Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:08, 14 May 2007

	This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

For older discussion, see:

• /Archive1
• /Archive2
• /Archive3
• /Archive4

Genetics section rewrite

As it stood, the Genetics section was a bit of a mess, and was really decipherable only by those with a background in the science. I have rewritten it to emphasise what I feel are the important points. In so doing, some of the material that was in the article (and which, in my opinion, served only to obfuscate) has been removed. Perhaps there is scope for a separate, main article on Roma Genetics which could go into more detail? Dinlo juk 12:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been reviewing some of the claims in the original Genetics article and, to be honest, they're not worth saving. Dinlo juk 15:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Your impressions correspond with my own. I've long suspected that there was a lot of dubious stuff in that section, but, not being a geneticist, didn't know how to go about pruning it. (And not for any of the reasons that the hot-headed Finnish guy takes exception to that section, but simply because of the inappropriateness of the overly-specialized tone and content, as you pointed out.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 15:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Another agreement here. The section was a jargon-filled mess, decipherable but just barely, and not all that useful. If that Finnish guy would stop calling us Nazis and deleting the section, we might be able to clean it up...K. Lásztocska 16:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've just noticed that Dinlo juk already cleaned it up. :) It's much improved, still could be better but it's a vast improvement over what was there before. :) K. Lásztocska 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to address genetics without using some technical terminology, but I'm trying to keep it to a minimum. It does need some more tweaking, which I'll tackle in the next few days. What I think would be a good idea would be to consolidate the sections "Origin and Language" and "Genetics" under one heading of "Origins" with subheadings of "Linguistic Evidence" and "Genetic Evidence." Dinlo juk 18:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, at least in some rudimentary fashion. K. Lásztocska 19:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've edited those sections to pull them together a little better and serve as a platform to build from. I've deleted a couple of images for the time being that were causing formatting problems (at least on my PC). This section would probably sit better after the "Population" section and before the "History" section. Dinlo juk 21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try finding a good place to put it...incidentally, this is a bit of a non-sequitur but what should we do about the picture for the infobox? There used to be a really beautiful portrait of three Roma girls in Bulgaria or somewhere, then it got yanked and we replaced it with a sort of montage, but now that's gone too and we just have the flag. It's a small issue, but it's been annoying me...K. Lásztocska 21:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that was a really nice photo... apparently it got pulled because it wasn't clear the photographer had given permission. It might be an idea to contact him. There's a link to a website where you can contact him in the "What the Hell happened to the photo" section. Dinlo juk 21:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

TO OP:Yeah its much better now, thanks for the rewrite! Hope it stays that way for atleast one week. Hope you can help me with that prick that insists on roma and crime though. A matter that already has been taken discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 15:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I restored that section; though it may have been discussed, there's been no approval here of your unilateral removal of the entire section. +ILike2BeAnonymous 15:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The genetics section is now under the subheading "Genetic Evidence" with "Linguistic Evidence" under a new heading "Origins" Dinlo juk 17:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"tzigane" redirect

I've been wondering about that redirect for a while. "Tzigane" is a French word, and the so-named violin piece by Maurice Ravel is very popular and well-known. I'd think that most people who type "tzigane" into the English Misplaced Pages would be looking for that piece of music, not the Roma ethnic group. Shouldn't it be the other way around; "Tzigane" goes directly to Tzigane (Ravel) with a disclaimer at the top: "Tzigane" links here. You may be looking for Roma people or something to that effect? K. Lásztocska 19:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

After some thought, I would tend to agree. Dinlo juk 21:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. K. Lásztocska 01:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandals at it again!

I cant even turn my back for 5 min. before somebody is at it again. Now some prick wants to re insert crime a matter that has already been discussed. Cant some pro help me here? Or is it as useless as calling the cops when you need them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Blanking sections without discussing it on the talk page is vandalism. So yes, vandals are indeed at it again. K. Lásztocska 16:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Finnish guy, in case that went over the head, that last comment was to say that you are the vandal in this case. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about, but can't you at least be civil? Reading this talk page makes me cringe! Steevm 02:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It might help if you made it known who the object of your complaint ("you") is here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

you = anyone who cannot resort to the norms of social intercourse. I think those people know who they are :) Steevm 13:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Persecution section and the Holocaust

The suffering that the Roma endured in the Holocaust, or Porajmos as it is known to Roma, cannot be overstated. It was the culmination of centuries of persecution, which is still happening at an appalling rate today. It was exceptionally significant, such that it cannot be covered in depth in a general article about the Roma. That is why it has its own entry: Porajmos. In the Roma People article it more properly belongs in a general heading of "Persecution". Perhaps a way to keep everyone happy would be for the Persecution section be subdivided into sections with subheadings of "Historical Persecution", "The Porajmos" and "Persecution today" or something like that? Dinlo juk 17:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Persecution: half a million dead citation

The article quotes the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Research Institute as stating "between half a million and a million" died during World War 2, and someone asked for a citation. According to their website, they state that "up to 220,000 were killed." I believe the article should be changed to reflect this unless someone can come up with a applicable source.ndyguy 23:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Both the figure of 220,000 and the between "half a million" and "a million and a half" range have been attributed to Sybil Milton who was senior historian at the Holocaust Memorial Museum. As far as I remember, I've only seen the second one quoted by Ian Hancock as mentioned by her in 1997 and unfortunately, the reference is messed up in that publication.

