Talk:Romani people

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Jeff Mores (August 1, 2007). "Life as a gypsy: A Bentonville pagan sorts through stereotypes". Benton County Daily Record. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Romani people Unassessed Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romani people, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romani people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Romani peopleWikipedia:WikiProject Romani peopleTemplate:WikiProject Romani peopleRomani people articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Romani people: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2019-01-15 summarize peer review into tasks for to do list compile population records by country Objective analysis of clashes and co-operation between the Romani minority and non-Romani populations of each country with a significant number of Romanies.Lothandar (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC) add Romania - Facts by Country - EURoma for a Romanian reference of "regions with significant population" in the table, by someone who have editorial rights.

For older discussion, see:

• Talk:Romani_people/Archive1
• Talk:Romani_people/Archive2
• Talk:Romani_people/Archive3
• Talk:Romani_people/Archive4

• Talk:Roma_people/Archive3
• Talk:Roma_people/Archive4

"Gypsies is more common than "both Roma and Romani people" and according to Wikipedia policy, the title should be the most common version.

• "Roma people": 1000 hits
• "Romani people": 100 hits
• "Gypsies": 60.000 hits Rezistenta (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a complete comparison though. "Roma" would also return lots of hits, although we're then faced with the issue of the Italian name for Rome being the same. But the point stands that comparing "Roma people" to "Gypsies" isn't comparing like with like. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which wikipedia policy? The imaginary one in your head, or this one? Here are three key points from that policy page (please take special note of the third one):

• Self identification: When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use.
• Some terms are considered pejorative, or have negative associations, even if they are quite commonly used. Even though people may use these terms themselves, they may not appreciate being referred to by such terms by others (for example, faggot, nigger, tranny). Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term — a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders.
• Roma is preferred over gypsy.

So, considering the actual wikipedia policy specifically contradicts your argument, please stop. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.Germans don't call themselves germans, but "Deutsche", Albanians don't call themselves albanians but "Shqiptarë" the jews don't call themselves jews but "Yehudim", hungarians don't call themselves hungarians but "Magyarok", thus the " the terminology in english wikipedia is that which is most used in the english language ".

2.Gypsy is by far the most used term in english language by both the media and the academic and encyclopedic sources and cannot be included in the same category with Faggot, Nigger, Tranny . The word gypsy is considered peiorative by only a very little minority of this ethnic group thus being in contradiction with the majority.

3.Roma cannot be preffered over gypsy for the very simple reason that Roma is a sub-group of the gypsies, this means not all gypsies are Roma.Rezistenta (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that second point of yours, where's your evidence for this? Sure, a lot of Roma do call themselves "gypsies", or don't mind that term, but it is definitely considered pejorative by a great many Roma. Otherwise, why would organizations like the Voice of Roma use that term, instead of calling themselves the Voice of the Gypsies? Sorry, the article already covers these issues with far greater care than you've shown here. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My evidences are the number of hits per name, the most used name in english language is Gypsy, if the term was peiorative I guess it wasn't used by the media and by the academic and encyclopedic sources. The term itself is not pejorative. For example, grade school buys routinely insult others by calling themselves gay, but that doesn't make "gay" as a term referring to homosexual men an insult among society at large, similarly for expressions such as "to jew someone down". Organisations like that which you mentioned earlier use Roma for the same reasons why it was introduced in the first place by noumerous organisations and foundations sponsored by one man,George Soros . You're sorry for what? for not knowing to explain the etymology of the termn, and trying to impose it over a historical and much more known and historical linked term? Rezistenta (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rezistenta, Your Google test is not applicable as "Roma People" is "Roma" set with a necessary qualifier "people" (presumably to avoid references to Rome and some tomatoes) yet will not register genuine use of "Roma" or "Romani" which in most cases will appear without the qualifier. (and "Gypsies" alone may be full of hits from Sonny and Cher lyric pages?) "Roma" is the correct term as per Britannica which is more reliable in this context. István (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the appropriate place to debate a Wikipedia policy. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't debate any wikipedia policy, I read the articles and I follow the actual examples... Rezistenta (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it would be best if we stop fueling this debate any further. There are clear and specific wikipedia guidelines on this issue (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)) so any further discussion seems to be a waste of time. Rezistenta, if you want to call in arbitration, you are more than welcome to do so. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rezistenta is right. As long as the term "Gipsy" is more often use than the term "Roma" (or something like that), we shoult use the denomination "Gipsy" in order to handle according to Wikipedia rules without making exceptions. --Olahus (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the policy pointed by TheMightyQuill says that we should use here the name preferred by the given ethnic group. So, the dispute here should be about whether Roma prefer to be called Roma or Gypsy (in English, I mean). Of course, the article must mention that Gypsy is the main word, still, but that's another matter. So, do you have sources on how Roma/Gypsy prefer to be called? My favorite example are the Gypsy Kings, which obviously prefer to be called Gypsy. But artists may be an exception. Dpotop (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's only part of the issue. The other point from the policy is also important:

