Talk:Romani people

Romani roots in India

Although the article states that the Romani are from Rajasthan, what I had heard over many years of reading about them is that they are from Punjab. I would like to follow up on this at some point but would invite others who may be more into linguistics to pick up and take it forward. Augnablik (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The citation is basically someone speculating on cultural elements of the Romani people. Modern genetic research points towards a Punjabi origin, but just like anything else, most of us are tired of edit warring and its seriously demoralising to see academic sources being removed all the time by the usual suspects. KamranHassanUK (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a disconnect with this article and the “History of the Romani people” that article states

“Mitochondrial or Y-chromosome haplotype studies provide valuable information, but a limitation of these types of studies is that they each represent only one instantiation of the genealogical process. Autosomal data permits simultaneous analysis of multiple lineages, which can provide novel information about population history. According to a genetic study on autosomal data on Roma the source of South Asian Ancestry in Roma is North-West India. The two populations showing closest relatedness to Roma were Punjabis and Kashmiris which also happen to have the highest West Eurasian related ancestry amongst South Asians.[24] However according to a study on genome-wide data published in 2019 the putative origin of the proto Roma involves a Punjabi group with low levels of West Eurasian ancestry.[25] The classical and mtDNA genetic markers suggested the closest affinity of the Roma with Rajput and Punjabi populations from North-Western India.“

But more importantly they don’t state these at facts just scientific theory on their origins which is very important this article language speaks as if it’s facts and there’s no debate on their origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.112.243 (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

They originate in Haryana and Rajasthan, Haryana is geographically part of the Punjab Plain, so you are technically right. 1Dude345 (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

What ever happened to WP:COMMONNAME?

WP:COMMONNAME says that topics should be referred to by their common name and the common name like it or not for the Romani is "gypsy". I appreciate that some people use the term gypsy as a slur but some people also use the term "Jew" as a slur that doesn't change the fact that most people, including people meaning no insult to gypsies, use gypsy as the predominate term for this people. Thomas Norren (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

i think this worth discussion too. Especially considering it's use in Britian and North America, where a majority of English speakers are. A reasonable voice (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is pretty clear about this, please read Wikipedia:Namingconventions (ethnicities and tribes) that clearly states:

”How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided.”

The autonym and native name is Romani and that is how we self-identify, and it is commonly used in English without a doubt. It is also well sourced that the word Gypsy is viewed as derogatory so it’s not suitable for the article title and it’s also very ambiguous as there are non-Romani groups that use it as well. TagaworShah (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

As above, see MOS:IDENTITY ("Use specific terminology. For example, it is often more appropriate for people or things from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) to be described as Ethiopian, not carelessly (with the risk of stereotyping) as African."), and the essay Wikipedia:Slurs ("The terms preferred by an individual or group should be used to refer to those individuals and groups when discussing them, except when discussing them being called slurs, in which case the slur may be referred to but not used. Thus "American Indian" is preferable to "Native American", though not a slur, and "Inuit" or "Arctic" is preferable to "Eskimo", a slur.") Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok cool 2600:1005:B1C7:8911:619D:BFB4:C44E:D663 (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Need for new sources for estimates

I have noticed this in respect to the data for Romania, but I tnink it might be related to other Coutries estimates.

The source given was https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/roma-eu/roma-equality-inclusion-and-participation-eu-country/romania_en which does give the procentage of 8.32% but the 2022-2027 report does not, it only reports that the number of Roma might be heigher than the official number (the official number is that of the 2011 cesus). The 2015-2020 report does sight a number in respect again to the 2011 census--this on one had would be outdated numbers--but the source for this number is missing. Only in the 2012-2020 report we can see a sorce for the number being given: An EU framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to, which if if looked up, gives the source to a retracted EU commision page.

I have tried to look up for better sorces for an up to date maximum estimate number, but the best I can find is this recent article https://m.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/politica/partida-romilor-acuza-rezultatele-recensamantului-si-spune-ca-300-000-de-romi-nu-au-fost-numarati-2199963 which suggests the official data is down by 300 000, which would mean, I think 4.56%.