Milton calculated the 220,000 figure in 1999 and stated explicitly that it was a conservative estimate and the true number was more likely to be closer to 500,000.

There are several other figures that have been published. They go as low as 90,000 and as high as 4 million, but most are between 220,000 and 500,000. I would go with Milton's 1999 range, but mention that higher figures have been proposed (1.5 m, Hancock) and that it could be even higher. Dinlo juk 01:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Article has been edited to reflect this. Dinlo juk 20:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ian Hancock uses in his writings the expression "up to a million and a half". I think it should be included also this in the main article, upped from the footnotes. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 20:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Dinlo juk 21:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I read again today the last article of Ian Hancock on this issue ROMANIES AND THE HOLOCAUST: A REEVALUATION AND AN OVERVIEW (yesterday radoc.net was down), perusing the reason for the uncertainity of the figure, like the habit of killing on spot, the identification of many victims as Jews (for example, a better known case is Settela Steinbach), the interviews by Romani personnel, in the years 2000-2004, who have obtained testimonials at first-hand from survivors and I'd conclude that "the genocide of the Roma in the East is still very much an untold story" (citing from this article). So I think that the expression of Ian Hancock should be on pair with that of Sybil Milton, of course keeping in mind not to transform this issue in a "Suffering Olympics". I will modify the text accordingly, but I welcome further debate. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I've added information to the footnotes to support this and inserted text to say who Ian Hancock is. Dinlo juk 10:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Rom not an endonym?

I deleted the section The term "Roma" recently made by 72.82.13.96, since this is a baseless statement. If there are reasons for that allegation, they should be written first here in talk page, since they are way too much against the mainstream. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Famous people of Roma descent

Is there any real need for this section within the Roma People entry when there is a separate entry for it? No disrespect to him, but does a football player in a team facing relegation from the English Championship League really merit mention on the main Roma People page? Dinlo juk 09:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, well said. Maybe a selection of some of the most important, if this would not create another issue (of who is more distinguished). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 16:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been mulling that one over and to be honest, I don't think it would be that useful. As it is, several of those mentioned are somewhat dubious... Dinlo juk 17:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then, I was bold and I deleted it, any further debate is welcomed. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Roma and Crime section

I see that user MadeinFinland has deleted this section again. Like it or not, there is a widely-held, unsubstantiated view that Roma are prone to criminality. I'm also uncomfortable with its emphasis in the current form and feel that it would be more appropriate to mention this in the section on persecution. Dinlo juk 22:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I modified it accordingly, including your earlier suggestion of making subsections in the Persecution section. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I found a better idea from African_American#Contemporary_issues, I will rename the subsection accordingly. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a vast improvement. The entry as a whole is beginning to look quite good. Dinlo juk 13:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the revert of ILike2BeAnonymous, do you have any reasons for this? Can you show other article about an ethnic group at Misplaced Pages, that has a specific crime section? But much more important, what is the reason to present it like this? And the naming of "Contemporary issues" is not euphemistic, it's just about contemporary issues of the superior section named... guess what, "Persecution". Please do not revert until the issue is clarified. I made a reorganization of the "Persecution" section, so it is your responsability to prove that is wrong, firstly at talk page. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Roma People entry has been prone to vandalism, with sections being deleted without discussion. That much is clear. This is the second time in recent days that ILike2BeAnonymous has reverted an edit citing removal of a section when it has actually been recategorised. Is he checking the discussion before doing this? The crime section has not been removed, it has been reclassified.

Can you provide balanced evidence that roma people are more prone to criminality than other ethnicities? This has historically been viewed as an a-priori truism where there is no substantiation. For instance, right-leaning sections of the UK media report regularly about the "fact" of "gypsy" criminality when ethnicity of offenders has never been recorded in the UK. This is not an issue of political correctness, this is an issue of factual accuracy. Dinlo juk 20:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A source about the crime rate of Gypsies in former Czechoslovakia:

http://www.epolis.cz/download/pdf/materials_31_1.pdf

Overall Romany criminality was five times higher in 1984 than the rest of the population (in the CR?, CSSR?). In the long term it rises and starts in the younger age groups (Nečas, 1991). In the beginning of the 1990´s, when the data on Romany criminality became available, the share of Romany people in the overall crime rate of the CR was about 16%, while in Slovakia it was up to 28%, meaning that at the time of the split between the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, approximately each fifth accused was Romany. An especially large share was burglaries (22% of the total) and in so-called plain thieveries (19%). In Slovakia these numbers were 40% and 36%. There was also a considerable share of immoral offences, especially in the crime of sexual abuse (20% in the CR, 40% in Slovakia). The share of Romany people in violent criminality was in the CR 13% (SR 23%). (Socioklub, 1999). “…we estimate that 20-30% of the economically active Romany population makes their living illegally – by prostitution, peddling or other crimes against property. The adult prisons are by more than 60% Romany. (Říčan, 1998).8 In the beginning of the 1990´s, according to police statistics, in the territory of the former CSFR, 2% of those prosecuted were foreign, 82% were Romany people, and 16% natives; Romany people averaged half of the prosecuted and accused habitual offenders (Matoušek 1998). NOTE: In the early 90's, Gypsies made up less than 2% Czech and ca. 5% Slovak population. 82.100.61.114 14:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This only shows the discrimination against Roma, the lower chances for a normal lifestyle, the prohibitions for the normal expression of the Romani culture. In all the East European coutries during the Communist regime, the Romani minority was not recognized as such and suffered a strong assimilationist pressure. The same as in the other examples from the article Race and crime, the assimilationist pressure produces less chances for a normal life, while the racial discrimination induces higher penalties for Roma compared to non-Roma for the same guilt. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You have seen a Gypsy only on a picture - or are you a Gypsy yourself? What you present is a traditional left-wing rhetoric that lays responsibility for any minority's problems on everything except the minority itself. Any "oppression" is not an excuse for criminal behaviour. During the last millenium there was not any other European minority discriminated more than the Jews - and they made up the elite of every country in which they lived. On the other hand, Gypsies have been a nightmare for all European countries in which they lived. When they came to Europe for the first time, they were welcome friendly, but after their asocial and criminal "normal lifestyle" was recognized, they started to be expelled and were chased and hung. And be sure that today they have enough space for the expression of their "cultural pecularities". They utterly devastated new flats that were provided to them during the Communistic regime and "adapted" them to their living standards:

http://nigeldickinson.com/gallery/slovakiaroma/018_lunik_ix_kosice

Naturally, many of them don't bother to pay rent, and in fact, they don't bother to pay for anything. But if you want them to follow some civilization standards, it would be "racist"! Nobody - except noble souls living in Ivory Towers - wants to live with them, and even their own kinsmen, who have succeeded in the European society, have only the worst words for them. 82.100.61.114 19:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't speak for Desiphral, I'll leave that to him.

However, I'm a "Gypsy" who has succeeded in the European society and have quite a lot of good things to say about the people who share my ancestry. I feel sorry for you, that you've been influenced by this racist nonsense. Learn to question the "wisdom" people give you, particularly when it denegrates a specific group of people. Dinlo juk 01:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said, there can't be "criminal ethnic groups". Those who contend such idea are either people with socialization problems or nationalists who support the idea of a monocultural world. It is sad to witness the strength of this vicious circle of selecting only negative things about the Romani people and presenting them as the "true image of the Gypsies", a "true image" that spurs further negative selection. If the contemporary perpetrators of this vicious circle have impunity, at least they should think about the future, when, hopefully this nonsense will end, and their descendants will be ashamed of their ancestors' behaviour. When you say "new flats" this is just propaganda, even an outsider would question the truth of such statement, knowing the official discrimination of the state authorities. The origins of these blocks of flats are in the years of the Communist regime, when entire Romani neighborhoods were destroyed, to make way for Communist systematization projects and because of the Communists' paranoia about compact groups (they wanted a direct relation person - state, to control better the population). The Romani families were dumped in blocks, the least suitable on their list, hoping that in this way it will be crushed the strength of the Romani communities, that they will suit the "Gypsy image" and they will be compelled to assimilate. This presentation of the "Gypsy crime" is really schizophrenic, it has nothing in common with what is happening in the reality, it is an organized straying away from reality. About the comparation with the Jews, one should not forget that they live on a territory with a similar worldview, they and the local majority share the similar Abrahamic outlook. If our ancestors would have migrated towards East instead West, maybe we would have been also a local elite in China or Indochina, areas that share the same Dharmic outlook. An important thing here is that our ancestors were not accustomed with ethnic discrimination, this is something unknown in the Dharmic worldview. For example, the Jews in the Indian Subcontinent and China are the only Jewish communities never discriminated along their history, they just integrated as another caste, as some normal people. The so-called "friendly reception" in Western Europe was, in fact, a matter of life and death. Running from the Ottoman occupation of the Balkans, arriving in an unwelcoming Western Europe, our ancestors had to present themselves as pilgrims who lost the way to Jerusalem to win some time. However, soon the anti-Romani violence and the creation of the Gypsy image as a justifying scarecrow appeared also in the West. Nowadays it is out of hand a migration en masse to the Indian Subcontinent (because the local countries are overpopulated), so we are to stay in the areas we live. And to find out means to get out of this discrimination deadlock. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 12:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding, hmm? Have no doubt that I have enough personal experience with Gypsies to make my own opinion. And I will rather refrain from commenting this incredible, mendacious paragraph, otherwise I would be banned from Misplaced Pages for life. I have already read similar propaganda faeces, but this would need some expert in psychiatry! 82.100.61.114 12:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably, this is intended for those who wonder why the Czech Republic is one of the most notorious countries in anti-Romani violence. A person not looking too White must be really careful there, the skinheads and "concerned citizens" like this little Nazi scum have done already enough victims with impunity. Somehow the real life tends to be reflected also in this talk page. Before there was that conflict about the intent to lower the number of the Romani people in Romania and Bulgaria, because these two countries were accepted as EU members at the beginning of this year and they wanted to present themselves as European countries (i.e. European = no Roma). Now we have also a sample from the land of skinhead violence. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 16:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Desiphral, your statement only confirms that you have never been in Czech republic (and very probably anywhere east of Germany) and you base your fish stories on the mendacious propaganda spread in the world by Mr. Paul Polanski et al. I actually wonder, why our government didn't issue a warrant against this scoundrel, who blatantly slanders not only our country, but all countries in the former Communist Bloc. 82.100.61.114 22:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Languange and great weasel words

What it said: "Because of the differences in language and culture there has been a great deal of mutual distrust between the Roma and their neighbours."