• Some terms are considered pejorative, or have negative associations, even if they are quite commonly used. Even though people may use these terms themselves, they may not appreciate being referred to by such terms by others (for example, faggot, nigger, tranny). Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term — a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders.

So even if Gypsy was the most commonly used, because a significant number of people find it offensive, we are to go with the more neutral term, Roma. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Gypsy" is both neutral and common, so if you think that you are right you have to prove us that "Gypsy" is neither.AdrianCo (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly you dont mean neither - a careful reading of the policy reveals that the most common name may be excluded in favor of a less common name if the most common name is considered pejorative. "Roma" is favored over "Gypsy" not on common use criteria but because "Gypsy" is considered pejorative (as per a.m. reliable source). AND...(can't let that rhetorical sleight of hand pass unnoticed) the burden of proof falls upon one advocating a change - i.e. not upon those who accept "Roma/Romani People" as the preferred name. István (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok. We all agree that some people call "Gypsys"/"Romas" as Gypsys. So you say it`s pejorative. So how come it is us that should come with evidence when it is you that should have done this from the first place! I mean...the only "reference" was a webpage from geocities. I don`t find that a "reliable source"...do you?! AdrianCo (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, The MightyQuill is quoting Britannica, which says that "Many Roma find the word Gypsy pejorative" (beware, "many" is a weasel word). Dpotop (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To AdrianCO: From my experience it's useless to discuss these issues. These "minority rights" guys are the same that imposed in the US the changes "negro->black->afro-american->african american". Of course the african-american minority remains discriminated, but the minority rights organizations justified their existence. Note they don't even care that these guys are calling themselves "Gypsy" or that this is the majority usage. And in the end, this entire discussion changes nothing: Just saying rom instead of gypsy won't change the prejudice against them. I suggest leaving them invent their new language. Dpotop (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But from what I know Britanica isn`t a very good source...wasn`t wikipedia greater the it?! Furthermore they say "many" not "most". And third...it`s still a second hand source. AdrianCo (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Britannica (despite its limitations) is as uncontroversially WP:RS today as it was in 1911; 2) "Many" in this context means it exists and is noteworthy, whereas "most" (a majority) is not required by WP:NCI; 3) Our sources are required to be "second-hand" i.e. external (surely you mean "second-hand" in a different context? What then is first-hand?) István (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Istvan, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian are dialects of the Romanian language. Though, in Wikipedia, in the title of article of those idioms, they are called "languages", not dialects: Aromanian language, Meglenoromanian language, Istroromanian language. As you can see, the opinion of E.Britannica is irrelevant for Wikipedia. So, therefore, I insist to handle in the case of this articles according to Wikipedia rules without making exceptions. The name of the article must be changed into Gypsies, because thes term ist not just elder, but also more often used in English.

And according to the "pejorative perception" of the term "gipsy" by some (or "many") members of this ethnic group, we must proove first that most of them do have this perception.