2020DiGrande (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@DiGrande It’s not secret that Romania’s census severely undercounts the Romani population in the country. In addition to the 300,000 Roma purposefully left out in this recent census, that figure does not take into account the very high number of Romanians of Roma or mixed Roma descent that do not declare themselves Roma because of the high social stigma associated with being Romani in the country. An official estimate by the EU is the most accurate representation of what the actual Roma population is in the country, not just adding 300,000 to the census numbers, that’s just Wikipedia:Synthesis and goes against wikipedia policy. For an official population estimate to be considered “outdated” you’d have to prove with sources that there has been a significant population shift in the Roma population in Romania that would cause such a drastic shift. The EU estimate is still the most accurate estimate of Romani people in Romania due to the great social stigma and institutionalized racism in the country that was addressed when creating the estimate. TagaworShah (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Look man, I have nothing against putting up an estimated higher value. I am aware, the numbers are most likely higher than the official data for the reasons mentioned by you. But I would like some actual reliable and up to date numbers on it. The source I provided I think it's a temporary fix, it does give an estimate 4.56% and it has an actual organization behind it that did some counting.

Now, EU's Commission's numbers are problematic in multiple ways, for once it uses this in reference to the 2011 census. And on the other hand as I pointed out, it is not clear where they got those numbers since the citation for it is missing or it literarally circles back to the webpage. To not speak it also references the 2005 World Bank study which puts the number at 970, 000, half of what they propose... Really Dubious. So no, it doesn't seem like the Commissions are the best estimates.

Again, I encourage you, if you really are interested, look up for actual studies on the matter with some real counting behind them if there are that do actually give a good estimate and well is reliable, not guess work.

That's what I would like actual data. DiGrande (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@DiGrande The source you provided is not “actual data,” it’s an estimate by Nicolae Păun (politician) of the Roma party saying that he believes that more than 300,000 Roma were left uncounted in the new census, it is not a comprehensive analysis like the one provided by the EU. The EU estimate is the most recent of its kind and the one with the most accuracy and reputation, it’s is undoubtedly a reliable source and it’s actually more recent than most of the other sources for population data in the article, there is no reason why it should not be used in the article. The claim that they don’t use “actual data” is unsubstantiated and not supported by any reliable news source. TagaworShah (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, as I said I do consider it a temporary fix, it's not really data. But tehnically what you said is not the claim is that APRPE (the Association Pro-European Roma Party) has made a paralel counting and they came up with 300k or more; that's what the source claims, if you read more than the title.

On EU Commission's estimates, I think I explained enough in the previous comments why it's actually an incomprehensible Analysis, with well ... numberes pulled out of the air and citing studies that actually give vastly different estimates than it.

If you want, you can remove the roma party's estimates, or add some new ones that atleast say on what they base the estimates--and hopefully in time an actual study will be made and we could cite that--but not the commission's since all it's got going for it is "it's the EU commission, they must be reliable" when under close examination they are not on this matter. DiGrande (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@DiGrande Unreliable according to who? Your own original research? Just because a source seems unreliable to a non-expert does not mean it is, you don’t know or understand their methods of estimation and approximating the Roma population, yes they cite estimates that give different numbers, that is normal, they did their own original research and found this estimate, they are professionals and have a high reputation for accuracy, you’re going to need a lot more than empty accusations to deem this source unreliable. TagaworShah (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

1) Ok, well if they did, as you say, their own research? Where is it published? They don't offer any explanation at all on where exactly they get their numbers.

2) Why do you presume I am a, as you say, a non-expert?

3) No, they are the EU commission, they are a govermental institution not a research one. So, uh, why do you think they have a high reputation for accuracy? DiGrande (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

1) It’s published in their report, they don’t need to give you a step-by-step explanation of their methods for it to be reliable, review the Wikipedia guidelines for what constitutes a reliable source.