Really? Here in Finland Roma speaks FLUENT Finnish and or Swedish. "GREAT" deal of mistrust or just mistrust? If we talk about those racist Eastern Europeans i would bet on great mistrust while here in Finland its minor mistrust (Thanks to what racists posts on pages like WP and likes to bring up old out dated stereotypes made up by racists) Both are correct so which one should we go for or both? I could quote what it says in the Finnish law (If you are interested, ill do it) You see here in Finland Roma dont see themselves as "Roma in Finland" but as fully integrated Finns! Just like Jews so have Roma been persecuted aswell so its unfair to give people the idea that the HOLOCAUST only happened to Jews and just like Jews so must Roma also fought for the cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

I am sincerely very happy to hear that the Roma in Finland are completely equal and integrated members of society, that is something all countries should strive to achieve. But PLEASE, for the love of God, stop labelling all Eastern Europeans as "racists"! It's getting really annoying and frankly offensive! Also please remember to sign your messages. ;) K. Lásztocska 22:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Read what it says about Roma and Eastern Europe on the main page, its persecution after persecution after persecution. But what do i know? Maybe TV, the newspapers and internet all told this great lie about Roma peoples situation in Eastern Europe?— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

I agree there is necessary a better introduction to express better why the persecuton happen. Until then I delete the current phrase. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 07:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised you don't experience prejudice as a Finnish Rom... If that is the case, it's an exception rather than the rule. It's certainly not the case in other Western European countries. Dinlo juk 10:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Finland is different, during WW2 Finns, Jews, Swedes and Nazis were brother in arms. If you want to learn more: Jews_in_Finland — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

This Finnish website appears to disagree:

Unemployment is another major problem mainly due to the generally low level of education amongst the Roma and the widespread prejudice against them among the majority population. The Roma are mainly employed in social and health care, youth welfare, teachers’ training, information technology and entertainment.

In addition to general prejudice in the fields of employment and housing, the Roma also face discrimination in access to restaurants and other licensed premises. Prejudicial treatment occurs even though the Finnish Penal Code, through an amendment adopted in 1995 (sections 11(8) and (9)), criminalises incitement to racial hatred and racial discrimination.

Dinlo juk 10:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That page is from 2004 the very same year Finland passed another law against discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

Yes, me too, I'd like to know an answer about this. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm yes, this is very interesting...MadeInFinland, you must be a very lucky Roma. :) (PS--wow, am I the only non-Roma working on this article right now?!) K. Lásztocska 13:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Did he/she stated the ethnicity? 86.127.129.62 14:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Finnish guy? No, just a probably foolish assumption on my part. Sorry! K. Lásztocska 14:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No source=Deletion, yes?

I thought every article, claim needed a source if im not mistaken?

Yes, sources are always necessary. Before deleting something though, first try to find a source. WP:SOFIXIT. K. Lásztocska 22:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Romani people

I think it is time now to have the correct heading for this article, which would be Romani people. Romani is the adjective, Rom(a) is the noun, while Romanes is the adverb and these rules are also applied in English. Roma people sounds like "Englishmen people". Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--I was actually just wondering about that. :) K. Lásztocska 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Related groups

Why are the Romani being emphasized as if they were South Asians? They are partially related, perhaps 1/3 to half their gene pool, but they left the Punjab nearly 1000 years ago and have intermingled with local groups and are culturally European or Mideastern (depending upon they live). Their ancestors' origins are undeniable, but these people have not been stuck in a timewarp. Tombseye 15:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Relation with other people

The user Tombseye keeps adding at the related ethnic groups section the Europeans and the Middle Easterners. I consider this as the usual assimilationist approach from Europe and Middle East, disdainful regarding the Romani culture, because it does not give an answer about the rejection of our culture in these areas. We are only used as abstract people when they need it, but in real life we are not considered the same as them because our culture is not accepted. How are we related to them? For example, I cite from the article THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CONTROL OF IDENTITY by Ian Hancock, including the case of Guyana in South America:

"One’s identity has to be evaluated in terms not only of what one perceives oneself to be, but also by whether members of the population that one sees oneself as identifying with also share that perception. And it depends, furthermore, upon the attitudes of the out-group, which is the third dimension; in other words, one might be attempting to become part of a population which has no intention of letting one in. On page 26 are the results of a 1993 poll which asked both the Romani and non-Romani residents in Kremnica, Slovakia, whether Romanies “should live together with Slovaks and have the same living conditions as Slovaks have.” One hundred percent of the Romanies said “yes.” Ninety one percent of the Slovaks said “no.” In the late 1970s, Guyana--an English-Creole-speaking South American country with an almost entirely African and Asian population--mounted a national campaign to reidentify itself as a Latin American nation. It did this because of its location, and for reasons of regional trade. The rest of Latin America, however, did not see Guyana as being in any way a part of their cultural and linguistic world, and the attempt withered and died."