You see, dear Istvan, the Croatians are a catholic people who live in the western Balkan region, mostly in Croatia and Bosnia. The Croatians don't feel sentimentaly tied with the Balkans. They even perceive as pejorative to be denominated as "balkanians". But, because they live in the Balkans, they are Balkanians, weather they like or not to be called as it. --Olahus (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Istvan: 1) see Olahus`s comment 2)can you prove that there is a greater number that preferes "roma" as a translation?!...look: romanianas are called as "vlahs" in the Czech Republic as a "bad thing"(or Poland, don`t remeber quite well now); however the VAST majority of people from Walachia take pride in being called "vlahs", so there is no problem, I think it`s the same thing here....it`t not pejorative for us, so it`s not pejorative in english! 3)in this case I see first hand as a scholar reserch. AdrianCo (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tink, the article shold be renamed into Gypsies. They are rules in Wikipedia and we must respect them. I suppose in this case the point of the user Rezistenta. --Feierabend (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move it then to Gypsies. Marc KJH (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh...no one seems to have noticed this, so I just thought I might point it out: Gypsy is a disambiguation page, and Gypsies is a redirect to that. --Kuaichik (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Administrator should redirect it. Marc KJH (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it can be seen in "Gypsies" disambiguation page, not all Gypsies are Roma, this page is about gypsies not only about Roma people Rezistenta (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In most (english-language) contexts, the phrase 'Gyspsy' indicates a traveler, carnie, fortune-teller or nomad, not a member of a specific ethnic group. It is for that reason that the page Gypsy disambiguates to multiple pages and (aside from political correctness) why we use 'Roma' instead of 'Gypsy' for this article. I oppose a move on all grounds. The Myotis (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. "Gypsy has a racial definition - for a people originating in north-west India who left in the first millennium AD, mainly heading north and west and spreading to most parts of Europe by the 16th century." BBC NEWS UK You oppose to something based on a mistaken belief thus your opposing arguments are not available Rezistenta (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So...how and when do we move it?AdrianCo (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This way: Wikipedia:Requested moves One should make a request. Marc KJH (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't that it has a ethnic definition as in that most people do not use it that way. If anything, that article supports my view (e. g. Gypsy, when spoken, does not refer to a specific ethnic group) and so the argument that common name should be the article name is largely nulled, being that the common name is so indiscriminately assigned. Also, it is a bad idea to requests a move without consensus, unless it is your goal to irritate the mods.The Myotis (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concept Romanies is abused by the Gypsy activists (I mean by that not ethnic Gypsies, but political minded activists who hide a political agenda). During the ancient times, Romania meant the Roman Empire, and because after Diocletian (around year 283) the empire moved its center of power in the Balkans, the Eastern Roman Empire was synonymous with Romania. Therefore, all citizens of these society (starting with Caracalla, the emperor who empowered all free living human beings in the empire to call themselves roman citizens) were Romans. Greeks called themselves, romaioi, jews called themselves romaniotes, etc. The Gypsies came in this part of the world about the year 1000 where called by the Romaioi, Atsinganoi. Later on, some groups, who lived in the proximity of the latins of the Balkans, the vlahs, or the romanians (calling themselve also ruma, rum, aromanian, arman which created the patronim Armani) starting calling themselves ruma/roma.

In 1949 Tito, who tried to control Yugoslavia through a divisive policy, founded the first a "Roma" political activism. From that moment, the "Roma" activism was entrenched in the leftist (communist) camp, being financed and stimulated by leftist ideologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.86.3 (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Roma" is the name the gypsies now prefer for themselves, however historically inaccurate it may be), was immediately picked up by the left-wing European media (see e.g. the Guardian’s "UN Report says one in six Roma is starving", 1/17)

