles of “Der Zigeunerbaron” and “Der Zigeunerprimas”. There is a superheroine named “Gypsy”. There are songs called “Gypsy”. Oh—just look up Gypsy (disambiguation). The word is neutral. John W. Kennedy (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"Romani people in the Netherlands" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Romani people in the Netherlands. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"Romani people in Argentina" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Romani people in Argentina. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Hello, I propose that Roma_people be merged into Romani_people. Reading both page it seems they talked about the same ethnic people. Also Roma_people article have very few information with very little activity but linked in other articles for Romani people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hungarian 'fáraónépe'

fáraónépe = people of the pharaoh. As a well educated Hungarian I can tell you, there isn't and never have been such a term. Not even in general meaning let alone applied to any ethnic group. We don't form words like that. It might have been published in some communist propaganda for there was a major push to force the country to accept them as equals. It failed.

The Egyptians are held in high regard. That does not apply to the 'cigans'. The country thinks about them as thieves, robbers, cheats and generally a group to be avoided at any cost. They would NEVER be associated with Egyptians.

Besides, we knew they came from India, well before genetics was discovered and their origin was proven by it.

That much about Wikipedia and it's trustworthiness.

The 'pharaoh' possibly comes from the (intentional?) misunderstanding of their Indian cast: pariah. Pariah is used in the meaning of 'a person with continued bad luck, feel sorry for him/her'. Gypsies are quietly but actively hated.

Analysing the reason(s) for this hatred is way beyond the scope of this entry or even the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2020‎ (UTC)

No, it have been used since the Medieval ages up to the 19th century, it has nothing to do with "pariah", but the populus Pharaonis, as The Gypsies had also there a stay before entering the Balkans.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC))

@ 115.70.29.185 Sounds like original research, where are your citations? Racial prejudice rarely has the proper citations :) So much for you and your trustworthiness.192.26.8.4 (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Roma would be better then Romani

As it's mentioned, "to not be confused with Romanians". It would be much better if the title was changed to Roma people and not Romani, because the 2 are interchangeble anyways. L'grand Anonim (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Roma people is more common than Romani people. "Roma people" gets 520,000 Google results, "Romani people" gets 365,000; "Roma people" gets 15,400 Google Scholar results, "Romani people" gets 5,280; Encyclopedia Britannica calls this ethnic group Roma and not Romani; Amnesty International and the European Commission of the European Union do too. Maybe we should consider changing the name. Super Ψ Dro 09:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this would be the most accurate move. Those two names are often used interchangeable, but there is a distinction. This article, for example, describes the Roma as a sub-group of the Romani. There was even previously a page for Roma (Romani subgroup) page on here, and Wiktionary still references it as a subgroup. It might be common, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's accurate. Issan Sumisu (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

missing something

"The Roma people have a number of distinct populations, the largest being the Roma and the, who reached Anatolia and the Balkans about the early 12th century...." --2607:FEA8:FF01:7D8D:5D89:DED3:F753:5C81 (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

suggest deleting Exonyms

The inclusion of exonyms, especially so early in the Wiki article seems odd to me. Are there other articles that start by listing what a given group is called by other groups (e.g. the Germans or the Dutch)? It seems even stranger since many of these terms are considered derogatory by Romani people. Imagine an article on black people starting with a list of racial slurs used by other people to describe black people. I suggest simply deleting the list since there is already a link to "Names of the Romani people" which includes said list. At the very least, the section should move further down. The first thing you read about Romani people on Wikipedia should not be offensive slurs in twenty different languages.--Kaiser Nero (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should discuss the exonym situation. I've been looking at other pages for how they address terminology. Take African Americans. The Terminology section is closer to the bottom of the page. The more sensitive term "negro" is used throughout the article, but avoided in the lead. Once you get to the Terminology section the names colored, person of color, and negro are named and linked. I think this article could take some inspiration from that. One problem, though, is that the Romani have the more unique issue of having many names in many relevant languages, by virtue of being spread throughout multilingual Europe. Black Americans have a terminology issue as well, but it's comparatively smaller and monolingual. I think exonyms should be moved farther down the article as well, at least putting Exonyms nearer the bottom of the Names section, not the top. I'd be in favor of shrinking the Names section as well if there's a strong consensus for it. TheSavageNorwegian 16:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that, given the many names for Romani people, having the terminology/names section early in the article makes sense. The Names section currently looks like this: 1. exonyms (list); 2. endonyms (text); 3. Romani usage (text), 4. English usage (text); 5. other designations (text + a link just under the heading to Names of the Romani people which already includes a list of exonyms). I therefore propose deleting the exonyms here because: 1) the information is already in the article under "other designations", and is presented in a better format because it is a text that explains and contextualizes exonyms instead of simply listing them; 2) the same section also includes a prominent link to an extensive list of exonyms; 3) moving exonyms would probably mean putting it after "other designations" in which case the doubling of content (mentioned in point 1) becomes even more apparent. Kaiser Nero (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This article could do with some non-American perspectives on this matter. In the UK "gypsy" is generally not considered a slur by the community and is very commonly used for self-description by members of the community and by community organisations such as the Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group. 95.145.172.0 (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The preference of "Romani" and "Roma", isn't an American perspective, it was decided at the first World Romani Congress which only included European Romani. It's true some still use "gypsy", but that's why every time its mentioned as a slur its reference as "many consider", not as a universal fact, because some do not consider it a slur. Issan Sumisu (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove the exonym list. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, including a translation dictionary. We don't have, at Tree, a list of the word used in every language for trees. In similar discussions, I've received the objection "but exonyms are encyclopedic". But the fact that a fancy term "exonym" exists for translations into other languages when the word being translated is the name of a people or place doesn't make those translations any more encyclopedic than any others.

This doesn't mean we can't cover the substantive history behind the term, and alternative terms, used in English, particularly as they reflect sociological factors, and if, in doing so, a term from another language is mentioned as a path through which a cognate came into English. But it should stop there. Largoplazo (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Also remove the Endonym list under Romani Subgroups. The same reasoning applies. For those names that are self-designations by subgroups of the Roma, our focus should be on the subgroup, not on the name. Largoplazo (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Huge confusion on this page due to back-projecting current terminology to eras that did not use it

The first example I noticed is the claim that "Argentina in 1880 prohibited immigration by Roma, as did the United States in 1885." There was no concept of "Roma" in the law of either country at the time, and in fact per a much better source here: https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2464/2020/11/Romani-realities-report-final-11.30.2020.pdf "A large number of Romani people arrived in the United States during the wave of immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (1880s-1924)" and many of them came through Argentina.

The U.S. did have discrimination against "gypsies" but this was the concept of "gypsy" that white Americans had at the time, which is only partially related to the ethnic group now denoted by the term "Roma." The idea that the group was totally excluded from immigration on an ethnic basis is not true, but it's easy to see how one could think it was if one examines historical documents using the modern reading in which "gypsy" is just the impolite word for "Roma." This is not a good way to do history and the article needs to be examined for other examples of this error. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The names section

This is a bit of a mess. I am a bit doubtful at how much it treats the Council of Europe as the best source, and it really needs to be noted that "gypsy" is a completely acceptable term in the UK, and many Romani there self-identify as "gypsies". Blanket statements on "gypsy" being a derogatory term are therefore inaccurate, and even in places like the US where opinion is much more against the term there are still some Romani who identify as "gypsies". --Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Czech Republic

The Czech Republic appears twice in the table about total population. --2001:16B8:31F3:D400:501B:874E:6ED8:9EA5 (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Quite right. And, yet, I don't feel like being the one who has to do all the renumbering of the subsequent entries if I remove the former of the two entries. When is Wikimedia going to provide for repeated sets of related template parameters that don't have to be numbered? Largoplazo (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

"International Roma Conference" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect International Roma Conference and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#International Roma Conference until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

"Kelmysh" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kelmysh and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Kelmysh until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Roma vs Irish Travellers

The infobox lists ~20k-30k Roma people in Ireland. But the source states this includes "related" groups like Irish Travellers. Travellers have some cultural similarities, but are not at all related. As described in the Travellers article, they originate from a purely Irish population, with no Indo-Aryan input. More to the point, 30k is the entire population of Travellers in Ireland, which suggests that the Roma population is basically zero! In the absence of a good estimate for the purely Roma population, I propose to delete the Ireland entry in the infobox. Shayno (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Gypsy/Tzigane cognate?

