Talk:Roma (Romani subgroup)

Request

"In Hungary, 44% of Roma children are in special schools, while 74% of men and 83% of women are unemployed."

Do we have so much special schools ? References ?

And I think we should merge this with Roma society and culture or move the appropiate parts of that article to here Frigo 11:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Roma in Hungary section

I made several additions, and changed the sequence of paragraphs. The only place in which I've significantly removed original text was where the existing text said:

Slightly more than 80% of Roma children complete primary education, but only one third continue studies into the intermediate (secondary) level. This is far lower than the more than 90% proportion of non-Roma children who continue studies at an intermediate level. The situation is made worse by the fact that a large proportion of young Roma are qualified in subjects that provide them only limited chances for employment.

No source was given for that, so going on the sources I've included in the references, I have changed this to:

"[..] Currently, around 90% of Roma children complete primary education. A research of sample schools however suggests that the drop-out rate among Roma is still almost twice as high as among non-Roma.[3]

The share of Roma students entering secondary education has increased greatly, with the percentage of Roma children not pursuing any secondary education dropping from 49% to 15% between 1994 and 1999. But that increase is almost exclusively due to increased enrolment in the lowest levels of education, which provide only limited chances for employment. Whereas almost half the Hungarian secondary school students enrol in vocational secondary schools or comprehensive grammar schools, which provide better chances, only one in five Romani children does so. Moreover, the drop-out rate in secondary schools is significant.[4]

The separation of Roma children into segregated schools and classes is also a problem, and has been on the rise over the past 15 years. Segregated schools are partly the result of "white flight", with non-Roma parents sending their children to schools in neighbouring villages or towns when there are many Roma students in the local school. But Roma children are also frequently placed in segregated classes even within "mixed" schools.[5]"

No-itsme 16:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Roma (called cigányok or romák in Hungarian) suffer particular problems in Hungary, for example in the educational system.

Yes, they suffer a lot, and not only in Hungary. In Czech republic, some local mayors were even forced to threaten them with prison, otherwise they wouldn't bother to send their kids to school. School is such an oppressive institution that it should be abolished forever! Centrum99 (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please post a list of prominent Roma

LOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.47.243 (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

contested statements removed

• During the Yugoslav wars, Roma were often victim to discrimination and violent attacks from all sides, although relations were friendliest with the Serbs. {{Fact|date=April 2007}}
• [Inclusion of] surgeon Aleksandar Chirkov {{Fact|date=August 2007}}
• The history of the Roma in Russia is different from that of Roma in other European countries, where Felipe, 'The Gyp' is accounted king of the Gypsies, in so far as they were treated relatively well {{Fact|date=February 2007}}.
• With the rise of Russian nationalism and xenophobia in today's Russia, {{Fact|date=February 2008}} Gypsies continue to suffer from discrimination in Russia, despite the profound influence Roma culture has had on Russian culture {{Fact|date=February 2008}} through their music and dance.

Please do not return this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 16:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Only municipality with official Romany language"

Municipality Šuto Orizari is the only Roma municipality in the world and the only municipality where Roma is official language.

What do you think of Budeşti? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.95.220 (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion, proposed name change

There is a discussion about, and even a proposed name change for, this article at Talk:Roma people. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved this article from Roma in Central and Eastern Europe to Roma (Romani subgroup) per discussions at Talk:Roma people, but now I see that this article is one of several about Romani in various countries. Perhaps it should have been called Romani in Central and Eastern Europe and the topic of Roma (Romani subgroup) overlaps but should be treated separately? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this was the only article entitled Roma in some country, so there should be no consistency issue with this new name. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: This name change was affected without proper consensus. The editor who did it is also actively involved in the discussions at Talk:Roma people, and should respect the fact that (as they themselves pointed out above) there is still an ongoing discussion there which should, for simplicity's sake be dealt with first, before creating a chain reaction of half discussed page moves. Please revert until such time as a consensus is reached at Talk:Roma people. Please also note that the present name was previously the subject of an AfD discussion, and was deleted then. This cannot therefore be considered a wholly uncontroversial renaming, and nor does it have a consensus behind it. —Zalktis (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone is free to revert my bold move, and even I would do it, given a substantive objection. Pointing out that there was no proper consensus, even for an article which had been deleted in the past (which I knew nothing about, and was probably more about the content of that article than its name), is hardly a substantive objection to a bold move. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Roma (Romani subgroup) Aervanath (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

