Jump to content

Talk:Romani people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]
Twenty-four links and six subsections. All of the links were moved here for any possible discussion and consensus on any inclusion per policies and guidelines
This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.
Second paragraph: Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
  • This is indicative that there should be an actual reason for link inclusion and not just to add sites, ending up in the middle of What Wikipedia is not -- Otr500 (talk)

Rationale for moving

[edit]
The "External links" section is one of the optional appendices. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a forth.
The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
    • Please note:
  • WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
  • ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. -- Otr500 (talk)

External links from article

[edit]

European countries Roma links

General information

  • "RomArchive" (in English, German, and Romany). — education on the arts and civil rights movements
  • "Romani Atlantic". — transcontinental perspective

International organisations

Non-governmental organisations

Museums and libraries

Internet Visual Media

  • Inaugural Romani Studies Conference at UC Berkeley: YouTube
  • Florian: YouTube TikTok - Romani YouTuber & TikToker whose material covers Roma culture, history, and civil rights

-- Otr500 (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Gypsies" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Gypsies has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16 § Gypsy until a consensus is reached. Bug Ghost🦗👻 12:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racial abuse

[edit]

This article is not factual. using the word gypsy in my culture is actually racist. it comes from the old language in French meaning child snatcher and was used as a term to chase people out of France which was documented as the great persecution. This is even in the movie the hunch back of notre dam. Balladonnabomber024 (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We actually come from the north of India and were referred to as the tall people by the rest of the country and named as the best warriors.
We fought the opposing country which now today is known as Pakistan.
We agreed to go to war for the rest of the country and then when we returned we were not welcome home.
Afterwards we migrated and then Pakistan split into two different countries called Afghanistan and Pakistan.
They have been fighting ever since.
So we had no choice but to migrate.
Ever since we have been chased from country to country and persecuted.
This article takes advantage of every one in my culture whose can’t read and write and have been taken advantage of for so long that we no longer trust people.
you have no right to tell the story of my people. Balladonnabomber024 (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses the word gypsy not to insult, but to inform. Read the second paragraph in the lead. It explains that in the UK, it is not considered an ethnic slur, and that many Roma in the UK refer to themsleves with the word. It also explains that many Roma consider it a slur, including all voting attendees at the first World Romani Conference. Millions of English speakers will know the word gyspy, but many (perhaps a majority, especially in the UK) will have no idea that it may be received as insulting. Now they know. signed, Willondon (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Indo Aryan"

[edit]

This word is not synonymous with South Asian origin it's just a language group and India is linguistically diverse and the 3 sources cited don't mention it either. The Romani ultimately have origin from aboriginal groups in India who usually don't speak Indo European languages like "Indo Aryan" (unless they live in North India) along with other assimilated ancestries. Nowtis (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense Nowtis (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is mentioned throughout the sources cited that Romani belongs to the Indo-Aryan language family. Remsense ‥ 论 17:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So that makes them "Indo Aryan speaking", no source states them to be ethnically Indo Aryan (which is not a thing). Indian or South Asian origin would be more appropriate. Or just Indo Aryan speaking Nowtis (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article states that they are of Indo-Aryan origin, notasmuch that they are "ethnically Indo-Aryan" (I agree it's not a thing). I hope I don't come off as totally ignorant when I say I don't quite see the trouble? Is your concern more that Indo-Aryan peoples is not a well founded concept? The article seems tentatively decently substantiated for what it is. Remsense ‥ 论 17:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it would make more sense for the lede to read as “an Indo-Aryan ethnolinguistic group,” as opposed to, what it is now. That’s how the lede for Punjabis, Marwaris, Gujaratis, etc. if formatted and it is less confusing and in the active voice. As of now, it makes it seem like Romani people were originally of an Indo-Aryan origin but are no longer. Romani people continue to be an Indo-Aryan ethnolinguistic group. TagaworShah (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating my lack of expertise in the linguistics or sociology of this area, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. Remsense ‥ 论 19:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I will go ahead and implement that change. TagaworShah (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romani in Rajasthan?

[edit]

did any of the Roma stay behind? Is there any evidence today of their descendants in Rajasthan? 2607:FEA8:FF01:4FA6:4468:6D1B:E35B:4B3E (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The United States in the 1600s

[edit]

I removed the following sentence from the lede:

The first Roma to come to the United States arrived in Virginia, Georgia, New Jersey and Louisiana during the 1600s.

with a citation to

Schaefer, Richard T.; Zellner, William W. (October 22, 2015). Extraordinary Groups: An Examination of Unconventional Lifestyles, Ninth Edition. Waveland Press. ISBN 9781478631835.