I didn't see at the article about the Japanese people at related ethnic groups section the Austronesian people (that partly share the same ancestry and genetics). I'm sure that there are many other examples. Wait... a survey in Romania 2 years ago found that half of the non-Romani population has Romani ancestors, some even with entire Romani ancestry. Do you imagine writing at the article of the Romanian people, Hungarian people or other Southeastern European people that they are related to the Roma? We assimilated some of them, they assimilated some of us, but the populations remained distinct. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Another good example: at the article Jew you will see related ethnic groups only the "Arabs and other Semitic groups" (although during the centuries they mixed with other people). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

We're presenting REALITY not personal views on assimilation. As far as the Romany in Spain, they identify with Spaniards culturally. Secondly, the Romany are then their own group as I still do not see how they are "South Asian". Perhaps you are projecting a globalist perspective of linking anyone with some South Asian ancestry as being part of some collective and thus reducing their individual identities yourself. The Roma are, if nothing else, their own group and judging by their languages and own self-identification, perhaps we should just remove the section on related peoples if we are going to ignore the fact that they are, whether some care to admit it or not and whether Europeans and Mideasterners around them see it as such, related. AS for the other analogies, the Japanese aren't quite as close to the Austronesians as the Roma are to Euroepeans. And what do you mean us? Are you somehow representing the Roma yourself here? The article on the Jews is wrong as well. They are related to Europeans, which is obvious as the Yiddish language is Germanic and not Semitic. If one precedent is wrong, then so are the others. I say we either remove this related people entry or make it accurate, i.e. include the fact that the Roma are related to their neighbors. And for the record many have assimilated and even if they have not, their culture is not even remotely South Asian. Tombseye 18:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

We're presenting REALITY not personal views on assimilation. Are you somehow representing the wishful thinking assimilationist view here? What do you know about Roma to consider them non-South Asian? Do you happen to know about the purity rules or the way the internal separations are envisaged? The answer that "the Yiddish language is Germanic and not Semitic" is really dilletantistic. Write this first at the Jews talk page to see if there is support to relate the Jews with the Germans only because of this. The culture as a whole matters, while the cultural elements themselves are able to be assimilated from one cultural area to another. This world is multicultural, there are more cultural areas, but they are not stable and undisturbed monoliths, focused only on preserving their external appearances. The assimilation of foreign elements does not necessarily mean the corruption of the personal culture. I really did not expect such an answer based on personal suppositions about how do you think it would be the reality. Further, I am displeased by the way you avoided to answer the issue of one way relationship, i.e. we should be related to them, but they should not be related to us. Did you go to the articles Romanian people, Hungarian people or other Southeastern European people to tell them to consider the relation with us? You even put the Europeans first, deleted the Desi, you really seem to make the Romani history here. Please do not revert until this matter is solved at talk page. You contend it, you have to prove it first to have the right for any change. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's easy. Look at the genetic tests. They show definite European admixture. Culturally, they follow Christianity and Islam and interact with Europeans. Culturally, the Romany are European, NOT South Asian. Next, the Roma are really only related to SOME South Asians, specifically those of the Punjab, in Pakistan. If all of this isn't evidence, I don't know what is. You are focusing, wrongly, on how Europeans have treated them, in large part due to their itinerant lifestyle. The wanders of Ireland haven't been treated much better. Plus, racism or perceptions of racial purity on the part of the Nazis. Just b/c the Nazis don't think they are European doesn't make it so. Living in Europe makes them Europeans NOT South Asians. This is an inaccurate assessment. As for the Jews article, I don't see why this can't be done for both SIMULTANEOUSLY. Now answer these questions: are the Roma related to Europeans by blood or not? Do they or do they not often speak European languages around them? Are the Roma not culturally similar to the Europeans they live amongst (also the Middleeasterners as well)? These are simple criteria. I'm not saying they aren't related to the Punjabis, but to simply link them to south asians is absurd just based upon this basic criteria. We aren't here to fight persecution or debate assimilation. That is in fact bias. We are here to write about who the Roma are and that's all. Not what they should be or how you think they all think as I think it's safe to say that views vary. Tombseye 05:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You either did not understand what I said before or you rejected it disrespectfully without giving a proper answer. So, first of all, an ethnic group is defined by the culture and this is also the point of view of the Romani worldview. The Nazis are best known for supporting the genetics as the base for ethnic identification, when they killed persons even with just a Romani or Jewish granparent. Persons who many times had no idea about their non-German ancestry, otherwise fully integrated in the German culture. You present again some cultural features assimilated by the Romani culture that give you no right to say that this culture was assimilated by the Europeans. I'm asking you again: do you have any idea about the Romani culture, about its basic tenets? Plus the other issues presented before that you did not answer yet. We are not culturally similar to the people we live amongst, every source will tell you this. Soon, when I'll have time, I will present also the reasons for putting at the religion section the Romanipen (Romaniya), instead the religions written now there. Until then you may read this about how we use to assimilate features from local religions. From your contributions I see you have a strong interest in the Muslim people from Southwest Asia, and here I see you have a problem with our South Asian culture, so maybe you are not the right person to judge who we are, you seem to be influenced by your POV. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well conversely, you seem quite biased if your point is to distance the Roma from Europe based upon the history of discrimination. And you have not answered my questions. I meant no disrespect, but you are presenting a biased perspective tainted by a wrong approach. The Roma are also not South Asian by culture, but are their own group, as are MANY people in Europe like the Sami. Living in Europe for centuries makes them just as European as others. Yes, I know of Roma culture, but it is multifaceted and varies from region to region so that some used to show a link to Indian religion (the worship of Kali) as well as the Dharmic view of reincarnation whereas others don't. In fact, the Roma show clear signs of a fusion culture with elements of the Punjab (and I wrote much of the Punjabi people article so I don't know of what "bias" of mine you are referring to) mixed with Middle Eastern and European traits. I don't have a problem with South Asian culture, whatever that means as it is a very broad region. I still do not see how the Roma are South Asian as they don't live there and left centuries ago. Are the Hungarians Central Asian because some of their ancestors were nomadic Magyars? Come on. Try to be a little objective here rather than accusing me of bias which you have yet to prove. I want academic perspectives in[REDACTED] and not nationalistic ones. When I wrote Iranian peoples I had to content with Iran centric views which I filtered out as much as I could. If that makes me biased, then so be it. Tombseye 13:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to present a distanced view from Europe, I just show what is the reality. It is pointless to compare Roma with the Hungarians or Saami. They are accepted as Europeans by the rest of the people from Europe. Roma are not, probably because the local majority doesn't want to accept the existence of other cultures? Our desire is to integrate in the European society, as people belonging to the Romani culture, since we respect it strongly. So, integration but not assimilation. Something like the Desi Jews or the Parsis could integrate in the South Asian society without any constraint to assimilate from the local majority. We are Europeans by geography (in fact also Americans, Asians, Africans, Australians), but not by culture, as long as our culture is kept aside. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And I don't base my argumentation on the discrimination. That is a side effect. The fact is that we are closest to the South Asian worldview. We respect purity rules, endogamous caste system, the marriage is conducted in a South Asian way (many times including arranged marriage), we call those of our age brother/sister and the elders uncle/aunt, the respected members of the local community decide the local issues the same as the panchayat and many other important things. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't base your views on discrimination then why are mentioning that the Sami are accepted as Europeans? Kind of contradictory don't you think? And you are lumping all of the Roma together as if they are a collective. Many are culturally as European as any locals. And this does not address why Europeans and Middle Easterners are not included as related to the Roma. Caste and arranged marriage exist in other European cultures (or did moreso in the past) so what does that prove? I'm not saying they aren't related to, really the Punjabis rather than all South Asians, but they are ALSO related to Europeans and Middle Easterners. Thus, why are you excluding that aspect of the Roma? Tombseye 20:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