The article seems confused as to whether gypsy is cognate with tzigane. At first it asserts this (also pointing out that tzigane and variants are not considered derogatory) but later claims that tzigane comes from Greek athigonoi, a sect. 74.72.136.132 (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

That Greek source for tzigane/zingaro/cigano/German Zigeuner is what I'm mostly seeing them attributed to elsewhere as well, with German Wikipedia giving alternative hypotheses, none of which are that it's related to Egypt. Of the non-English equivalents listed, only Spanish "gitano" is related to "gypsy" and "Egypt". So the point of the sentence is invalid. Largoplazo (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

change of word low caste as oppressed caste

there should be a change in the way the low caste are described it should be described as 'oppressed caste' rather than 'low caste'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.25.135.69 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

No. The words do not mean the same thing, and if you change the wording from a source that days "low" and write "opressed" instead then you're engaging in OR (or at best SYNTH, which is also OR). Castes, by their very definition, are hierarchical. If castes didn't exist, then there would be no castes to oppress, and if castes do exist, then certain of them must be low ones, by virtue of the nature of the caste system. To speak of a caste as being "oppresssed", then the the attention is redirected to the oppression alone, rather than the fact that the caste exists in the first place. And besides, everyone knows that caste systems are created by the oppressors, i.e., the higher castes, so any mentions of high castes and low castes is a poor reflection on the high castes, not the low ones: for everyone knows that it is not the low caste people's fault they're placed in a low caste (unless your religion says that it is, in which case, how we write our articles isn't going to change that. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:2918:9176:1627:2097 (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Albania - Unreliable and Incorrect Estimate

The Albanian high estimate is extremely exaggerated as evident when comparing current sources featured on article (one of which is a dead link) to contemporary and updated sources. It is unreliable. Interestingly, the high estimate of 300,000 on the article is not reflected in the sources, where 150,000 is the highest estimate. 122.60.13.45 (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Why is it "interesting", rather than simply a human error? And why are human errors - which are universal - suddenly "interesting" to certain folks whenever they happen to be made by a Jew or a Gypsy, but for everyone else they're just non-notable happenstance? 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:2918:9176:1627:2097 (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Roma or Romani?

I understand that both terms are in common use, but the article would read better if it was consistent.

(I won't do it - I'm no expert in this topic. I only came here when I noticed Cher's track Gypsys,_Tramps_&_Thieves - Gypsys reads wrong to me, but seems to be what it is called)

Number774 (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Modern day reimagination vibe

No Idea how to do this, but this article needs serious work by someone with more time than me. It should absolutely not be called Romani.

This is exactly like, say, Ivory Coast slaves having a certain term ascribed to them, and now deciding all black people in the US are to be called whatever that was because the previous term has negative connotations. Do you not see how that is absurd to me? Not just that, but also REMOVING the wikipedia article on the actual subject, going through the work of replacing gypsy and then releasing it as truth. There's still a goddamn article on N*****, as there should be. This is just utterly insane to me as an actual living gypsy. One using the term proudly, and NOT belonging to the Romani exodus group..

Romani are a section of gypsies, yes, but just using it as an umbrella term is absolutely irresponsible by something supposed to be an encyclopedia. I'm a gypsy and whatever negative connotation exist you can't just replace the word and pretend it didn't happen/isn't so because some individual is uncomfortable. It is a real term. It was used. Also by us ourselves for hundreds of goddamn years. You're removing my history with this article. It's history regardless of its current acceptance or vilification. History, actual history, has a place in an encyclopedia, under the common term, and common usage, and everything else, with no censorship due to some modern standard, or otherwise.

Sorry for being riled up. But this is going way to far with the silly political stuff. This is an encyclopedia. Travellers/gypsies/umherzieir are used and traditional common/umbrella terms for all the groups of people hailing from India and who emigrated to Europe. Romani is not.

Call it travelling people if you must, but I'd much prefer using gypsy. That's what we've been for 500 years, and just because you decide that's hurtful and want to make up a new term that really is not my problem.. I'm still a gypsy and always will be. I'll never magically be Romani. Bararav- 89.162.79.69 (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"Romani" is the term that, apparently, people who've discussed here this found to be most commonly used in reliable sources these days. I have no intention of telling you how you should feel abou it, but if you don't like it, your issue is with the sources around which these discussions revolved, not with us. See WP:COMMONNAME for the guidelines involved in selecting titles like this. I think it's fair to assume that they, in turn, were influenced by those who share your ethnicity but disagree with you about the terminology.

See the archive search at the top of thie page. Search for "requested move" to see some of the previous discussions that have transpired about this question. At some point the article was named "Roma people", but a request to change it to the current title was approved. Requests to change it to "Gypsies" haven't met with success. Largoplazo (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This whole article has been written by most non-roma people, who are saying things from their own imagination. Everyone of them thinks they know best. But, there is no single Roma culture that is unifying for all groups. that's invention. as an example, Turkish Gypsy they call themselves romanlar and not roma, although some use other names for themselves. They speak turkish as their mother tongue, there religion are muslims, their music, traditions etc. are based in ottoman-turkish culture. Turkish-speaking Muslim Roma also live in Bulgaria, Romania and Greece. to make all different Roma groups the same is nonsense, because every Roma has its own identity. it varies a lot from country to country and religion, culture, music, food etc. Nalanidil (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Who's making them all the same? The article goes into detail about all the different subgroups. It mentions the Turkish ones. It mentions the Muslim ones. Did you read the article before commenting on it? Largoplazo (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

No its not, as you can read about the origin in this article...this is not that ALL roma groups accepted. Anyway turkish muslim romanlar are more close to the turkish people as to the christian roma from europe. Nalanidil (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep.

And gypsies stem from several areas and several different emigrations. Each have commonalities, of course, but also are divergent in many ways. My point is, the name Roma, and Romani, are originally referring to a single emigration. Yes a big one, but if you want a common term for ALL gypsies, which pretty much all gypsies are happy with, use gypsies, or travellers if you must. I have yet to meet a gypsy who refuses to call themselves gypsy, and they often do with some pride.

Again, I'm not about to get into the whole Wikipedia editing community, but I felt like this is a pretty obvious case of someone trying to be a bit too politically correct, and so should be corrected by some individual with more time on their hands. At least the changing of name would seem a rather small thing, and which made me and my friends feel rather deleted as we're not Roma and now we don't even have a wikipedia article like we used to :D 89.162.79.69 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

you can create an own article, it's not a problem. As you can see, there are some extra pages about subgroups. Nalanidil (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

World population map wrong

The world population by country map, which is there twice! is obviously wrong and incomplete already as proven by the written list in the first right column (which is indeed much much more like the reality). And so why even put the map in the article? If there isn't a good one better put none than crap... 46.135.65.38 (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

religion section is terrible

the section about Romani religion makes no sense and is full of contradictions as well as weird claims, such as the claim that Romani people, except Pentecostals, don't have bibles. this is nonsensical & can't possibly be true. would love to see this cleaned up using reliable sources, as religion is an important aspect of culture & ethnicity. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It really needs a simpler structure with followup on details as needed - right now it gives the impression that there is no correlation between Romani ethnicity and religion, which just isn't true - the vast majority are Catholic, a substantial minority are Pentecostal, a smaller minority is Muslim, and these beliefs exist alongside traditional folklore and such. The Bible comment may be just a reflection of the fact that personal Bible reading is not emphasized in Catholicism the way it is in fundamentalist Protestant Christianity. I think a good comparison might be, say, the country of Poland - you don't have to be Catholic to be Polish, and there are lots of unique elements of Polish culture that have nothing to do with Catholicism, but the fact that is the religious orientation of Poland can be summarized in a few words as "mostly Catholic" and the minority groups and additional beliefs can be elaborated on afterwards. This is the same situation with Romani and religion. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The majority of Roma are not Catholic's, and Muslim Roma are not a minority either, as you claimed. Because in Turkey all Roma are Muslims, as well as in the Balkans 50% are Muslims the other 50% are Eastern Orthodox christian. Nalanidil (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Self Identified vs Heritage

