Jump to content

Talk:Romani people

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

Poor citation on unanimous agreement at the 1st Romani Congress

[edit]

The citation used is a student paper which has an unsourced quote from Ian Hancock - a real professor of Romani studies, but the quote is not available when searching for it otherwise. If anyone has access to this journal https://catalogue.georgepadmoreinstitute.org/records/JOU/1/1/26 it should have a transcript of the actual meeting. 2A01:4B00:8293:4400:7D1C:A7EC:7D0E:1905 (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Detail

[edit]

Article is completely wrong and full of propaganda. 86.98.59.241 (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it's completely wrong. The assertion is not useful without specifics. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romani_people&oldid=1263273483"