2) Wikipedia editors are not experts, doesn’t matter who you are, here you are an editor not an expert, you can’t give your own original research on a topic, it’s not allowed.

3) Because they do, their estimates are widely cited by reliable sources, which by Wikipedia guidelines means a they have a reliable reputation for accuracy. TagaworShah (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

1)Idk if you read the guidelines on reliable sources, but well, the Commissions source fails as a secondary source since... they don't cite a primary source on the numbers given. And it fails as reliable scholarship since the numbers are just pulled out of the air.

2)There is some misunderstanding here, what I've did here wasn't "original research"... I've just checked the sources and saw they are unverifiable.

3)Well so you mean like reliable by association? As in "many other sources from them were reliable, so even if this one cannot be verified, we should let it slide," is that what you mean? DiGrande (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

1) PLENTY of reliable sources do not cite other sources, this is even covered in the guidelines, almost every single reliable news article from places like the New York Times, Washington Post etc. do not have a bibliography, that doesn’t make them unreliable. These numbers are not “pulled out of air” they are an estimate given by experts.

2) You said the source was unverifiable because they were just making numbers up, who are you to make such a claim? Do you have any reliable sources that state the EU commission just makes up their estimates?

3) No, reliable sources citing this source in their work is a measure of its reliability, again that also comes straight from Wikipedia guidelines. TagaworShah (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

1)The numbers used here for statistics, so they should be verifiable; again they are not, you can't know where those numbers came. And well in this case we have nameless "experts," may remind you no source, no expert, no anything is cited behind this numbers, not even of the people writing the report. I am sorry, but you are just asking us to have faith.

2)"Made up" was hiperbaly, yes, uh... what you called "original" research is just checking the source, it either has an empty citation, or it cites back to the webpage. The numbers don't come from anywhere.

All in all, I am not changing my mind on this, I suggest maybe looking for a third opinion. It seems very clear to me why we shouldn't use the Commissions source for the reasons outline here. DiGrande (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

All in all, that's the way verifiability and the assessment of a source's reliability are handled on Wikipedia. If you are opposed to this, if you think that WP:V and WP:RS should require the sources used here to cite their sources or else not be considered reliable here, then the place for you to launch that debate is at the talk page of one of those pages. The talk page of an individual article is not a place for that debate. This is the place for discussions that involve applying the guidelines as they exist. Largoplazo (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hindutva propaganda in article?

although the Indian origin of the Romani people is undeniable, and likewise that Saint Sarah is the syncretization of the Hindu goddess Kali into catholicism, there's a section I take issue with due to how arrogant it seems to me "Saint Sarah is now increasingly being considered as "a Romani Goddess, the Protectress of the Roma" and an "indisputable link with Mother India"" Mother India to me at least seems like a very loaded and nationalistic way to refer to India, and is the main issue I have, and while we know it's a link with India no serious researcher until 100% sure says something is indisputable, it sounds like whoever added this is trying to frame a akhand Bharat narrative or is at minimum a hindutvadi, although a hindutva takeover of English Wikipedia is unlikely to ever happen we must avoid alterations in articles that may tend to a far right nationalist direction, else we get what happened to Croatian Wikipedia that was basically taken over by fascist apologists Dusamatriarch (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

maybe they're just quoting a source tho, if so that should be emphasized to avoid giving the impression of bias, no matter how true the overall point is Dusamatriarch (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The syncretization you suggest might well be correct among the Romani, by I would note that the Saint Sarah mentioned is actually not a Saint of the Catholic Church. Bobby Lawndale (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Article issues

Sometimes things just creep in: Some issues need resolving to prevent possible reassessment?

This article is assessed B-class but there are what appears to be several issues that someone should check out.

There are two unsourced paragraphs in the Artistic representations section and an unsourced single sentence paragraph in the "Porajmos (Romani Holocaust)" section. The criteria (#1) states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.