It seems like a strage thing when it comes to data on population, the page seem to prefere higher estimates and in the case of the US it gives the number of people with Roma Heritage. Shouldn't the data present the number of the censuses and asimilation and people of Roma decent be a section of its own on the page? DiGrande (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

US Censuses aren't particularly reliable for such estimates. The only standard fields that everyone must answer are race, of which there's about a half dozen choices (White, Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native, or "Some Other Race"), and one or more boxes may be checked; and ethnicity, which has two options and only one maybe checked, and they are "Hispanic or Latino" or "Not Hispanic or Latino". Other heritage identifiers, like English, or Irish, or Czechoslovakian etc, are optional, and many people that do include such a descriptor just write "American", which, unless you're a native, is not entirely accurate (but many White Americans do not know what country their people came from, and most Black Americans do not, thus that's the best answer they can give). Case in point: relying on US census data for an accurate estimate of the number of Roma/gypsies in America would be likely be a great underrepresentation. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:2918:9176:1627:2097 (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but this numbers are used at the section "Population." Where for some country here are used some numbers that do not corespond with the census numbers of those countries. There might be underreporting of Roma ancestory, but if those people when asked if they considere themself Roma or not, ar they actually Roma?

In the case of most if not groups on this website, the aswear is not. DiGrande (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Number of Romani in the USA - Source?

The only source given for there being about 1 million Romani in the US are this - a PhD dissertation from Purdue https://www.proquest.com/docview/288181234 - and an article from Times Magazine - http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2025316,00.html. Neither of these sources can be dismissed immediately as being non-credible (PhDs are well researched, Time is a reputable mag), but concerningly neither source explains how they came to the figure. They just declare it to be around 1 million. Can we find a more reliable source, such as a US Census figure, to justify how many Romani people there are in the US? Even if it's a wide ranging estimate or a very big underestimate (because of self-reporting etc.) but the point is there should be a source that is more reliable than these articles, which both seem to have pulled the number out of thin air. Happy to discuss and hear from others on this, perhaps this is sufficient. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Romani Population in Czech Republic

In the chart for Romani population by country the Czech Republic is listed twice. Once claiming a population of 250,000 and a second time with a population of 5,199- 40,370 (Romani speaking 250,000) Furthermore the article titled Romani people in the Czech Republic claims that the Romani people makes up 2-3% of the population. According to the most recent census of 10.7 million as a total population, 2-3% would be  321,000. Do we know which of these (if any) is the correct? 2601:1C1:8280:35A0:89D8:6A2C:1E4F:3868 (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The first coming of Roma (Gypsies)

As believed, and accepted, the Roma first came to the Arabia on Arab merchant ships between (Oman and Yeman ) and India since two centuries before the advent of Islam. They were known then as the A'raab (means not Arab, but dwelt in the desert as nomadic people). They had a tradition of stealing and stealing children and robbing, particularly the travelers, marauding. In Qur'an, there are five verses warning us that they (the A'raab) cannot be trusted, they are never truthful. Their population multiplied in great numbers as they had many children, and also pandemics rarely infected them for they were scattered in the desert. Eventually as they became to rule in the desert in the beginning of the last century, they started to marry Arab women to improve their progeny. Now the A'raab are rulers in the Arab oil producing countries.

TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT CAME IN THE FIRST ARTICLE THE LAST PARAGRAPH, (Mahmud Ghazani became a ruler in the second half of the thirteenth century not as you implied,1000 years ago, means in the eleventh century). 185.239.178.146 (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you point to any reliable sources confirming any of this? Largoplazo (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The evidences are only in Arabic learnt by conveying from generation to generation. Unfortunately, they were not directly documented in the ancient historical scripts at its time, BUT, we have in Arabic the classic literature 14-15 hundred years ago (the description of the original Arab people, which is much different than those in the Arabia and Iraq today, they were generally white, as they were descendants of prophet Ibrahiem). Names of swords, and saying or proverbs are also indicating to this. I will translate a very old Arabic saying into English; (LEYSH NAHNA SOUD [ZINOOGE] OR HINOOD?)(do you think we are Black [referring to the Africans] or Hindoo [referring to those who came from India]?), this said when a person was addressed by someone else lightly or trying to fool him or with not much regard.

Also one of the ancient names of the sword was ((Mohan-nad, meaning has been polished by the Hindoo who were in the Arabia worked low jobs, (so just bu saying [Moha-nad] means; it has been polished) and as Shepherds {for camels} for the Arab, almost as slaves.)) while swords were brought at that time form Damascus. Also the Genetic features of the A'araab were and still are obvious today despite their race has been mixed with the Arab. BUT, most importantly is what came in Qur'an describing the A'araab nature, in verses 90, 97, 98 of Surat Ataoba and 14 in Surat Alhujuraat, and verse 12 in Surat Alfatih. They (the Hindoo) married Africans as no an Arab woman would have accepted to marry them no matter how many camels are brought to her as dowry. Kenrick, Donald (5 July 2007).

Historical Dictionary of the Gypsies (Romanies) (2nd ed.). Scarecrow Press. p. xxxvii. ISBN 978-0-8108-6440-5, REFERS THAT GYPSIES, in Arabic (Hindoo) THEN CAME TO BE KNOWN AS A'RAAB (INCLUDING THE AFRICANS), had arrived TO THE MIDDLE- EAST IN THE SIXTH CENTURY.

ANOTHER WAVE OF EMIGRATION TO THE MID-EAST OCCURRED DURING THE MONGOL INVASION TO THE MID-EAST IN THE 13TH CENTURY.

Their behavior and nature at that time was stealing and robbing, this habit and culture (of stealing and robbing) remained until not long ago, the A'araab in the Arabia until the beginning of the last century made their fortune by this way, particularly, robbed camels and horses. eventually they had influence in the desert of the Arabia), the majority of them couldn't speak proper Arabic until the beginning of the last century. They were called at the Ancient times (e'lige or 3elige) a derogatory word for not Arab, which is equal to the word (thug), this word was coined then as, probably, came from Hindoo or describing the Hindoo. 185.239.178.159 (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Your response cites legends, sayings, and your own reasoning from axioms you've asserted without support, but no reliable sources. Largoplazo (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you, for the written history of the Arab was written in the AD eighth century. However, the Arab have conveyed stories of the Ancient times from generation to generation, and those stories were known earlier but written in the eighth century. thank you for your interest in my account. 185.239.178.159 (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

What this person wrote about the roma people is nonsense. Maybe he wrote about the Domari from mid. east, maybe he read about this groups in Arabic documents.

We Turkmān Kıptîleri (Turkoman Gypsy) from Turkey have our own History, and we have nothing in common with other Roma Groups from Europe. We Turkoman Gypsy, convert to islam at the time of the seljuk empire in anatolia. Since the 1990's the offical name Romanlar is taken. Other Groups of Horahane from Balkans take Islam at the Ottoman Empire, and have there romani dialects but some also adopted only turkish language.