While the thrust of the statement might be correct, it is nonsensical as written because there was no United States (and no entity named Georgia) in the 1600s. Moreover, the source actually gives the century as the 1500s rather than the 1600s. Even moreover, the source gives a citation pointing to the reader to the entry "Gypsies" in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, in which case, why are we not simply using that as a source? Einsof (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An easy fix would be to use wording of the source ("what is now the United States"). However, the Harvard source doesn't appear to fully support what's said in the first source (unless I've missed something). See here. For example, "The English also sent large numbers to Virginia [1695]...". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disconnect between this article and English use of "gypsy"

[edit]

Running into a variety of references to this matter, I'm seeing a major disconnect between this article's use of the word "Roma" and related versus "Gypsy". It seems to me that the article itself is intent on claiming gypsy is simply a confused slur, whereas there is in fact no shortage of literature on this matter from WP:RS that indicates significant complexity around how this term is used and viewed by the in-group(s). For example:

While some find the term “Gypsy” to be offensive, many stakeholders and witnesses were proud to associate themselves with this term and so we have decided that it is right and proper to use it, where appropriate, throughout the report. We also heard many other terms used to refer to the Communities that are completely unacceptable and hate speech will be explored in Chapter 6 of this report. ([1])

I just removed a 1911 dictionary entry from the intro and inserted a definition, with quote, from the current OED entry on gypsy and it's very easy to find great material in peer-reviewed sources discussing the endonym versus exonym debate. We really need a balanced approach to usage in this article and not anything that even slightly looks like an attempt at activism or prescriptivism. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Names of the Romani people handles this slightly better but not by much. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloodofox The changes you have made also present a clear discrepancy to the consensus among reliable sources. First and foremost, the reference on how Roma in Romania identify is completely inappropriate. The census records are translated from Romanian. The Roma in Romania identified as “Țigani” not Gypsy; the author just translated it as Gypsy however, that is a different word with a different etymology and history, that reference must be removed. The Oxford reference is perfectly fine however, it does not refute that the word Gypsy is a slur. Just because some people may reclaim a word or not consider it offensive doesn’t mean it isn’t a slur (such as widespread use of the n-word) and doesn’t have considerable history of being a slur. If we look at reliable historical sources, we can see how the correct term for Romani peoples in the United Kingdom was Egyptian, and the word Gypsy evolved as a slur out of that.
There are considerable sources that document the widespread use of that word as a slur. Among them the working definition of Anti-Roma racism adopted by the U.S. Department of State and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance which clearly lists “using Gypsy as a slur” as a component of widespread Anti-Roma racism.
Additionally, the European Roma Rights Centre which is cited in the article states that “amongst most Romani communities this is an offensive racial slur.” The Los Angeles Times states that Gypsy is “a term the Romani community widely regards as a slur.” That word has been removed from various names due to it being a racial slur, experts on the Romani community such as Margareta Matache who runs the Roma Studies Program at the FXB center at Harvard and was consulted on these changes states that “racial slurs like the G-word [Gypsy] have been particularly offensive and dangerous for Romani people.”
Even in many dictionaries this has been reflected, such as in Merriam-Webster where the term Gypsy in relation to Romani people is listed as “usually offensive.”
The stance of the UK parliament is problematic as they include non-Romani travellers in the same designation as Roma, which they acknowledge themselves that usually Roma are considered different from the traveller groups in the UK. So that is not an accurate representation on how the Roma community in the UK views that word seeing as they included the opinions of non-Roma in that report. An additional report submitted to the UK parliament by the Anti-Bullying Alliance clarifies this distinction and states that “For the majority of Roma communities, use of the word ‘Gypsy‘ is considered offensive. English Romany Gypsies use this as an accepted term for themselves but when used against a Roma person, this is usually offensive.” Something to that effect would be far more accurate than what it currently stated in the article. TagaworShah (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OED says "Now sometimes considered derogatory or offensive", my bold. The key word here is sometimes, just as the UK Parliament says some find. The OED is the standard resource for English usage and we're not here to judge in wikivoice if the UK Parliament's comments are "problematic" or not. We simply report what WP:RS say, particularly quality WP:RS.
Reviewing peer-reviewed sources, I am detecting much discussion around the prescriptive use of Roma, which Iov, Claudia Anamaria. 2020. Rethinking (In)Security in the European Union: The Migration-Identity-Security Nexus covers, a matter not currently touched on in this article. Here's another quote (p. 119-120):