---

(Proposal rescinded as "POV-pushing", see Talk:Roma people —Zalktis (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)) Proposal (adapted from Talk:Roma people#New request): 1. To rename Roma in Central and Eastern Europe (currently Roma (Romani subgroup)) to Roma (people). 2. To make the Roma people article a redirect to Roma (people) 3. To add a hatnote to Roma (people) explaining the disambiguation that "Roma" can also refer to the Romani people as a whole. 4. Expand Roma (people) to include information about the Roma diaspora outside SE Europe. It's complicated, but I'm sure it will satisfy most of the people most of the time. It also seems to be the consensus that is crystallising in all the multifarious discussion threads ongoing in parallel here. —Zalktis (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC) (Please also refer to support/oppose popstions there — Zalktis (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

• Oppose As I've said before, the implication of the proposal to move this article (currently Roma (Romani subgroup) Roma in Central and Eastern Europe) to Roma (people) is that the topic of this article is clearly the primary use of the term "Roma" in the context of referring to groups of people. There has been some limited evidence cited on the other page that at least in some scholarly works that may be the direction things are going, but I've seen nothing that comes close to meeting the burden normally required to claim primary usage of a given term. What is clear is that "Roma" is at least as commonly used to refer to the Romani people as it is to refer to the people that are the topic of this article. I have no personal interest in this matter, that's just the reality of how the word is used, whether you like it or not, whether it's "correct" or not. Unless the case can be made in a compelling fashion that the topic of this article, the Romani subgroup, is clearly the primary use of the name "Roma" in terms of referring to people, the title of this article should not be Roma (people). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

I had already made this move boldly, but it has been reverted. So here is the formal proposal.

• Roma in Central and Eastern Europe → Roma (Romani subgroup)

Rationale: See why the move to Roma (people) should be opposed above. This is the only reasonable alternative name I've seen. It implies that the scope of the article be expanded to include Roma that originated in Europe but now live elsewhere. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Only reasonable solution to this whole mess I'm aware of. I suppose a separate "Romani subgroup originally in Central and Eastern Europe but now living elsewhere" article could also be considered, but that seems cumbersome in concept as well as in name. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. If it's the "only reasonable solution" (see above), then I guess one would have to support it, wouldn't one? No-one wants to be unreasonable. —Zalktis (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean to sound huffy. I'm just saying that from my perspective, however limited it is by lack of knowledge and intelligence, FWIW, this is the only reasonable solution that I can see. But I'm sure I might be missing something... --Born2cycle (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article Roma in Central and Eastern Europe was creted to describe the Romani population in Central and Eastern Europe. It was structured to describe the social status and the demographic features of the Romani population in Europe's countries with the highest Romani populations (Spain and France not included). You are free to create the article "Roma (Romani people subgroup)", but you must create a new article, with the focus on the characteristics of the Roma subgroup. A link to the articles Roma in Central and Eastern Europe, Roma in Spain, Roma in Turkey, Roma in Italy and Roma in France could be useful to be inserted at the chapter "Spatial distribution".--Olahus (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• That makes sense to me. Anyone else okay with, or opposed to, this idea? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Olahus, per PBS' point below, are you okay with naming the new article, Roma (Romani subgroup) rather than Roma (Romani people subgroup)? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. I support this proposal. --Olahus (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I also support this title, I've responded below to Olahus objection. AKoan (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

why the hell wasn't this discussed on this talkpage? Anyone can move articles, you don't need WP:RM for that, but it would have been nice to try and create a consensus at the actual article talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 18:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "Roma (Romani people subgroup)"?