But Turkish speaking Turkoman Gypsys was settled by the ottomans with turkish people at the balkans, especially in bulgaria, romania (Dobrudja) in Greece (West Thrace) some in North Macedonia (Veles, Kumanovo, Vardar) and in Kosovo. we speak turkish only with some few romani words only. our leader was Mansur bin Yakup Han the so called Chingene Han,in 1224 he built his Kervansaray, we are divided in 4 clans: The Coban clan, the Tarhaneci clan, the Pastirmaci clan, the Misirli clan. We have no problem to call us Gypsy or Cingene. Once we come from North India via Iran-Central Asia to Anatolia with the seljuks. We mingled with Turks and Egyptians too. This is why we have the Belly dance, when egyptian woman came to Istanbul in Ottoman time, they mingled with us Turkoman Gypys Man. We are mostly brown colored and black haired. Only this who are mixed with Gacolar became light skinned. Rom baro (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rom baro: Have you seen the article on Romani people in Turkey that this article links to? Largoplazo (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I'am türkmen kiptiyim. Im this https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355873685_Turcoman_Gypsies_in_the_Balkans_Just_a_Preferred_Identity_or_More Rom baro (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Just in case there's some confusion: An article's talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. It wasn't clear to me that your first contribution here was meant for that purpose, but in case it was a request to have the information added to the article, I decided to point out to you that it's already on Wikipedia in its own article. But in your response to me you didn't actually respond to what I'd written, and you make only a comment about yourself. If you meant for it to be relevant to this article, can you please explain how? Also, just to be clear: Wikipedia article's can't be based on information contributors write about themselves or from their own experiences. We need to be able to find the information in reliable sources. Largoplazo (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hallo @Largoplazo, I wrote to this IP nummber, i give this person answer, what he wrote about romani people with this arabian claims.

im not against you sir. you mistaken my answer, sorry. Rom baro (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Y-DNA

The Genetic topic must be included also the Y-DNA Haplogroups in Romani people:

• H1a-M82
• J2a2-M67
• E1b1b1a-M78
• I1-M253
• I2a-P37.2.
• I*-M170
• I2b-M223
• R1a1-M198
• R1b1-P25
• R2-M124
• C3-M217
• G*-M201
• N1c-Tat
• P*-M45

The main Y-DNA in Roma are:

• Indian: (H1a-M82),
• Middle Eastern/West Asian: (J2a2-M67, J2*-M172, E1b1b1a-M78)
• European: (I1-M253, I2a-P37.2)
• Central Asian/West Eurasian: (R1a1-M198, R1b1-P25).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51043486_Genetic_Structure_of_the_Paternal_Lineage_of_the_Roma_People Rom baro (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Name

We are Roma not Romani, Romani is the language. Romani chib. Roma is the People. Why in english wikipedia is taken romani as the name for us? english all changend strange the names Rom baro (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Apparently not every Roma agrees with you that it refers only to the language.

• "I am part of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) community (specifically a Romani Gypsy)." Luke Wenman, "Conditional Whiteness of Gypsies, Roma and Travellers", Runnymede Trust, 2022.
• "The Romani Cultural Arts Company is the leading Romani and Traveller community-based organisation in Wales, ...". "About Us", The Romani Cultural Arts Company.
• "Most of the Americans I have met don’t know much about the Romani people, ...", quoting Cristiana Grigore ("Cristiana Grigore studies at Vanderbilt University in the U.S. state of Tennessee - on a prestigious Fulbright scholarship. Grigore is Romanian. She is also Romani, or Roma, part of an ethnic group often referred to as Gypsies."). "For Roman, Life in US Has Challenges", Voice of America News, 2011.

That leads us to the question of what's most commonly used in English, per WP:COMMONNAME. It's also important to distinguish between noun and adjective. It's possible for "Roma" to be the most common noun form and "Romani" to be the most common adjectival form, just as we say "a Spaniard" but "a Spanish person". Both are equally correct; "a Spanish" and "a Spaniard person" would both be wrong. Largoplazo (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

yes but this is english not in romani chib (romani language).

How should this work in romani chib ? there is also romani chib language wikipedia

... Rom (male) Romni/Romli (female) sometimes Romniya, Romliya used too for female. What should Romani Gypsy be? this is a english word not from the romani chib (romani language). This made no sense in Romani Chib LOL.

Rom baro (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, not Romani Chib Wikipedia. Discussions about usage on Romani Wikipedia are held at Romani Wikipedia. Neither I nor nearly anybody else using English Wikipedia has any competence to discuss how things should be on Romani Wikipedia or how they work in the Romani language. I'm sure it's weird to people from the Netherlands that we call their language and people "Dutch" (which is cognate with both the German and Dutch words for "German", while Dutch speakers call the language "Nederlands" and themselves "Nederlanders"), but that's just the way it is. Largoplazo (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

And why the sources in english mostly wrote gypsy, not romani is much used in english sources at I-Net. So why then its a problem to be used Roma people in english wikipedia instead Romani ?? anyway romani, romanian, roma, etc, all confused by the majority of non- roma people. As i see some admins used via google translaters the romanian language and wrote something in romani chib wikipedia. But romanian language and romani is not the same...nore any resemblance. Also mostly people thought roma came from romania also false. In Turkey the roma call themself Romanlar (Roman) when they used to be describe them.

@Rom baro: Hello! I am also a Rom. Romani is correct because it is an adjective, like mahala Romani is Romani neighborhood, it’s is used to describe something as being related to the Roma, which is the noun that describes our people and our native name. In Romani chib, Romani people would be Romane Dzene and in English that is translated to Romani people. Roma is also correct, but the reason Romani is more common is because Romani groups in certain parts of Western Europe, specifically the Sinti and Kale do not identify with the term Roma, but they are still considered Romani people. TagaworShah (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Ashkali

Ashkali, are listed here in the article. Ashkali are not part of the Roma. totally wrong. They have their own flag, their own associations. They are not part of any Roma associations. Request to delete Ashkali. Ashkali speak only Albanian and no Romani, distancing themselves from the Roma. Likewise, the Balkan Egyptians are not Ashkai or Roma. Balkan Egyptians also have their own associations and flag, speak only Albanian and no Romani. Ashkali and Balkan Egyptians are distinct Albanian speaking muslim minorities in Kosovo and not part of any roma associations. Ashkali-Balkan Egypt

https://m.facebook.com/BalkanEgyptians/photos/historia-%C3%ABsht%C3%AB-dhe-mbet%C3%ABt-histori/1002593006470869/

(talk) 13:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source, reliable sources state that the Ashkali are a subgroup of the Romani people who are assimilated in Albanian culture and no longer speak the language but have Romani origin. If you have sources that contest that, please share but you can’t remove sourced content because of your own original research. TagaworShah (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Why self-assertion? There are enough resources by Ashkali and Balkan Egyptians that say the opposite. It's not about Facebook, it was just a picture so you can see that the Ashkaelia and Balkan Egyptians politicans. Ashkali and Balkan Egyptians are recognized minorities in Kosovo, how can you call them as part of Romani? Nether Genetic studys show this false claims by Non-Romani. I have posted all in the ashkali page. The Ashkalia and Balkan Egyptians statements and organizations themselves are important, not the Romani or non-Romani statements. Both are accepted Minority's. When people don't call themselves Roma, have their own organizations and political parties, don't speak Romani, don't have Romanipen. How then can these people be called Romani? Ashkaelia and Balkan Egyptians don't look like Romani at all.

I will send a message to the political organizations to stop this false claims here in wikipedia. Maybe this will helps.

https://kosovotwopointzero.com/en/minority-political-representation-roma-ashkali-egyptians/

https://kosovapress.com/en/tag/the-ashkali-party-for-integration/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232803106_History_of_Balkan_Egyptians

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232803734_History_of_Ashkali_identity Ashkali-Balkan Egypt (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Even the sources you provided say that scholars identify the Ashkali as Albanian-speaking Roma, Wikipedia is not a place for political activism, it is an encyclopedia where scholarly sources are used, if you’re not here to build an encyclopedia then please do not edit the article. TagaworShah (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Ashkali-Balkan Egypt, I read your comments in the romani discussion. Where should I start ? So, In the past it was clearly defined who the Romani people are. I'm only talking about the Romani groups that once lived in the former Habsburg monarchy, e.g. Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. The groups were and are strongly connected to each other by the same culture, religion like the Roman Catholic faith. The music, the food, the traditions, the Romani language, especially Romanipen, was and is very important. A Rom is proud to be a Rom. A rom is proud of its language, a rom is proud to have remained true to the christian faith. A rom is proud to hold the romanipen. The Roma were oppressed above all centurys in the western occident countries, but no group came up with the idea of giving themselves a different identity.