The Romani people#Romani subgroups section has unsourced sentences dropped in after a source. This just gives the appearance of an unsourced tag along sentence. "The Other endonyms for Romani include, for example:" (subsection) is a long embedded list with 49 entries. Many are sourced. Many are active links, but several are unsourced.

If a source is just misplaced this would be an easy fix. That may or may not be the case. Any content that does not have an inline citation needs a Reliable source: This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The WP:Verifiability policy requires proof on any material "challenged or is likely to be challenged". This is satisfied by providing an inline citation.

Several citations (I didn't count) appear to be the same source. One such source, Hübshmanová, is used 15 times. The source does not have pages but many paragraphs. It seems to me a paragraph number (count) identification could be used.

The "See also" section is very lengthy having thirty-four links (two removed), three subsections, and I think some can be trimmed. The article has a fairly covered "Persecutions" section, "Historical persecution" subsection (with a main of Anti-Romani sentiment, a "Forced assimilation" subsection, with Main article: Expulsion of Romani people from France, and a "Porajmos (Romani Holocaust)" subsection with Romani Holocaust as a main article. The Contemporary issues also has a Main article: Anti-Romani sentiment § Contemporary antiziganism, and a "Forced repatriation" subsection listing a Main article: Expulsion of Romani people from France

Note: I have not considered that any of these should not be in the article. My point is that the "See also" section has Anti-Romani sentiment, Anti-Hindu sentiment, Anti-Indian sentiment, and near the bottom, Romani Holocaust. It just seems the article is leaning away from "Romani people" and towards a more negative narritive.

I have removed two links that were redundant. Any others that are used in the article do not need to be repeated, and some can likely be used and linked to in the article.

External links: This is a mess. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, has grown to Twenty-four links in six subsections. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links in this section.

The problem is that none are 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. --
• ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

Some of the links may include ones that are probably not needed, and some that can be included in the article with sources.

Per WP:ELBURDEN I have trimmed excessive links and moved those here for any possible future discussion on what should be included.

Excessive links moved from article:

• "History of the Roma in Czech Republic". CZ: Rommuz. Archived from the original on 28 October 2013.
• Deportation, EU: Romas Inti, archived from the original on 15 December 2013, retrieved 28 October 2013. History of some Roma Europeans
• Gypsies in France, 1566–2011, FYI France, archived from the original on 19 May 2011, retrieved 28 October 2010; The concentration, labor, ghetto camps that the Roma were persecuted in during World War II
• Auschwitz, archived from the original on 6 May 2012, retrieved 28 October 2013.
• "Hodonin", History: Camps, CZ: Holocaus.
• History, CZ: Lety memorial, archived from the original on 26 March 2017, retrieved 28 October 2013.
• "The situation of the Roma in the European Union" (resolution). European Parliament. 28 April 2005. Archived from the original on 26 December 2007..
• "Final report on the human rights situation of the Roma, Sinti and travellers in Europe". The European Commissioner for Human rights (Council of Europe). 15 February 2006..
• Shot in remote areas of the Thar desert in west India, Jaisalmer Ayo: Gateway of the Gypsies on YouTube captures the lives of vanishing nomadic communities who are believed to share common ancestors with the Roma people – released 2004

General information

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

International organisations

• Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti within the OSCE Area.

Non-governmental organisations

• European Roma Rights Centre.
• The Gypsy Lore Society. Beginning in 1888, the Gypsy Lore Society started to publish a journal that was meant to dispel rumors about their lifestyle.

Museums and libraries

• Museum of Romani Culture (in Czech), Brno, CZ.
• Studii romani (specialized library with archive), Sofia, BG, archived from the original on 21 August 2006, retrieved 21 August 2006.
• Documentation and Cultural Centre of German Sinti and Roma, Heidelberg, DE.
• Ethnographic Museum (in Polish), Tarnów, PL.
• "Who we Were, Who we Are: Kosovo Roma Oral History Collection". March 2004. Archived from the original on 17 May 2017. Retrieved 8 May 2018. The most comprehensive collection of information on Kosovo's Roma in existence.

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) 00:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)