It seams that there are people who want to specify in the title that the Roma are people, and also people who want to specify that they are a Romani subgroup, for accuracy. So, how about "Roma (Romani people subgroup)"? (Sorry, I can't participate more in the discussions , I'm very busy right now!) AKoan (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think adding people into it is unnecessary precision, but if that makes others happy, I'm fine with it. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

AKoan, this article is only about the Roma in Central and Eastern Europe, not about the Roma in Greece, Turkey, Northern Africa or America.--Olahus (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If I understand any of this, it appears that there is something approaching consensus supporting the idea that there needs to be an article about the subgroup of the Romani known as "Roma" - that is those that originated in Central and Eastern Europe, but now live elsewhere too. It seems that expanding the scope of this article, and changing its title accordingly, is the most prudent way to do that. Do you have an alternative suggestion? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The term "Roma" is also used in Turkey, for example. --Olahus (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify. Do you mean the term "Roma" is used to refer to the subgroup of the Romani that live in Turkey that is not part of the Roma that originated in central and eastern Europe, or do you mean it is used to refer to the part of the Roma that originated in central and eastern Europe but immigrated to Turkey? This is so confusing. What a cluster. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The non-Lom Romanies in Turkey are most certainly part of the Roma branch of the Romani people. The most major difference between them and the Balkan Roma is that many of these Roma converted to Islam during Ottoman times, and that there are more Anatolian influences in the local dialect of Romani spoken by Roma in Turkey.(cf. [1]) According to Donald Kenrick, many Muslim Roma from Greece moved to Turkey in the aftermath of WWII (Kenrick, Historical Dictionary of the Gypsies (Romanies), (2007; ISBN 0810854686, p. 281), showing that Muslim Roma had previously travelled throughout the Ottoman space (cf. the Ashkali, for example) — Kenrick, op. cit., p. 8). As I have explained at Talk:Roma people#Question, there is no problem with including this in fact at the article here, if it is decided to rename and expanded it into an article on the Roma branch of the Romani people. The Lom people (Cf. Kenrick, op. cit., p. 157), on the other hand, form a separate branch or group of the Romani people altogether. —Zalktis (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO "people" is not needed as the only other meaning of Romani is a language and one would not usually use the unqualified term "subgroup" for a language. --PBS (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

B2C, adding people was not for precision, adding Romani subgroup was for precision.

Olahus, if you would have read all the talks, you would have known that this article is about to be expanded.

Zalktis, I'm not sure if the Lom are a subdivision of the Roma, or its a sister group of the Romani people. It seams that the separation between the Lom and the Romanies happened before the Romanies entered Anatolia. AKoan (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm following Kenrick in my statement above. You could be right that the Lom-Romani split occurred before the entry to Anatolia. Anyhow, my point was that there are Roma in Turkey, too, alongside the Lom, and that Turkey's Roma are part of the same branch of the Romanis as the other Roma from S, C, and SE Europe. —Zalktis (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. AKoan (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

AKoan, the article Roma in Central and Eastern Europe was creted to describe the Romani population in Central and Eastern Europe. It was structured to describe the social status and the demographic features of the Romani population in Europe's countries with the highest Romani populations (Spain and France not included). You are free to create the article "Roma (Romani people subgroup)", but you must create a new article, with the focus on the characteristics of the Roma subgroup. A link to the articles Roma in Central and Eastern Europe, Roma in Spain, Roma in Turkey, Roma in Italy and Roma in France could be useful to be inserted at the chapter "Spatial distribution". --Olahus (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Olahus, I personalty don't mind to have separate articles for "Roma (Romani subgroup)" and for "Roma in Central and Eastern Europe", but since there are already articles that deal with the Roma in each of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, I think that this article is quite redundant. Besides, since the problems of the Roma in Central and Eastern Europe are problems of the Roma (as a Romani subgroup), it makes sense to make this present article part of the Roma (Romani subgroup). AKoan (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

AKoan, I have only 2 questions left:

• Do the Romani people of Central and Eastern Europe belong entirely to the Roma subgoup?
• Do the members of the Roma subgroup live only in the states mentioned in the article Roma in Central and Eastern Europe ? --Olahus (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The (somewhat simplified) answer to your first question is: for the most part, yes, although there are also Sinti groups in C Europe as well (it also depends on how you define Central Europe). The answer to your second question is no: Roma communities can also traditionally be found in Turkey; they have also migrated to form a large diaspora, particularly in the period following the abolition of slavery in Romania, for example with Kalderash Roma arriving in Sweden via Russia in the late 19th Century, or the more recent wave of Romanian Roma emigrating to many EU countries. And now some questions, in turn, to you, Olahus: 1) Is this article supposed to be about all the Romanis in Central and Eastern Europe (as implied in the phrasing of your first question)? 2) If so, why is it called "Roma in Central..." and not "Romani people in Central..."? Just curious. Anyhow, any time an article on the Roma as a branch of the Romani people has been started in the past, it has almost immediately been AfD'd or tagged as WP:OR. Unless something radical has changed in the last few days, I have little doubt that any attempt to create an article on the Roma branch of the Romani people will be once again nipped in the bud under the weight of arguments such as that "The content is not encyclopedic". —Zalktis (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A renaming into "Romani people in Central..." would be somehow reasonable as long as teh article "Roma people" was renamed to "Romani people". And concerning the Sinti, according to Ethnologue, 130,000 Sinti live in Croatia (read here: "Also includes Sinte Romani (131,000)"). And how about the Sinti who lived in the regions that Germany ceded to Poland and Soviet Union in 1945 (Silesia, Eastern Pommerania, Eastern Prussia etc) ? --Olahus (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The two strategies, of going from a Romani groups point of view, and from a geographical point of view, can go in parallel, but its a much better idea to move this article to "Roma (Romani subgroup)", than to create a new article with this name, since from a geographical point of view this area is covered by articles for each country. AKoan (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

From an article "Roma (Romani subgroup)" I would rather expect to see a description of this soubgroup (more precisely: what makles them distinctive within the other Romani subgroups, wha are the differences between Roma and Sinti, etc). An article about the demography (like "Romani people in Central...") is rather useless because we already have the article Romani people by country, as well as about the Roma population in every central and eastern Eurpean country (Turkey, Romania, Spain, Bulgaria, Hungary, Serbia, Ukraine etc). --Olahus (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The article "Roma (Romani subgroup)" will cover all the aspects related to the subject, not only the description or the demographic aspects. Just like the article on "Romani people". AKoan (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As you wish. --Olahus (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that this is the article about the "Roma proper", but why was it necessary to move the perfectly straightforward Roma in Central and Eastern Europe to the awkward Roma (Romani subgroup)? Roma (Romani subgroup) can just be a redirect to Roma in Central and Eastern Europe. I advise reverting this move. --dab (𒁳) 18:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're serious about reverting, please indicate as much by at least reading and addressing the rationale provided in the proposed move (actually the alternative that prevailed). --Born2cycle (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This was already discussed, "Roma (Romani subgroup)" is something "larger" than "Roma in Central and Eastern Europe". AKoan (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

the problem is that this article has a "by country" structure, and not a "description of an ethnic group" structure. Are you seriously suggesting that the article needs to be rewritten because you have moved it to another title? Since the Roma are the clear majority of the Romani, a "Roma (Romani subgroup)" article will look extremely similar to the "Romani people" article. What we need to do here is cover their regional issues, organized geographically. "This was already discussed" isn't very helpful, especially since it hasn't been discussed on the article talkpage, which is here for precisely such discussions, and because the "discussion" appears to be completely unaware of the problem. It just establishes the obvious, that "Roman (people)" is useless as a title disambiguating from "Romani people". Sure, "Roma (Romani subgroup)" would be a valid title if we needed such an article besides one on Romani people and one on Roma in Central and Eastern Europe. It hasn't been established that we do need such an article, or why Roma (Romani subgroup) cannot just be a redirect to the existing [[Roma in Central and Eastern Europe article. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"This was already discussed" would have helped, if you would have read all the discussions. A good "Roma (Romani subgroup)" article should not look extremely similar to the "Romani people" article! This is the problem, that people think that if the Roma are the largest Romani group, than talking about Roma is equivalent with talking about the Romani people, when in fact each Romani group has its own individuality that has to be respected. If this article has to be fixed, and of course it does, we should start by removing whats "by country" since this aspects are covered in the "Romani people by country" article, as well as in individual articles for each country. And then we should concentrate on the "description of an ethnic group". AKoan (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"If this article has to be fixed, and of course it does,...". Well? What are you waiting for? And by "you" I mean all of you who have been spending all this time and energy arguing that the subgroup needs its own article. Now you have it. Prove the need by "fixing" this one to be that which you claim is needed. Why "you" and not me? Because the Roma/Romani are not an area of knowledge or even interest for me (my interest here is that naming guidelines are respected and followed). --Born2cycle (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"I" intend to do it, Born2cycle, but this article is not the only one I am concerned with right now. AKoan (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