The term Gypsy is the reason, that's where the problem lies.

The term Gypsy was also used for groups like Domari, Lomari, Abdals, Lyuli, Balkan Egyptians, Ashkalis and others Gypsy like, from the surrounding population especially in the Balkans and other part of the former Ottoman Empire. The term Gypsy is considered today by the majority to be a slure. Now, many Scholars have started changing the word Gypsy then in Romani. But, the big question here, are this aforementioned peoples are really Romani subgroups? I very much doubt that. None of these groups ever spoke the Romani language. None of these groups ever referred to themselves as a Rom. Domari and Lomari are another language. It is often put forward that the Roma are not particularly religious people and often change their religion. That's a cliché that's not true. Roma are indeed practicing Christians. Even in the countries that were once under communism, Roma secretly had their children baptized. Even the Romani speaking muslim Xoraxani are very far away of the christian romanis, I don't see any similarities at all, not to mention the obscure Turkish speakers of them who call themselves Turks.

Again, not all peoples who have been or are referred to as Gypsy are Romani. Unfortunately, these people are now counted among the Romani, because of the word Gypsy. This does not benefit the true Romani. Even if the Balkans Egyptians or Persian Ashkalis were Roma groups in the past (I don't claim that !) or any Romani groups who were ashamed and turned away from the Romani culture, Romani language, you can no longer see them today designate as a subgroup of the Romani. I suspect that many of the so-called Muslim Gypsys are actually of Domari descent and not Romani. It makes sense. Because the Ottoman Empire was big, people could move from one part to the other. It is known that, for example, Albanians settled in Damascus and Egypt, and Egyptian fellahin, for example, also in Dobrudja. There are a number of other examples. People who don't describe themselves as Romani and have no connection to them, on the contrary, shouldn't be called Romani either. Don't see the connection. The Romani don't have to put up with that. Vlax Romani (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Ethnically, Roma or Romani people are not 100% ethnic Indians. They are partly Indians. The Roma/Romani/Gypsy people intermixed/assimilated with the European Pagans who also faced discrimination. Thus, much of these people often have European DNA as well. Hence, the given statement that these people solely emerged from India is incorrect. This discriminated community has tons of European pagans too whom European Christians hate. Please stop this narrative of describing Roma/Romani/Gypsies as 100% Indian. Thank you. I hope you have a good day. 103.253.203.123 (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Admixture with West Eurasian populations is described in the “origins” sections. On Wikipedia everything must come from a reliable source, therefore you would need to provide a source for what you are saying to include it in the article. However, as someone well versed in the subject, I can tell you that you most likely won’t find one as what you are saying is not widely accepted by any Historian, almost all of which put the Roma ethnogenesis in India. Cheers. TagaworShah (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @103.253.203.123, a little late reply but maybe you read it.

It always depends on the country of origin where the Romani live in, which Romani group it is, religious aspects should also be respected. Not all Romani groups in Europe have mixed with the host population in the same way. Some more others less. Not every person with Indian DNA necessarily has to be Romani. Also the Domari, Lomari or the Nawar, the Jugi etc. came from India once, but at a different time as the Romani itself. And what is also very interesting, descendants of Indian traders who came from North India and settled in Russia. All have Indian Ancestry. The term Gypsy is to blame, unfortunately the mistake was made to designate the word Gypsy for various peoples to be Romani. Now, unfortunately, we have the great misunderstanding of what a Romani is. As you can see, there has been a lot of confusion since the term Gypsy has always been equated with Romani people. I really don't believe that all the people who are called gypsies by the Host population are actually Romani. It does not benefit the Romani people if other peoples who are called Gypsy, but who are not, made into Romani people. Their culture, religion, language, none of that has anything to do with Romani anymore. It messes everything up. I hardly think that Romani groups changed in such a way to get a different identity. There must be other reasons. The Roma in Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and other countries that were never part of the Ottoman Empire have certainly retained their identity, language and culture as Roma but also as Sinti or Manoches, Gitanos, despite centuries of exclusion and hostility, and Holocoust. The Sinti are also a separate group originating from India, who are only conditionally related to the Roma. Here, too, the same mistake is made in the English-speaking world that Sinti are referred to as a subgroup of the Roma. But the Sinti themselves say they are not Roma. In Germany, the term Sinti and Roma is used, both peoples separately. Vlax Romani (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

US Population Estimate?

The 1,000,000 estimated Roma living in the USA feels very speculative and maybe should be better substantiated-- the main source of the claim is a gentle journalistic piece from 15 years ago with limited/few sources. 2604:3D09:8879:9600:6865:49DB:D521:784 (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree the sources present here aren’t the most authoritative, but i’ve seen this estimate cited in many authoritative scholarly books and articles. Maybe a try at google books could yield you some fresh sources? TagaworShah (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"For versions of the word (some of which are cognates) in many other languages, this perception is very small or non-existent. "

What is the source of this claim? As far as I know, it is considered a racist term almost everywhere. --2A02:810A:14BF:ED48:1144:AE3C:2C11:9A14 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The term listed as Spanish cognate, gitano, is used both by Romani and non-Romani people in Spain as the common designation. While it can be used with negative connotations, it is not considered a racist term.

According to the Fundación Secretariado Gitano ( a Romain People Association in Spain) defintion for the word Roma

https://www.gitanos.org/servicios/prensa/glosario/terminos.html#r

El término 'roma' cada vez está cogiendo más peso a nivel internacional, ya que en algunos países la palabra gitano (o sus variantes) tiene connotaciones muy despectivas. Desde la FSG se ha optado, en líneas generales, por utilizar el binomio 'roma/gitanos' para referirse a los gitanos europeos en general. Si se habla en el contexto español, se utiliza solamente el término 'gitanos'.'

They recognize that in some country it does have negative connotation. But, when talking within the context of Spain, gitano is the only term used. 24.85.172.90 (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Lol, go woke go broke, problems? 213.233.108.152 (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead Section

@Ninhursag3 Hello, this is the Wikipedia talk page for Romani people, here we discuss additions and changes to the article so that we can make it the best that we can. Your recent additions are not an improvement and some of the original research added actually hurts the integrity of the article. In addition, the lead was formatted correctly before, the long overly linked first paragraph now is not correct, please refer to the manual of style for the lead section for more information on how a lead should be properly formatted. Thank you, TagaworShah (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with N Ninhursag3 beyond overlinking, the edits he removed rely on unreliable sources like Daily Kos and Street Roots. He has also added reliably sourced edits. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, Daily Kos and Street Roots are unreliable sources while the sources I added and the hyperlinks I added are from academics. Ninhursag3 (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I wasnt referring to that. I was referring to overloading the first paragraph of the lead with an excessive amount of historical information and over-linking that significantly impacts the readability of the article. As I linked above, I would check out the manual of style of the lead and how it should be formatted. Also, that type of edit was already reverted at least twice by other contributors and should have been discussed in the talk page, this is a collaborative effort and edit warring is not conducive to that. Also the assertion that Roma went by the name Doma upon reaching Europe is in fact original research. TagaworShah (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The Doma (डोम) caste appears in Tantra scriptures: https://books.google.ro/books?id=SYM4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT52&redir_esc=y