As a people (or, more accurately, a collection of disparate groups) originating in India’s Gujarat, gypsies were the camp followers of Mongol invaders of Eastern Europe in the 13th century. Once within the Byzantine Empire, they adapted the Byzantine self-defining term of Romaioi ("Romans" in Greek), given Byzantium’s claim to be the direct successor of the (Eastern) Roman Empire. Hence today’s historically absurd self-definition as "Roma." Source 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Rezistenta (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many theories related to the etymology of Rrom/Rroma/Rromani including this one advanced by the Romanian Michael Radu. However Rromanies started to use the word Rrom for themselves in the past, this doesn't change the present situation. AKoan (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Radu is an American political scientist and journalist born in Romania, he is not Romanian. He is Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Rezistenta (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he is just born in Romania... AKoan (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the appalling social and economic situation of the Roma, who account for between 8 and 10 percent of Hungary's 10 million people that means 800,000-1,000,000. --Marc KJH (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I would imagine that there are quite a lot of estimates floating around though. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was in response to [4] Now there are references. Marc KJH (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. You should probably add a reference to the figure in the table to stop it being reverted. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Done. Marc KJH (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone do me (us) a favor and extract the part of that PDF that's relevant and post it here? I tried to download the damn thing, and after about 6 megabytes, Adobe Reader gave up and said the file was damaged or corrupted somehow. How can people post such gargantuan documents in good conscience? There ought to be a warning label attached to them. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 8-10 per cent figure comes from here, which isn't a PDF, so I presume you're referring to the DEMOS document. It states: "In the general census of 2001, 189,984 individuals claimed to be ethnic Roma. Experts and Roma organisations put the number of Roma living in Hungary between 450,000 and 600,000". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't the archive links working? Rezistenta (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the page has been moved (without discussion). Cordless Larry (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the archives didn't worked also before that, that's not the reason, we should fix this in the future Rezistenta (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can access them at Talk:Romani people/Archive1, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably due to double redirects. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now it's fixed, thx for the cooperation Rezistenta ::::::(talk) 23:37, 23 March 2008( UTC)

I have moved back the article to Roma people since it seems not to have consensus. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't. It's more consensus to move it not to stay in present form.Marc KJH (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was consensus to move it to Roma people (gypsies)? No one was even proposing that! Cordless Larry (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I move it to Gypsies (Roma people) This can be a good compromise. Marc KJH (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you can't just move it without agreement. I'll request for it to be moved back again. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More people support this version. Sorry. Marc KJH (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vote above seems to suggest otherwise. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People should at leas learn how to count before coming here. AKoan (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does. This is a unilateral move and should simply be reversed. Andrewa (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marc KJH is now accusing me of vandalism at User_talk:Cordless_Larry#Test. Very grown-up! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Jeepday for moving it back. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who changed the article from Romani to Roma in the first place? That was vandalism, too! AKoan (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, could someone please fix the archives? A huge (and I think I could say a very important) chunk of the previous discussions is currently missing. They can still be accessed, sure (via earlier diffs of this talk page), but it really would be nice if someone could fix this. Whether that means putting the archives back or putting some of the formerly archived information on the main discussion page, I personally think either way is fine. --Kuaichik (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are links at the top of this page to them. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but they're not the right ones! Can someone please fix this? --Kuaichik (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go but there seem to have been parallel discussions going on. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am from a Romani family and my family find the title "Gypsy" very offensive. The title is short for Egyptian which in todays time we know is definetely not what we are. I thought we lived in a time of political correctness. I can understand gypsy being directed here but to actually have it in the title. Please remove the word from the title as surely this is wrong. Tsigans / Cigans is acceptable as this is a title used by many Romani groups themselves. signed "Chavo" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In view of this, perhaps you want to cast your vote above against moving the article to "Gypsy". (Probably not going to happen, but would be good to register your opposition.) +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For real gypsies it's not shamefull at all to be called gypsies. Marc KJH (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess the "Gypsy kings" are not from the same ethnic group as you are. Dpotop (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are more Gypsies than others. Marc KJH (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that there are not Romanies calling them self gypsy, especially in the music world, but that changes nothing of the things said above. AKoan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How doesn't this change nothing? If this a peiorative term I think they would't call themselves by this name, it does change the things, it makes some your statements look like a BIG LIE. Rezistenta (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you at leas understand what i've said? There are many Romanies that find the term 'gypsy' offensive, but there are also others that don't, like the Gipsy Kings. How did you contradict me? AKoan (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually many people that try to call themselves "gypsy" are just plain old travellers and don't even have "Romani" blood. This especially the case in the UK and the United States where normal European travellers are looking for an identity. The Gitanos of Spain call themselves Kale or Gitano / Cigano (from Tsigane). Gipsy Kings only used the word "Gypsy" to recognised of their background to the universal market. The name is probably more to do with marketing their music as opposed to a name they use amongst their own people. Signed 'Chavo' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to have been moved from Roma people to Gypsies (Roma people) without consensus for the move, by User:Marc KJH. I have restored it to the original version. Jeepday (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I notice that the user id in question has only existed for a short time, has been accused of being a sockpuppet, and has already been blocked once for violation of the 3RR. Andrewa (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Zzuuzz for protecting the page against further moves as well. Sad that it had to happen though... Cordless Larry (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the people who changed Romani into Roma and than Roma into gypsies should be considered vandals here. AKoan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark has been checked, and his id is alright, so what`s the problem with him, that he once broked the 3rr rule??? Come on, almost all editors make that mistake. AdrianCo (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but he also moved this page against consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that a lot of people agree with my move. Marc KJH (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"a lot of people agree" is not a consensus. It wasn't even a majority. AKoan (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