well done, Born2cycle -- so the "Roma/Romani are not an area of knowledge or even interest" for you, but it was still worth your time to assist in an ill-considered move operation that leaves the topic in shambles. Please feel free to not invest any further time in this, so we may look into how to best fix the current impassé. --dab (𒁳) 13:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What impasse? What shambles? The whole Roma/Romani issue is inherently a complicated mess. You can't blame that mess being reflected in Wikipedia article naming on me. My interest here is limited to article naming, not to article content. Do you have a problem with that? If only editors with an interest in article content should weigh in on article naming, then there would be no point in announcing moves at WP:RM. The reason that is done is to get relatively objective viewpoints, given that those that work on a given article, and have a particular interest in the content of that article, tend to carry shared biases. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

AKoan, the move may or may not have been arguable, but the tactics of (a) moving an article away from its title so as to put its contents at odds with its new title, and then (b) blank most of its contents as offtopic[2] is very bad practice. Don't do that please. If you think "Roma (Romani subgroup)" should be a standalone article, please argue your case without destroying well-developed articles in the process. --dab (𒁳) 13:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, as you obviously didn't follow the discussions, let me make you a little summary. The idea to have an article for Roma as a Romani subgroup came naturally. and we all agreed on that. It was first started an article especially for that, but then we realized that we have a "Roma in Central.." article, and after talkings we decided that the best idea is to convert this article to a "Roma (Romani subgroup)" article. So, right now, we have two "by country" articles, as well as articles for each country, and you say that if we want an article "Roma (Romani subgroup)", than we should create a new article for that? I'm sorry, but after all that was discussed, I don't think that this is a good idea. AKoan (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, are you gonna tell us what is your solution? Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Name "Roma"

Isn`t Roma official with double R ? Rroma ? iadrian (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That depends on what you consider to be 'official'. The spelling in English is generally Roma, but there is some 'contestation'. RashersTierney (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The Roma in Poland section

Why is there no mention of the Holocaust in this article, particularly the decimation of all Roma people in Poland? This exclusion is somewhat offensive. 96.246.69.132 (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Crime

Lets please ramp up the information on the crime that these Roma specialise in, and crime rates in their nests. Begging would be a good start, I have encountered several hundred of these in my life, and on one occasion they weren't begging (well, pickpocketing while pretending to beg). They were instead attempting to just steal my money, minus the beg ruse. I say screw political correctness, these people are a problem all over Europe and nobody wants anything to do with them except bleeding heart hippies that haven't at all succeeded in making these the Roma behave. So let's be a little honest about them and cut all this "culture" bull. 66.87.4.76 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Czech lands and post 1945 Roma immigration from Slovakia

I miss one important information in the article - the Romani people have underwent relativelly recent movement from Slovakia to Czech Republic. This movement dates back to the post 1945 period and coincides with the expulsion of German speaking minority from so called Sudetenland after the World War II. The empty Sudetenland has been re-populated by people from Slovakia/eastern Europe (see also Expulsions and resettlement after World War II in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland). As a result, the population of Roma people increased rapidly. From estimated 10000 Roma people inhabiting Czech lands before WWII, i.e. less than 0.01% of Czech population, only ca 300 "ethnical" Czech Romani have survived the holocaust, the rest being annihilated (http://romove.radio.cz/en/article/18913), but the population now reaches 200000 or more (i.e., 2-3% population) due to recent immigration from Slovakia. These recent immigrants, living in CZ in their 2th-4th generation have big troubles with incorporating into the majority society (a situation that partly resembles Turks in Germany). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.141.38 (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Religion