Religious tradition, language and genetics points to the Roma/Gypsies coming from India. The Roma/Gypsies had the same traditions as the Doma: they were musicians, dancers and both were from the Dalit caste and faced discrimination.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

You’re not allowed to draw those connections yourself on Wikipedia, that is original research which is strictly prohibited, while it’s true that SOME scholars think that the name of Roma could have come from Doma, that does not mean that you can assert that Roma were named Doma upon entering Europe when not a single source supports that claim, or giving undue weight to certain viewpoints when they’re not accepted by all scholars in this field. Also, the formatting has left the lead section of the article a mess, please review the manual of style. TagaworShah (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't assert that myself, I copy-pasted from a lower part of the wikipedia article and added a sourced reference from the Doma caste wikipedia article. It's nothing from myself. Hope I cleared things up. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is from yourself, you asserted that Roma were called Doma upon entering Europe and took it upon yourself to reflect that in the article when not a single source confirms that, that is original research, and you are not addressing any of the other concerns I brought forward. TagaworShah (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Also this part was removed which I dont undedstand why because it's true and people actually call them like this? "For versions of the word (some of which are cognates) in many other languages, this perception is very small or non-existent. Examples include Greek: Γύφτος or Τσιγγάνος; French: Tzigane or gitan; Spanish: gitano; Italian: zingaro; Portuguese: cigano; Romanian: țigan; and German: Zigeuner" 213.233.108.152 (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Migration date

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: Your new additions contradict decades of scholarly consensus on the date when Roma left India. The vast majority of scholarly sources state that Roma left India around the eleventh century, some state earlier and some later but that is the date most scholars agree upon. Even encyclopedias state that most scholars agree upon the eleventh century. The field of Romani studies is heavily understudied and the few expert sources we do have should be prioritized. Experts such as the doctors Yaron Matras, Ian Hancock, Viorel Achim, Donald Kendrick, Thomas Acton and so on, all confirm a date-range way later than 500 AD, with the oldest of the estimates presented by Achim being the 9th century and the general consensus lying around the 11th century. These genetic studies are unencyclopedic, we do not base encyclopedias on genetic studies unless doing a specific section for genetic origins. The people doing these studies are not experts on Romani people and don’t have credibility in the field of historiography, speciality historian sources are always prioritized on Wikipedia. TagaworShah (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus does not trump DNA consensus. Do you have an actual proof beyond statements that Romani left in 1000 CE? DNA can be used to calculate age [1]. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

What does the ability to estimate my age from my DNA have to do with determining when the Roma left India? Largoplazo (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Wrong source, that is for living beings. Even age of human remains can be measured based on DNA [2]. It shows more proof than someone just spouting things. So for example we can measure when Roma left India using skeletons located outside India. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

As for you please check this, scientists can identify common features in the DNA with that of others including our ancestors [3]. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

That is incorrect and this is not how Wikipedia works, our articles are built on scholarly consensus not primary sources like “DNA findings” which by the way are not conclusive and dont all say the same thing. It is also not a good idea that revert your edit back when there is an active talk page discussion about its inclusion. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) on how we find what sources are deemed reliable for history related content on Wikipedia, as a genomic study does not trump well-established scholarly consensus and there really is no concrete way of saying a group left India at this certain time through purely DNA. TagaworShah (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) is an essay that contains advice of people, and not a guideline or policy. Recently when dating the Central Asian migration to India, it was done using genetics and DNA [4]. And this study has also been used on Wikipedia articles like Indo-Aryan migrations. Archaeology uses genetics often. If you don't like it, it doesn't matter. The article will stay as it is. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

And regardless I haven't removed your scholarly consensus. It's still there, but clarified as an opinion of those scholars. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

You added new information that goes against the well-established scholarly consensus, it is your responsibility to prove that it should be included, you have to follow Wikipedia guidelines which you are now refusing to do by saying “the article will stay as it is” that’s not how we do things around here, you must seek consensus If you cannot do that, I will have to take this to the administrators notice board. You are giving undue weight to a single primary source that contradicts even the earliest dates given by Historians, contrary to what you may believe, a dna study isn’t a trump card that overrides all historical consensus and makes it just an “opinion.” TagaworShah (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not add "new information". I just reverted to a pervious version of the article. It was you who changed the article and removed the part about 500 CE in case you forgot. It's your burden to seek consensus for that. The source is not "primary", it's The Guardian. And here are more sources, since you want I can add them to the article [5], [6], [7]. All my sources are secondary. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

DNA studies are primary sources and journalists writing about the findings of DNA studies are not historians, historians are preferred in sections about history not journalists. The 1000 CE figure is a long standing academic consensus that was present in the stable version of the article for years, you changed it by saying that it was 500 years earlier which contradicts even the year earliest date ranges provided by actual historians, it is up to you to argue how that has more weight and no journalists writing about DNA studies does not make up for a lack of backing by subject-matter Historians. TagaworShah (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

DNA studies are conducted by biologists, journalists don't have the qualifications for genetics. You are making up strange things. Synthesis which some historians do is not reliable, and genetics is also used in archaeology. See archaeogenetics. I didn't remove the opinion of your scholars, it's still there. The 500 CE part was there for a long time, so clearly no one has a problem but you. You have no evidence that the 1000 CE is a long-standing consensus, it wasn't even there originally in the lead section. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The findings of DNA by biologists are primary sources, the secondary sources you are providing are journalists summarizing their findings. You are just repeating yourself at this point and I refuse to go around in circles, I have already provided the names of all the subject-matter historians who go against this claim and form an academic consensus against this claim, if you are unable to find a subject-matter historian to support that early of a migration date, then it does not belong in the article. TagaworShah (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way all the sources you added, are all referencing the same dna study, those are circular references and does not prove weight. TagaworShah (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you know what primary source means. It refers to something that is the original source of information. Secondary sources derive their info from primary sources. I didn't use the biologists themselves. The journalists are just reporting second-hand info derived from studies of reliable academics. Your historians don't have any source backing them up and are making up synthesis. I have given you sources, it belongs in the article. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The assertion that subject-matter Historians have no source-backing demonstrates a Wikipedia:NOTHERE attitude, Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that reliable sources by subject-matter Historians are needed and preferred, this is not a blog, I will say it one last time, if you are not able to provided multiple subject-matter historians that can support your viewpoint as I have done above, then including that DNA study that contradicts scholarly consensus is undue. TagaworShah (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

You are yet to show me the original source which they are relying on. Questioning sources is not a part of NOTHERE. Your sources fall within WP:SELFSOURCE. Also the new sources I cite contain opinions of other biologists and scientists, not the ones who conducted the study. So I have cited reliable academic secondary sources. Not primary ones, nor they're journalists. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I re-read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). It clearly says this essay is for "history-related articles". This is a project to work towards guidelines for History-related articles equivalent to those about reliable sources for medical articles. This article is about the ethnic group as a whole, not history-related. The advice you're using doesn't even apply here. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The history of Romani people falls under history-related, and it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that Ian Hancock, Yaron Matras, Viorel Achim and more are self-published, they are subject matter historians who are the most trusted in this subject area, please familiarize yourself with the field of Romani studies before suggesting that they are unreliable. They have years of historical research under their belt, I have made myself clear that you need subject-matter historians, if you continue to repeat the same nonsense and fail to provide historical backing for your claims, you will be reverted. TagaworShah (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The essay about citing historical sources is for "history-related articles", not "history-related sections". This isn't a history-related article. You mislead about what you were citing. What years of historical search? You've yet to bring the original source their claims are based on. The origin of Roma is an anthropological issue and not just a historical issue. Per WP:SOURCETYPES: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. My sources are reliable. Revert and you yourself will be reverted again. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I have checked the original dna study that you presented thoroughly and your edit isn’t even in line with what the DNA study claims. It says, and I quote, “ Linguistic, anthropological, historical and genetic evidences point out India as the origin of the Roma populations, which may have left the continent approximately between the 5th–10th centuries.” It never directly states that Roma definitely left India during 500 CE, that figure simply comes from the journalists covering the article and choosing the earliest migration date for shock value, as journalists do. Your edit is simply inaccurate to what the source itself says as 500 CE is most definitely not a definitive figure and they make it clear that these are just educated hypotheses with their wording of “may have” so please revert yourself. And the DNA study literally cites the exact same subject-matter historians and linguists I provided such as Ian Hancock, the work of subject-matter historians is peer-reviewed, reliably published, and historically backed, if you continue to suggest that the consensus of historians means nothing you will be reported to administrators as that is a Wikipedia:NOTHERE attitude. TagaworShah (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(12)01260-2