With your style of diminishing the arguments, don't you think we may consider the Roma related with every other ethnic group on Earth? I think it is obvious you have a problem with the South Asian culture. You consider the Europeans as a whole, but you separate the Punjabis from the South Asians (btw there is no reason to relate Roma specifically to the Punjabis), the Roma are as as a whole when you like it, but separated in assimilated and non-assimilated when you don't like it. Personally I think it is a waste of time what are you trying to do and I see you are not committed to present the truth. You may see that every article on Misplaced Pages presents only the culturally related ethnic groups. Even the Afro-Americans who, unlike the Roma, do not have the continuity of the community social life from their homeland to the contemporary location, even them are related only to the African people and some of them with the Native Americans. Why Native Americans? Because there appeared ethnic groups like the Black Seminoles, who are meaningful from the Native American point of view, while there did not appear Afro-American groups meaningful from the White or Asian point of view, although they have enough of their genes too. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 21:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a silly devolution of what I said. I mentioned TWO other regional groups, Europeans and Middle Easterners and you extrapolate that to all of Earth? Come on. I have a problem with South Asian culture and that's why I helped write Punjabis and Sinhalese? Really? How about keeping your speculative opinions about me to yourself and stay on topic. To the contrary, I think you are the one who is not committed to rational thinking. You are promoting a single mode of thought based upon a history of discrimination that discards other links the Roma have. In fact, it is wrong for Europeans to exclude the Roma and your way of thinking simply cements that rigid approach. They aren't just genetically related and you know it. And honestly, do you really think the Roma, who were likely a low caste group, didn't face discrimination in India? Does that mean someone else can remove their relationship to South Asia then? This requires some neutral arbitration and other input as you aren't being flexible and purposely mischaracterizing me to suit your own rationale. Tombseye 01:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I continue to say that you have a problem with our identity. You do anything to minimize our South Asian identity and to create a so-called European and Middle-Eastern identity. You do not even answer to the questions accumulated until now, questions about real life, you seem to be concerned about your personal thoughts and about how to make them reality. There is a strong tradition to use the Romani people as abstract persons for the interest of other people, sezing the opportunity of our minority status, and to dump them when they are not needed. Your project of Europeanization and Middle-Easternization (btw, this is OR, start a NGO or a party if you want to promote your ideas) would mean only an assimilation as second-class people, never the same as our nieghbours, because we would not quit our culture. We have in mind an integration in the countries we live, but only as people belonging to the Romani culture. This would be feasible only when our culture would be accepted as normal in the areas we live, when Europe or Middle East would mean also the Romani people, when they would be trully multicultural areas. You do anything in an arrogant manner to discredit us for your purposes, to find resons for a so-called non-South Asiannes, like naming us low caste, when our ancestors are Rajputs from the kshatriya varn. Again, if you minimize our cultural features common with South Asia, saying that also in Europe there are traces of them, then in every other ethnic group on Earth there are traces of cultural features that may resemble the South Asian ones, so after your thinking we should be related with every ethnic group on Earth. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, there are numerous people who believe the Roma were possibly of low caste as well as being Punjabi Rajputs, but that system is archaic and frankly meaningless anyway. I don't know why you would get so agitated over a theory. Secondly, as per your argument below, I can see how one might see this as a situation in which the Roma are European and thus it is not necessary to reiterate this, BUT perhaps a better solution is remove the section on related peoples then as with Greeks and Albanians. Secondly, Ian Handcock does acknowledge that the Roma are derived from many people so your jump at throwing accusations at me is simply childish. I have no "project" and I was simply trying to find a solution to this recurring problem on wikipedia. Instead you seem to be taking this personally, which makes you very unsuitable for this article. Try to calm down and speak with some semblance of rationality. My final suggestion is that the related groups section in this case is not necessary and it may be a good idea to get rid of it in other articles given its inconsistent usage. Peace. Tombseye 19:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as for me, I'm waiting from the very beginning for a sign of rationality from you. Initially, you grossly downplayed the Desi relation, then you chopped and selected only the Pakistani Punjabis that seem to suit your area of interest (but who are not the closest related to us, our ancestors come from Uttar Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh area, see ), now you present this link where Ian Hancock writes that our ancestors have been made up of many different jatis from the very beginning and afterwards they assimilated also outsiders to support your view of multiple relations. Those many jatis were all Desi, firmly crystallized into the Romani people, and then we assimilated some local people also, that's no sin in it, I told you before what means a genetical approach in defining somebody's culture. When you can't fulfill your desire you suggest to get rid of the related ethnic groups section. You may take it as you want, but I consider your fluctuations for achieving your goal as a violent approach, it is really undesirable to play with a group's identity in this manner, to take advantage of our contemporary political weakness, we are not your puppets. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 20:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind if I make a comment on the Indian/European identity? In We Are the Romani People, Prof. Hancock includes two chapters: one called "How Indian Are Romanies?" and another called "How European Are Romanies?" Admittedly, the first is longer than the second. In the first of these two chapters, he cites various customs, spiritual beliefs, etc. and their Indian parallels.