Having this very brief article end with the specifics of the Holocaust seems like a bad place to end and while the Roma holocaust is significant I think that it can be shortened a bit and put in a different place in the article. Perhaps I failed to notice but I didn't see any mention of religion or religious demographics among Roma and from what I understand many are Muslim. When I have time to reread the article I will add it (with references) unless someone beats me to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.126.132 (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism

According to Hungarian media reports, some paragraphs in the book Post-Communist Europe and Its National/Ethnic Problems (library record) are copied verbatim from Wikipedia (this article and Roma in Hungary), or possibly parts of the Wikipedia article are copied from the book. (The book is getting some media attention right now in Hungary because it is written by a somewhat prominent politican and allegedly contains racist statements.) Could someone check the extent of the copying, and whether the history proves that the content was originally created in Wikipedia? The relevant section of the book can be downloaded here.

Thanks, --Tgr (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This was a very modest article in 2009, the year the book was published. Does anything in this version overlap? I see no reference to Hungary except, In 2004, Lívia Járóka and Viktória Mohácsi of Hungary became the two current Roma Members of the European Parliament (MEP). Hardly grounds for accusations of plagiarism, if repeated. RashersTierney (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Roma vs. Romani

In none of the sources given, there is any differentiation between "Roma" and "Romani". I haven't found any source that would say Roma is a "subgroup" of Romani; all of the sources I have seen use it as a synonym.

The two sources given don't make Roma a separate subgroup of Romani. Based on what I read, Roma and Romani is equal. If I am wrong, please prove me wrong with some source and if possible, exact citation.

See also Talk:Romani people#Subgroups --- Ɍưɳŋınɢ 18:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be reading these discussions. I will propose merging later. - Ɍưɳŋınɢ 03:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that Roma (Romani subgroup) be merged into Romani people. In all literature I have found, Roma and Romani are used as basically synonyms (or, Romani as an adjective of the word Rom/Roma). Nowhere I have found that Roma is a "subgroup" of Romani. If there is any literature that would support the claim that Roma is "subgroup" of Romani (or even if someone actually found it in the first two references for me), I would be OK of existence of the two artiles; but as of now, I think those two articles are about exactly the same topic and it's pretty randomly decided what is written in which one.

Please, write what you think about this merger.- Ɍưɳŋınɢ 12:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

To reiterate, I am mainly concerned about any lack of sources that would imply that Roma is a subgroup of Romani and the two terms are not actually synonymous (while I can find many sources that imply it is synonymous). - Ɍưɳŋınɢ 12:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I think your reasoning is more or less right. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The two articles should be merged, as they cover the same subject. American In Brazil (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. "Romani people" and "Roma" are used pretty much synonymously in English. However, this is not uncontroversial since not all Romani subgroups use or accept the term Roma as a self-designation. Please take a look at the rather lengthy discussion of this issue on Talk:Roma people (archive) and earlier on this talk page that eventually led to renaming this article. This article on the University of Graz' website (which does use Roma in the broader sense) gives some background on the self-designations used by different Romani subgroups. I think it would be a good idea to contact people involved in the original move request so they can weigh in on this, if that hasn't been done already. Namnagar (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, and that is noted in the Romani article. However, again, even Rombase that you liked use Roma and Romani as synonyms (well, "Roma" as plural and "Romani" as adjective). I have read the lengthy discussion and I haven't seen any reference to any actual source in it. However, I right now don't have the time to actually contact anyone and/or actually merging the articles :( - Ɍưɳŋınɢ 16:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Here are few more sources.

Claire Pedotti and Mickaël Guet's "Roma and Travellers Glossary", Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (from the entry for Rom / Roma).

The Roma are – with the Sinti and Kale – one of the three main branches of the Roma (generic term), a people originally from northern India.