ALL the articles you cited are circular references to this dna study conducted by Dr. Comas and his associates, nowhere in this study does it say that Roma left India definitively at 500 CE, it says the exact quote above and provides a range of 5th to 10th centuries based on a variety of factors and nothing definitive, the journalists writing about these findings are the ones saying 1,500 years ago but that’s not what the study itself says, this is why we stick to subject-matter experts and not journalists. TagaworShah (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

As usual you are misleading.I checked the original source and it doesn't say what you're claiming. On the contrary it says The Romani diaspora originated in north/northwest India around 1.5 kya, The date of the out-of-India founder event was estimated at ∼1.5 thousand years ago (kya). That is 500 CE. At no point it mentions that they left between 5th-10 century CE. In fact it doesn't even use the "century CE" notations. You are now resorting to lying. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

No matter what the study says, one study should not be given the same weight as the established consensus by scholars. While in terms of a personal logic, 'DNA consensus' (although meaningless if you just cite one study) can trump scholarly consensus, in Wikipedia it can not. Uness232 (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"Scholarly consensus" is nothing more than collective views of some people. To weight different views and structure an article so as to avoid original research and synthesis the common views of scholars should be consulted. Per WP:HISTRW Also the sources cited are individual views, they don't state they are a consensus.

Per WP:SECONDARY A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. So what primary source they are relying on? There isn't even an original/primary source or document stating Roma left around 1000 CE. So what exactly they are basing it on? That one genetic study you talk of is cited by multiple secondary sources and actually analyzed samples of Romani.

I'm sorry but I'm not willing to give some individual "views" preference over an actual study. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Check the ORIGINAL DNA study, not the articles summarizing it by journalists, I linked the original dna studies above, it does not only say 1.5 thousand years ago, that is just an estimate and even they recognize that you can’t just base it on genetics and have to look at other factors, may have occurred between the 5th and 10th centuries is a direct quote based on historical sources, linguistics, anthropology and genetic evidence, and I agree with Uness232, a dna study in no way trumps an established Academic consensus based on years of historical research, even the DNA study itself cites these historians, Wikipedia runs on the consensus of scholars and editors, not what a singular DNA study which doesn’t even given a definitive date says. TagaworShah (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I checked the link you gave and quoted from it, it says "1.5 kya" not 5th-10th century. Biologists are scholars too. Wikipedia doesn't run on baseless second-hand claims without any original source. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It does say 5th-10th centuries, that was literally an exact quote from the original dna study, control f if you have to, the historical research of subject-matter historians are not “baseless second-hand claims” they are from years of historical research, wikipedia runs on these sources, not primary dna estimates which even the biologists who conducted the study admit is not the whole picture and you have to look at other factors as well, you’ve had 3 editors so far tell you this, you’re giving this estimate undue weight. TagaworShah (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't say 5th-10th centuries. You've lied many times here. What it says is this:

Our analyses based on genome-wide data from 13 Romani groups collected across Europe suggest that the Romani diaspora constitutes a single initial founder population that originated in north/northwestern India ∼1.5 thousand years ago (kya).

The Romani diaspora originated in north/northwest India around 1.5 kya.

The date of the out-of-India founder event was estimated at ∼1.5 thousand years ago (kya).

The present study constitutes the most comprehensive survey available thus far on the genome-wide characterization and demographic history of the European Romani. Our data suggest that European Romani share a common genetic origin, which can be broadly ascribed to north/northwestern India around 1.5 kya.

I'm still waiting for the original source or historical document upon which your "historians" used to come to a conclusion about 1000 CE. Can you provide us? No amount of people can justify adding unreliable sources and your sources are unreliable. I think they should be removed. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Regardless I've reverted myself since editorial consensus is against me. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for changing the title from Romani people to Roma people. Most of Europe and the world uses Roma, not Romani. Romani is the feminine adjective form.

Hello there, I request the change of the title from Romani people to Roma people - Most of Europe uses Roma, not Romani. Romani comes from Romni which is the feminine form of Rom. Romani is the feminine adjective of the word Roma (that itself comes from Doma, a Dalit caste of drummers/dancers/musicians).

Since the word Dom (caste) is rarely used nowadays, even if it's the most historically correct and an endonym the Roma used to describe themselves, the word Roma is the most used formally. Even if the name "Gypsy" used to be the most used and it wasn't an insult. Only later on it became something negatve. Medieval Europeans thought the Doma/Roma came from Egypt because of their dark skin color. The English term Gypsy (or Gipsy) originates from the Middle English gypcian, short for Egipcien (Egyptian). In Britain, many Doma/Roma proudly identify as "Gypsies", and, as part of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller grouping, this is the name used to describe all para-Roma groups in official contexts (taken from wikipedia): https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/summaries/gypsy-roma-irish-traveller#the-gypsy-roma-traveller-group

The most used formal plural form in most countries is Roma, not Romani. Here is the word Roma used in formal contexts: European Roma Rights Centre, Decade of Roma Inclusion, Contact Point for Roma and Sinti Issues, Roma Special School.

At the first World Romani Congress in 1971, usage of the word "Roma" (rather than variants of "Gypsy") was also accepted by a majority of attendees. The "Roma" name is the most formal use that the World Roma Congress decided back in 1971 by the Roma leaders themselves.

Hope you will take into consideration my argument and change the title of the article from Romani people to Roma people. Thank you in advance. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Why don't you start a formal move request? You can check WP:RM. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I checked out Wikipedia:Requested moves and made an Uncontroversial technical request. Hope my request will follow through. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

This change is not uncontroversial, this has already been discussed many times on this page leading to a consensus among user that Romani is the common name. TagaworShah (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a very partial and subjective move. Most institutions use Roma, not Romani. Wikipedia is read by billions of people and tries to sway public opinion. Gramatically speaking, Romani was never the plural of Rom, but Roma was the plural. Romani is the feminine adjective form. It's just not correct gramatically and now wikipedia influences institutions to change from Roma to Romani just because it's read by more people that will wrongly think the plural of Rom is Romani and not Roma. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Being a grammatical problem it should be considered a "technical uncontroversial move" and not a "controversial move". Also, the "Roma" name is the most formal use that the World Roma Congress decided back in 1971 by the Roma leaders themselves, it's not considered "controversial" by the Roma leaders and academics. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually you should request one for controversial moves, so that others can discuss it too. Technical move requests are for technical reasons. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Being considered a "controversial move" when it's gramatically correct seems like a very partial and subjective move. Most institutions use Roma, not Romani. Wikipedia is read by billions of people and tries to sway public opinion. Gramatically speaking, Romani was never the plural of Rom, but Roma was the plural. Romani is the feminine adjective form. It's just not correct gramatically and now wikipedia influences institutions to change from Roma to Romani just because it's read by more people that will wrongly think the plural of Rom is Romani and not Roma. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't make the policies and guidelines here. You need consensus for this move, that's why I recommended that you use the formal move request. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not grammatically correct, Romani is grammatically correct, Roma people doesn’t make sense, Roma is a noun, Romani is the adjective, and whatever the case may be, Wikipedia articles are not defined by non-English grammar rules, the fact being that Romani has already been established to be the common name through extensive talk page discussion. TagaworShah (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Roma is both a noun and an adjective:

/ˈrōmə/

plural

• 1.a people originating in South Asia and traditionally having an itinerant way of life, living widely dispersed across Europe and North and South America and speaking a language (Romani) that is related to Hindi:"the Roma have a strong cultural heritage"

adjective

• 1.relating to the Roma or their language.