being a gypsy myself I must say untill few years ago I never heard about the term Roma or Romani for our group, the new term is certainly not pushed by us but more probable by others, we use the term cigane or tsigane to desigante ourselves not roma or romani .. I wanted to clarify this because I see many untrue things probably commented by non-gypsies 82.103.71.98 (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious; what part of the world are you from, if you don't mind? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 82.103.71.98 (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind narrowing that down a little bit? Europe's a big place, especially culturally speaking. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Europe, Bulgaria form a region called Dobrich, why is my location so important ? 82.103.71.98 (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important? Don't know; I'm curious, but it may be relevant; different places have differences in how the local Roma population identifies themselves. By the way, I haven't been there, but I've been to Varna, so I have some familiarity with the area. (I've heard, and danced to, red-hot Roma musicians at Koprivshtitsa, for instance.)

So you're part of Dobrudzha (spelling?), correct? To me, one of the most fascinating parts of Bulgaria (at least musically speaking), because of the mixing of Bulgarian and Romanian influences. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be a 'gypsy' dude, but you surely are not a Rrom AKoan (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's interesting... the Romanies I have known wanted to be called that, but talking among themselves they called themselves cigane as you say. But not to outsiders. Andrewa (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually knew that but I wasn't so sure untill now, now i'm 100 % positive that they aren't using the term Roma/Romani or whatever Rezistenta (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:82.103.71.98 has now been permanetly blocked as an open proxy. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess someone is playing hard not to move this article. Someone is double here. Marc KJH (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP seemed to be supporting the move though. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So someone is playing hard to move the article. AKoan (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word Rom means 'husband / respected married male' and his wife is a Romni in most Romani groups. Some Roms may call themselves Tsigane as a racial group but never "Gypsy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so maybe someone forced the Gypsy Kings to call themselves Gypsy? I know my argument is a bit nauseating after so many repetitions, but so is the oppinion repeated above. As concerns the argument "We should call them Rom because men call themselves Rom because it means respected married male", well, it has nothing to do with our naming argument here. After all, we call an English man English, not Husband. Dpotop (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Gipsy Kings" it's a name that some manager gave them so to make appeal to the romantic image of the "gypsies". They didn't even spell it correctly. Iberian Romanies don't even have "gypsy" as an exonym, but "gitano". Same thing with "Taraf de Haidouks/Band Of Gypsies". I don't think that the members of the taraf even knew the word "gypsy" before (or haidouk for that matter). AKoan (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is again fallacious. You somehow claim that a Spanish band would never choose an English name by itself, because... it is not a Spanish name. It's obvious that no Spanish guy would know how to choose an English name. :):):)