La Voix des Rroms (The Voice of the Roma, a French Roma association).

Les Rroms au sens large se subdivisent principalement en Rroms dits "orientaux" (85% du total), en Sintés (souvent appelés Manouches en France – 4%) et en Kalés (ou Gitans – 10%), en Gypsies (ou Romanichals en Grande-Bretagne – 0,5%) – sans compter divers groupes de moindre importance numérique mais tout aussi Rroms que les autres Rroms.

The Roma in the wider sense are principally subdivided into Roma called "eastern" (85% ), Sinté (often called Manouches in France, 4%), Kalé (or Gitans, 10%), and Gypsies (or Romanichal in the UK, 0.5%), not counting various groups that are less numerically significant but still just as Roma as any other Roma.

....

On utilise parfois en France le terme "Rroms, Gitans et Manouches" pour spécifier les trois grandes branches de ce peuple.

In France the term "Rroms, Gitans and Manouches" is sometimes used to specify the three main branches of this people.

Céline Bergeon & Marion Salin, "Se dire Manouche, Rom, Gitan ? Processus d’identification des populations Rroms : au-delà des pratiques spatiales", in E-Migrinter No. 6, 2010.

Rrom ... renvoie à un peuple qui partage une origine commune - Inde du Nord - une langue commune - le rromani - et des traits culturels communs - organisation familiale, références communes. Au fil des migrations, trois groupes se seraient formés: les Gitans ou Kalé dans la péninsule Ibérique, les Manouches ou Sinté en Europe occidentale (Allemagne, France, Grand-Bretagne, Italie) et les Roms en Europe de l’Est. (p. 30, footnote)

Rrom ... refers to a people who share a common origin - Northern India - a common language - Rromani - and common cultural traits - family structure and common references. In the course of migrations, three groups were formed: the Gitans or Kalé in the Iberian peninsula, the Manouches or Sinté in Western Europe (Germany, France, Great-Britain, Italy) and the Roms in Eastern Europe.

À plusieurs reprises, nous avons été confrontées sur nos terrains à des attitudes contradictoires : alors que certaines personnes revendiquent une appartenance au groupe Rrom qui rassemblerait Gitans, Manouches, et Roms, d’autres affirment avec véhémence qu’elles n’ont rien à voir les unes avec les autres. (p. 29)

We have been repeatedly confronted in our fields with contradictory attitudes: while some individuals claim to belong to the Rrom group which includes Gitans, Manouches and Roms, others vehemently insist they have nothing to do with each other.

(In this artcle, the authors are making an orthographic distinction between the two senses of Rom or Roma, using Rom with one r to refer specifically to East European Roma, and Rrom with a double r in the inclusive sense referring to Roma along with Kalé and Sinté. They have more explanation on page 30. I've retained these spellings in the parts I translated.) Namnagar (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Adding another source:

"Choosing the right words", Romeurope.

The appearance of the generic term « Roma » instead of « Gypsy » has been linked to the growth of associations promoting the recognition of the specific history and identity of these groups (The 1st International Romani Union Conference was held in 1971). The same term is used today to refer to all Gypsies (Roma = Gypsies) as well as a subset of the group (Roma = Oriental Gypsies).

(The French version of this text appears in Romeurope's Roms et discriminations: du constat à la mise en œvre de solutions concertées, 2011, p. 3.) Namnagar (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OK. So we've agreed that East-European Roma do not exist and that Wikipedia should not have an article about them. All I can say about this is that I'm ashamed to have ever had any part in Wikipedia, and I'm ashamed to have had any part in this discussion. Namnagar (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You mentioned self-designation of the Romani people ("not all Romani subgroups use or accept the term Roma as a self-designation."). The term itself is the problem. Actually, in Eastern Europe "Roma" is a quite artificial name historically they are called "cigano, cigani, cikani, tigano, cigany" etc and most of them (even their leaders) still prefer to use their traditional name. So I would rather create a "cigani" subgroup instead of Roma but it does not change the fact that they belong to the Romani people. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank's for the merge Roma (Romani subgroup). --94.68.44.161 (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)