The EU's unifying discourse regarding the Roma people (in facilitating the political and economic agenda) provides a starting point for the Roma activists, creating a "niche" that allows for speculation. In this context, the Roma elites strive to create a unifying history that can underlie the Roma identity-construction process. This is a "top-down" process, imposed by the Roma leaders and the international Roma communities' institutions, which however lacks real support for its implementation at a community level, at the "grassroots." To turn it into a "bottom up" process, it is necessary to guide actions towards the Roma community as a whole, through cultural and educational programs focusing on the Roma's unifying history and the Romanipen as community products imposed on the political and public agenda of activists and organizations. If the Roma leaders' discourse is built around the legitimacy of using the ethnonym "Rom" to the detriment of "gypsy," historians, sociologists, and ethnologists provide numerous positive examples of using the term "gypsy": gypsy music, the romantic depiction of the gypsy woman, gypsy clothing, and dancing.
WP:RS indicate that this the use of Roma is not as simple a situation as this article currently presents it to be and this is despite that there is no shortage of material on this topic from peer-reviewed sources. Simply presenting any word that isn't Roma as a simple slur is not how WP:RS treat this discussion. We need discussion from WP:RS, specifically peer-reviewed, charting out what is and has actually happened with these terms because right now the article is not providing detailed and nuanced insight into the matter. We need discussion about how the term has come into use and when and where it has encountered resistance and where it has not. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloodofox The statement from the UK Parliament is in fact not a reliable source. It includes no specific statistical information on how they collected that data (i’m only referring to the data on usage of certain names not other data in the report) in a reliable manner, what it does admit is that they grouped non-Roma travellers with Roma in this statistic which means this cannot be an accurate determination of how the Roma community specifically views this word. The OED is not the be all, ends all of Wikipedia, it is a dictionary and it has its limitations especially when a majority of reliable sources are stating that it is usually offensive and that most/many Roma find that word to be a racial slur. The position adopted by Claudia in that quote is a highly controversial one which has not received widespread support by subject-matter experts, that author is not a subject-matter expert on Romani history or Romani identity nor is her work widely-cited in the field of Romani studies. When we are dealing with complicated historical issues it is imperative we prioritize the work of widely-cited subject matter experts per wp:HISTRS. You’re right that there should be more discussion on the history of that word and its modern uses, however, it should follow the academic consensus in the field of Romani studies. The article should reflect that word is a slur and is considered by most Roma communities to be offensive, that is what is reflected in the sources. TagaworShah (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can recommend the work of Ian Hancock who is the leading contributor and subject-matter expert in the field of Romani studies and has written extensively about this issue in peer-reviewed sources. TagaworShah (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For etymology and usage in the English language, the OED is most certainly as quality as WP:RS one will find. Given the dead links and poor sources I've been pulling from it, it is clear that this article needs major work with much better sourcing. Additionally, the material I've provided by Claudia Anamaria Iov (2020, Cambridge Scholars Publishing) is indeed peer-reviewed and from an expert in the field. This needs coverage and there needs to be a lot more from other scholars in relevant fields which will necessarily be interdisciplinary and not restricted to a single field. There's no shortage of this material and this article needs to be covering usage and application and any friction that has occurred with the use of Roma as an umbrella term. Again, if this article looks even remotely prescriptivist or activist, we have a major problem: Wikipedia is simply not a platform for prescription or activism, we simply describe what WP:RS say. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloodofox That would be giving Wikipedia:Undue weight to someone who is in fact not a subject-matter expert on Romani history nor is her work widely-cited in the field of Romani studies. Something being stated in a peer-reviewed source does not automatically make it worthy of inclusion and we should not be giving undue weight to statements made by non-experts. Claudia Anamaria Iov has not been widely-cited in other peer-reviewed sources which is a major indicator of reliability on how much weight we should give her statements especially when actual subject-matter experts exist and have been widely-cited in peer-reviewed sources such as Ian Hancock who state information that contradicts the narrative she is trying to advance. As for OED, nobody said it’s not a reliable source but this is MUCH more than just a matter of etymology or usage, as you say it is interdisciplinary and involves Romani history, identity, and present-day persecution which requires a consensus among many reliable sources which specialize in that matter. Simply put, including that would be giving undue weight to a position that is not widely supported by scholars. Also activism is subjective based on ones beliefs, I would not be approaching editing with an emphasis on removing activism as usually that just ends up meaning removing what you don’t personally like and cherry-picking sources that refute what you deem as “activism” which is neither constructive nor helpful. TagaworShah (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under no circumstance is it WP:UNDUE to cite and emphasize the definitions and discussion from modern OED entries. Even the suggestion is highly suspicious. Once again, this is simply not a place for activism (an eternal problem for Wikipedia, which attracts activists like a magnet) or prescriptivism (outright unacceptable) but solely a place to find and report on WP:RS, which this article severely lacks.