Romani is the feminine adjective form that only recently for some reason (no one knows the reason) it suddenly started to shift from the correct form and more used form "Roma" to the incorrect and less used form of "Romani".

It also makes so much confusion with the Romanian people that at the the wikipedia article says: "Not to be confused with Roman people, a historical ethnic group, or Romanians."

It creates confusion unnecessary, Romans are now a thing of the past but Romanians still exist today.

Roma is the correct way to call Roma people, even important institutions use it, like: European Roma Rights Centre, Decade of Roma Inclusion, Contact Point for Roma and Sinti Issues, Roma Special School.

Why are you so against this? When it's gramatically, socially and politically correct? Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• unnecessarily Ninhursag3 (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Being a grammatical problem it should be considered a "technical uncontroversial move" and not a "controversial move". Also, the "Roma" name is the most formal use that the World Roma Congress decided back in 1971 by the Roma leaders themselves, it's not considered "controversial" by the Roma leaders and academics. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

That’s not what they decided. Many Romani groups, namely the Sinti and Romanichal reject the name Roma and see it as a separate subgroup that is part of the Romani people, that is why Ian Hancock, the prime contributor to the field of Romani studies, recommends using Romani when discussing all these groups together. Ian Hancock was literally actually there at the first World Romani congress where the International ROMANI Union was founded. TagaworShah (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so you are biased because of the Sinti. The Roma call themselves Roma, not Romani. It's important how Roma call themselves. Ninhursag3 (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

We call ourselves both. Romani is an adjective and Roma is the noun. Romani people is the common name that has been confirmed by extensive consensus in this very talk page that you can check out yourself. Romani includes all these groups including the Sinti and Romanichal who do not identify as Roma. TagaworShah (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

For the wikipedia article title, a noun should be used, not an adjective, especially not something that was originally a feminine adjective. Ninhursag3 (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

What? Do you think we should have articles titled "Spaniard people", "Turk people", "Jew people", "Kurd people"? What goes in front of people should be an adjective, not a noun—except in cases where the adjective also happens to be the noun, either the singular noun as in "Italian people" or the plural noun as in "French people". The Italian one is actually at Italians; what would be comparable to that would be Roma, but that's a disambiguation page. Largoplazo (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Correction: Not Roma people but Roma (people) like Dom (caste), people is in parenthesis as to not confuse it with Rome (ancient city).

You couldn't be more wrong about this. Every wikipedia article title for ethnicities has a noun not an adjective, it's Spaniards not Spanish people, Romanians not Romanian people, Italians not Italian people, Bulgarians not Bulgarian people, Hungarians, not Hungarian people, Germans not German people etc Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Ian Hancock is just one academic that studies the Roma, there are plenty other academics that aren't Ian Hancock and don't agree with everything he says. Ian Hancock is just one man, the Roma call themselves Roma and they outnumber Ian Hancock. Ian Hancock shouldn't dictate how Roma or Roma institutions should be called. Ninhursag3 (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

And he doesn’t, again there has already been plenty of consensus on this page that Romani is the common name. TagaworShah (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Çingene

I use the old turkish word Çingene for myself as many other Roma people did in Turkey. https://cingeneyizenglish.blogspot.com/p/i-am-gypsy.html., https://www.medyayazar.com/aslina-bakarsaniz-biz-cingeneyiz In Turkish the word Roman or Romanlar is also a new thing, started in the 1990's before the word Çingene was in use. yet if you said Roman they thought you are from romania or you are romanian, because in turkish Romen or Romenler is Romanian people, Romanya is Romania, Romence is romanian language, while Romanca, Roman and Romanlar is used for the roma people. This words are too similar. This confused sooo much in turkish language. Compare:

• Roman and Romen
• Romanca and Romence
• Romanlar and Romenler

so its more easy, to use Çingene, Çingeneler and Çingenece like the turkish wikipedia did. https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çingenece https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çingeneler https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çingene_(anlam_ ayrımı) Horahane (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

While Çingene is perfectly fine, it's very rare in the English language. Roma is the most used formal word (while Gypsy is the most used historical word, non-Roma say "Gypsy" is an insult, while many Roma ethnics identify with "Gypsy", -which comes from Egyptian- also "Gitano", "Çingene" etc while others find it insulting).

The talk here is between Roma (people) and Romani people and I think you said you don't agree with the use "Romani people" because you never use it. You said here: "In europe, the name romani especially in Germany or the Balkans, for the people is not known at all, We call Roma and the language is romani chib or Romanes. No Roma I know said I am a romani ...this made no sense in romani language. Me sem Rom (I am a Rom). A rom male and romliya is a female and the people are the roma, also Amaro Romalen (We roma). I think this tagarowhsha doesnt speak any word of Romanes."

I don't think for now "Çingene" has a real chance to replace "Romani people" as the English wikipedia article title. But Roma has a real chance! Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot the link. You said here: User talk:Ninhursag3#TagaworShah Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello@Ninhursag3, as I said before, if any User who have have a same mindset or same interest in a topic and changed something on the same page, like a user who was blocked before, you will be suspected to be a sockpuppet of them and they made an investigation about you, and the result is you got blocked too. This is a bad behaviour here in the american-english wikipedia.

There is no chance as a continental european to give here informations and improvments. There is a strong Lobby here who think to know ALL and EVERYTHING. Especially any topic of roma people. There is no such a thing as a only one roma culture or religion or language. So many different romani dialects they cant talk togehter. Look: the Muslim roma Horahane, arli dialect https://www.polar.se/en/about-the-website/other-languages/romska-romani-arli-eng/ and the kelderash chrsitian roma dialeckt, this is not same https://www.polar.se/en/about-the-website/other-languages/romska-romani-kelderash-eng/. Horahane (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That is a completely false statement. All Europeans are welcome here. However, your suggestions for improvement for artiles at English Wikipedia must conform to the policies and guidelines of English Wikipedia; arguments that go against policy will not be accepted here. Please read WP:Article titles and make your suggestions based on that policy, and they will be very welcome here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You're saying the term we use in English should be chosen based on problems Turks have experienced with the terminology in Turkish? Why don't we ask Mongolian speakers what they think too? We'll stick with basing our titles and terminology on English usage. Largoplazo (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Roma is in English as well:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/roma

"plural Roma ˈrō-mə  or Rom also Roms: a member of a traditionally itinerant people who originated in northern India and now live chiefly in Europe and in smaller numbers throughout the world".

It's in the Merriam-Webster American dictionary, isn't that a good enough English source?

Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that source is perfectly good. Now, if you understand that that is a noun, you will understand why "Roma people" does not work. If English is not your native language, please understand that English grammar has certain requirements (just like every language does) and it simply can't be that way. Mathglot (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU wrote Roma people, I asked her to write Roma (people) just like in the case of Dom (caste): it's a noun and in parenthesis it explains what it refers to, in the case of the Roma it refers to the people, in the case of the Dom it refers to the caste etc.

Hope that explains it, I already said it many times on this page but you didn't read those replies so now I have to say it again. You'll again accuse me of Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process Sorry in advance >.< Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia makes decisions based on its policies and guidelines. Thank you for your good faith suggestion, but we are simply not going to name this article using a term available in Turkish, and it doesn't matter at allwhat term people in Europe use. And it doesn't matter at all, here at English Wikipedia, what the Roma call themselves in their own language. What matters, per article title policy at English Wikipedia, is what term is used in reliable, secondary sources in English to refer to them. That's it; full stop. Please stop discussing what term is used in other languages, because it is simply not relevant here. On the other hand, your arguments may be useful at Turkish Wikipedia, so you could try raising them there. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)