However, they assumed the name, and everybody knows why: Because Gypsies (and not Roma) are well known around the world for their music. The word "Roma" is also promoted by NGOs in Romania and France instead of the traditional Tsigan/Gitan, but somehow the music is still called Tsigan/Gitan. It's only when talking about poverty and crime that Gypsy/Tsigan/Gitan is no longer acceptable. Dpotop (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And since your are proudly correcting other people's spelling, here are some informations to improve your culture:

• your spelling argument is false. Gipsy is a common variant of gypsy, per http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gipsy. Dpotop (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not here in North America it isn't; I've never seen "gipsy" in print here, but see "gypsy" all the time. Maybe in Europe it's common. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is "English" Wikipedia, not "North American" Wikipedia. Please, next time check your facts before questioning other people's spelling. Dpotop (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ILike2BeAnonymous was suggesting that we go with the North American usage, but was simply pointing out that there may be differences between American and European spelling of the word. In the UK, it tends to be the case that tabloid newspapers (especially The Sun) use "gipsy" (i, lower case g) (see here), whereas the broadsheet press use "Gypsy" (y, upper case G) when referring to Travellers (see here) and Roma when referring to, well, Roma (see here). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think ILike2BeAnonymous was quite clear in saying that "gipsy" is an incorrect spelling, and that statement was used with a deogatory sense (hence my reaction). Your explanation, however, is interesting. Are there sources which we could cite on that? Dpotop (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the world do you get that? Please re-read what I wrote; I said nothing about "correct" or "incorrect", but merely pointed out that "gipsy" is not used here in North America. Your poor reading comprehension throws your ability to edit this article logically or objectively into doubt. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the links I provided could be used as examples, but I'm not aware if anything has been written comparing usage of the terms. I'll see what I can find. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can find plenty of examples, but nothing analysing the use of different spellings/capitalisations. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• the Gipsy Kings originated in France, where their parents were living after fleeing Franco's Spain. So it's still a Spanish Gipsy tradition, but the guys were raised in France, and maybe learned some English at school.Just like the Romanians from the Taraf des Haidouks. Dpotop (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be called "Romani People" since it's about Romanies, not about "gypsies", nor just about Roma (as a Romani branch). The term "gypsy" it's incorrect and also pejorative for many, the term Roma only refers to the eastern Europe Romanies.

The Wikipedia policy it's clear and the term proffered by the ethnic group itself should be used. Nobody can't impose another term to an ethnic group. Thats the most ridiculous thing ever. It doesn't matter the the Germans call them self Deutsch. IF THE GERMANS WOULD ASK than the article about Germans should be called Deutsch.

There should be distinct articles for gypsies, Roma and Romani people since each of these terms denote different things.

The users that moved "Romani people" to "Roma people" and "Roma people" to "Gypsies" are both vandals since the firs move was even without a discussion and the second without reaching a consensus. So the article should not be reverted to Roma people but to Romani people. AKoan (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page was moved by Bogdangiusca the Administrator, he is not a vandal and Roma is alot more used then romani by academic and encyclopdic sources, Rezistenta (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn't matter that he is an Administrator, the page should have been moved after a discussion where a consensus was reached. AKoan (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

it does matter, when the page was moved from Roma to Romani it was never made a poll about this, take your toys and go play elsewere Rezistenta (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you are funny. He shouldn't even make a poll, the move should have been discussed and a consensus should have been reached. AKoan (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well this didn't happened... Rezistenta (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

exactly... AKoan (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move it to Tsigan since Webster calls them like that. Marc KJH (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting suggestion, but against WP:NC. Very few English speakers would have heard the term, the terms in common use in my experience are Romany (or Romani I guess is the same word) and of course Gypsy. I'd guess this is due to the Romanies often keeping to themselves. When I've been speaking to them, they'll use the word "tsigan" and then, realising I'm an (invited) part of the conversation, say something like "that's our word for the Romany people". Andrewa (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Let's move it to Tsigan", "Let's move it to Gitan", "Let's move it to Bohemians".. give it a break will you, the article it's not going anywhere:) AKoan (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I think this whole dispute is silly. On one side one has "minority rights" guys that would not accept "gypsy", and on the other you have guys that won't accept "roma", even if it's used by a sizeable part of media nowadays.