In the second, however, he also argues that Romanies "are quintessentially European," since they not only have lived in Europe for centuries but are spread out throughout Europe. And I also quote (from Ch. 6, "The Gypsy Image"): "A millennium after leaving India as an already-mixed people, there are no Romanies anywhere in the world - just as there are no non-Romani populations anywhere - who are genetically pristine." --Kuaichik 05:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what I say until now also. We are quintesentially European by geography, but also American, Asian, Australian, African, we live on every continent (and Prof. Hancock reminds this also, with his example of asking how European are the Peruvian Roma). We are related to the land we live and we have to uphold this. We have also some genes from our neighbours. But this does not mean we became them. The Turkish minority in the Balkans has lived there and mixed also during many centuries with the local European Christians but nobody would think to say that they are related with the latter. In our case this approach is a just a lack of respect by individuals who think they can use us for their purposes. They have no beneficient interest in our people, using even lies to estrange us from other Desis (like saying the old story of low caste). No other ethnic group's article on Misplaced Pages presents such related groups on this basis, only in the Romani case it is tried the geographic and genetic criterion hoping that our weak political status would help their purposes. This approach would only officialize the discrimiation towards us, the rejection of our culture, since it would not suppose a counterpart relation (I told it before, in Southeastern Europe, many of the local non-Roma have Romani genes, cultural borrowings, linguistic influence from Romani, but I don't see them relating to us). Right now we are not recognized as Europeans by the majority of the people living in Europe, our culture is not accepted as normal. We have to struggle that our culture become an accepted part of the broad societies in the areas we live, this I think is the right focus. Only the Yeniche people qualifies as both Desi and European (the meaning limited only to the old European populations) culturally (in fact, probably mainly European, with Desi cultural borrowings, but I wouldn't venture further in describing them, since I don't know too much about them), but they are not recognized as Roma. If we would be in South Asia, we would have no problem in socializing there, we have the same fundamentals of the mentality. The Yeniches would have some idea, but they would be really dilettants, while our non-Romani neighbours would not understand most of the Desi cultural features. The same as the other Desis, we respect purity rules, we are pure culturally the same as in the day we left the Subcontinent. Now don't tell me that we borrowed some words from our neighbours, since they borrowed too from us, and they did not become Roma (or see the above case, Slavs, Turks, Roma and Greeks living for centuries side by side in the Balkans, yet they did not become the same). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific, we are not related to the Europeans, we are Europeans, the same as Americans, Asians, Australians, Africans. The related approach only underlines the discriminatory approach that does not recognize us as citizens with full rights and duties, but only as second-class people, imagined as permanent (uninvited) guests. Trully related we are only with the other Desi. Living on a territorry does not make a people automatically related with the other local ethnic groups. It has yet to be recognized that European means also Romani people, besides the local non-Roma. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 12:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! :) Yes, certainly, I agree that the Roma are no more related to other Europeans than the Parsis are to other Indians. Indeed, if only "Iranis" are listed as a related people to the Parsi, why should Europeans and Middle Easterners be listed as peoples related to the Romani? Right? --Kuaichik 05:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User MadeinFinland and deletion of sections

Sections cannot be deleted without discussion on this page. Please stop doing so until you argue your case. Dinlo juk 08:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No source = Deletion, WP rules. Otherwise anybody could say this and that if there were no proof needed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

A more appropriate course of action is to check the claims yourself. There is a large amount of information out there on the forced assimilation of the Roma. Dinlo juk 09:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the burden of proof is upon those that wants to prove a thing, not others. MadeinFinland 22:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Christian

Holocaust is Holocaust

Why do you people try to downplay what those NAZI pigs did during WW2 against the Roma people?? While its true that more Jews were killed in Nazi camps than Roma people but the Roma were not that many for starters so in % counted more Roma were exterminated than Jews.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

There is no downplaying of the Porajmos ("devouring" in Romani). It has its own entry on Misplaced Pages, to which the reader is directed from this page. The Romani People entry is intended as a general introduction to Romani issues and, as such, the Porajmos belongs in the broader context of Persecution against the Roma.

There may be scope for rearranging the "Relations with other peoples" section, bringing "Persecution" to a higher level, but you cannot unilaterally rearrange the sections or delete them without discussion.