Iov is just one example. It is very easy to find sources like Iona Bunescu, Roma in Europe: The Politics of Collective Identity Formation (2016, Taylor & Francis), that state:
It is however hard to generalize from such studies and conclude that the term Roma is the umbrella term accepted by all groups that share certain characteristics. In this book I will use the term Roma as an analytical category when I want to refer to all these different groups even if I acknowledge that its existence as a homogenous category of self-ascription in everyday life is questionable.
And from linguists Alastair Pennycook and Sinfree Makoni Innovations and Challenges in Applied Linguistics from the Global South (Taylor & Francis, 2019: 14):
The process of invention is not restricted to colonial history or to the geographical South. In recent years, the term 'Roma' has been established throughout Europe to encompass diverse populations (who we might nonetheless classify as part of the geopolitical South - the disenfranchised within the Global North) that have been called in everyday life by a variety of often denigratory names (Gypsies, Manouches, Tziganes, Bohemians, Sinti), according to place, time, authority, economics, and politics. This process of categorization (aimed at times to avoid the already derogatory terms in use) served to homogenize diverse people on the assumption that they share common cultural values, in which nomadism is the most frequently imagined similarity (Canut 2011). Such processes of homogenization are a founding principle of European policies toward European populations that face discrimination. The current ethnicization of the Roma derives from the historical reinvention of a 'Roma' people and the Romani language (Canut 2011). European processes of invention are closely tied to discourses of endangerment and preservation, as we shall see in the next chapter.
These topics need coverage. At the same time, the Gypsy Lore Society continues to exist and publishes the journal Romani Studies, and organizations like these also need thorough discussion here. On Wikipedia, we must discuss how these terms came into use and how they are actually used by way of WP:RS. Right now the article strongly implies that "Romani people" is simply accepted and used by anyone who falls in this umbrella, whereas the scholarship I am seeing on this topic indicates that this is not the case and that the people categorized under this term do not all use or even accept it. This needs coverage.
Finally, comparatively, the subject of this article not a topic that gets a huge amount of coverage and Romani studies is not the only relevant field to this and related articles and there is absolutely no restriction anywhere in Wikipedia policy that indicates that we must restrict scholarship to a particular field when discussing a topic, especially in matters concerning migration, linguistics, and political policy. Again, the very suggestion is highly suspicious. A reminder that Wikipedia is not censored (WP:CENSOR). :bloodofox: (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloodofox I was referring to source by Claudia as UNDUE not the OED, and I gave the reasoning for that above, her work is not widely-cited by subject-matter experts or anyone for that matter and she is advancing a position that is not supported by subject-matter experts. That is a basic principle of Wikipedia and the policy on not giving undue weight to fringe sources, even if on paper they may be considered reliable, this is a highly controversial topic. Also Merriam-Webster cited above is the leading authority on American English which is what this article is written in (hence the use of Romani instead of Romany) so I don’t see why the entry and discussion from that source is not given it’s fair weight in this discussion?
And I simply do not understand or find helpful the insistence on removing “activism” the sources you are putting forward are themselves written by people who consider themselves academic activists and are writing from that POV and there is nothing wrong with that, you can’t separate activism from scholarship. The role of Wikipedia is to reflect what the academic consensus is, not make our own personal judgements on what counts as activism and not scholarship, which is almost always a personal editor opinion on what should and shouldn’t be included in an article which is in itself censorship.
The Gypsy Lore Society was created by non-Roma and has been highly criticized in reliable scholarship for decades now. Here is a widely-cited peer-reviewed article by expert Dr. Thomas Acton detailing how the Gypsy Lore Society was one of the primary vessels for scientific racism against the Romani people. The mention of a society that has been known to promote scientific racism is either misinformed or suspicious.
Whatever, the case may be, yes there are different appellations used by Romani groups. Many of them endonyms like Kale, Kalderash, Sinti, Romanichal etc. not everyone uses Romani to describe themselves because Romani was created as an international endonym to unite these groups who all have the endonym Rom in their dialects and share the same origin. We can definitely include more scholarship on that process but it has to be balanced and neutral, you are advancing a position with sources that only present a single image of a multifaceted history. And no I didn’t say we can only use scholarship from a specific field, only that the scholars we do use should be subject-matter experts and widely cited by other experts, that is a basic principle of Wikipedia and especially when it comes to highly controversial topics. TagaworShah (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romani_people&oldid=1280791164"