And nobody proposes the actual middle way, which is to present both names (and others, such as Tsigan) on an equal basis, just like it's done in dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster. Dpotop (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsigan works for me too. I think it's very neutral and beside comes from Merriam-Webster which is a powerful source. Marc KJH (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're now suggesting three different moves? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual name cannot stand, I hope you realize this. Any new proposal is better than this one. Marc KJH (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual name is the one generally used. Marc KJH's behaviour starts to look a lot like disrupting Wikipedia. JdeJ (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the current name is, but beware that any of Roma, Gypsy is OK (there are reliable sources for both). For Tsigan is not so clear, because it's about English language usage. So, I still think this dispute is stupid, and the only issue here is explaining that both names are OK, and why. And then, you make a link and that's it. Dpotop (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All disputes are stupid in a sense. That's dispute as opposed to discussion. When we discuss things, we learn, and Wikipedia grows. When we dispute things, we refuse to learn, and at best we waste our time.

But I'm still reluctant to allow gypsy in the article name. It's offensive to some of the people described, there are good alternatives, and both our naming conventions and many, many previous discussions have ended up rejecting gypsy. Andrewa (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewa, what do you think of the idea of having two articles, one on the Roma/Romani people, and another on gypsies in general, covering the various ethnicities that have been called "gypsy" and the connotations surrounding that term? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a way we have the beginnings of that with the Gypsy disambiguation page. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you make of dictionaries saying that gypsy is roma except for a figurated sense? Dpotop (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the way it is now, with a disambiguation page and separated articles for each ethnic group, is the best solution. AKoan (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The disambig page is misleading and WP:OR because it invents senses for the word Gypsy. For instance lists there "Sea gypsies" as if they were Gypsies (and before answering me remember that a Sea lion is not a Lion). Gypsy, in English, is either Roma, or someone with a similar lifestyle. And Merriam Webster points that in the first case you write "Gypsy", and in the second one "gypsy". Dpotop (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What?!?! This hole discussion exists only because some Romanians (not me) are afraid of being confused with Rromanies because of the name similarity and you are proposing a solution where the distinction is made only by the capitalization of the first letter of a word?!?!?! AKoan (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply incorrect; at least etymologically speaking, "Gypsy" also applies to those who seem or behave like "true Gypsies". In fact, one of the definitions in my dictionary (American Heritage) is "One that resembles a Gypsy in appearance or behavior". Hence the use of the term in such meanings as "gypsy cabs", "gypsy workers", etc. All of which properly belong on a disambiguation page. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach seems to be based on 2 fallacies:

• If I follow your argument, "etymologically speaking", a "Sea lion" applies to the sea mammal species that (remotely) behaves like a lion. So, you should create a disambig page Lion pointing to "Lion (feline)" and "Sea lion". ADDENDUM: actually, there is a disambig page for Lion, but the main article is still on the feline.
• Do you think that saying "behaves like a true Gypsy" and "behaves like a true Roma" are somehow semantically different? Dpotop (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone agree that the external links section needs cutting down? I propose deleting any dead links, getting rid of those to NGOs that are locally based in cities (such as Leeds) and just leaving the major national or international ones, and getting rid of some of the resource-type links. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes! And all unsourced and dubiously sourced statements need to be marked with ^{[citation needed]} or ^{[dubious – discuss]}, and deleted after 2 weeks or so. Dpotop (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]