Also, please sign your posts. Dinlo juk 10:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Does MadeinFinland mean that most of the people have no idea about the word Porajmos? My survey about this issue found the next things: the entry Shoah is redirected to The Holocaust (as if it would be only about the Jews), in the introduction of the Holocaust's article the Roma are in the category "many other people", the template {{The Holocaust}} is again monopolized by the Jewish side. My conclusion is that a lot of work has to be done to give the proper representation of what happened to the Romani people during the 2nd World War.

As a matter of fact my class mates or i never heard the word Porajmos mentioned when we were in school, the teachers said HOLOCAUST and thats exactly what it was. You are downplaying the HOLOCAUST of Roma people if you name it Porajmos. Jews wants it to sound that they were the only ones persecuted which naturally is a total lie. If you want to know more click this: Holocaust— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

Regarding the deletion of the section-name "Relation with other people", I'd lean too to the same opinion, to keep "Persecution" (including "Assimilation" as a subsection) as a section au pair with "Origins", "History" etc., and to make another section for "Romani people by geographic area". The current naming would suggest that the relations with the others can be described only as conflictive and also that Roma would be some (uninvited) guests in the countries they live, that those countries are only of those "other people", and Roma some second-class citizens. In the latter section there should be described the problems rezulting from the non-acceptance of the Romani people as citizens with full rights and duties (depending by coutry or area), but also the actual specific in every area, the Romani contributions to the local ethos (again a lot of work to be done in this field too). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that pretty much ties up with my opinion. I suspect it would leave MadeinFinland happy too. I suggest the heading is also renamed "Persecutions" to reflect its heterogenity Dinlo juk 10:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I rearranged the sections' tree. Regarding the issue of choosing either Holocaust or Porajmos for that section's heading, I don't know how it would be more appropriate. To put Porajmos, because right now this is the only wiki article that deals with the WW2 genocide? To put Holocaust, because people don't know about Porajmos? In the second case, however, neither in the Holocaust article is written about the suffering or the Roma. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks good, but the Geographical Areas section needs work. With regards to Holocaust/Porajmos... Why not name it "Porajmos (Holocaust)" or something like that. That way, everyone knows what we're talking about and that we are talking about the Romani experience of it. Dinlo juk 11:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the Holocaust refers to all genocidal deaths during WW2, whereas Porajmos refers only to the genocide of Roma. So, focus, not downplaying. Some Jews also use/prefer the terms Sho'ah or Ha-Shoa over holocaust. As for replacing "Relations with other peoples" with "Persecution" would that not suggest that the only relations Roma have with other people comes in the form of persecution? Roma are more than permanent victims. Relations with non-Roma are far more complex than that would give them credit for. - TheMightyQuill 23:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no continuity from "Relations with other peoples" to "Persecution". The "Relations with other peoples" which indeed is a complex issue has disappeared as a (too) broad section, that previously has misinformed the people by the limited subsections it had. The "Persecution" section deals only with the persecutions, that are important to have a distinct section of their own (see also the Jews, they have also one). There may be envisaged a distinct "Relations with other peoples" section, but I think that it's scope is already included in other current sections (purity rules, presecution, cultural exchanges etc.). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 05:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

May i insert Roma in Finland?

You know parts of the article is very depressing as it is, how about some good news? I mean why do you treat me like i was a child and revert me edits almost all the time? Whats the deal here?

Speaking as one who has reverted edits of yours in the past, I can tell you that one good reason is that you have insisted on major deletions and addition of material without explanation nor good reason (like your continued removal of the entire "Genetics" section). So if you feel as if you're being treated as a child, perhaps it's because you have acted like one at times. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You make major alterations to the article, almost always by deleting whole sections, without any discussion why you're doing it. Latest example, you deleted a photo from the genetic evidence section of Spanish Gitanas in 1917 without any explanation. There may be a very good reason to delete it... I personally think it's unrepresentative, but you've not discussed it and argued your case. Such edits will always be reverted.

A section on the Finnish Kale will be extremely welcome. There's scope for a main article there as well. Dinlo juk 09:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The photos does not represent a fair and balanced view of the Roma people, say what? I see photo taken 1917 thats some 90 years ago! You can call me almost whatever you want just never call me a vandal, what i do is that i remove articles filled with weasel words and racism you see i use common sense maybe they dont teach that in hebrew schools anymore? I dont know. And the HOLOCAUST is still the HOLOCAUST.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

Wait a minute, you are really unpolite here, in fact coming after a succesion of other anti-Jewish remarks. If there are some problems in the Holocaust issue, this does not give you the right to accuse an entire people. You're doing the same discrimination you accuse. I'll just add a quotation from ROMANIES AND THE HOLOCAUST: A REEVALUATION AND AN OVERVIEW for a balanced view and as a disclaimer about keeping distance from views like those of MadeinFinland:

"While it is true that all of the ‘minimizing’ rhetoric originates with some Jewish authors, I must hasten to add that most of the arguments in support of the Romani case originate with Jewish scholars too; indeed, almost the entire body of research on the Romani Holocaust is the result of Jewish scholarship. Despite the naysayers, the Jews are practically the only friends we have, and we recognize that." (by Ian Hancock)

Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti Jewish remarks?? Playing the race card i see, will you also accuse the Romani people for the Lebanon war?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs)

Romani People by Geographical Region section

We could do with some additions to this section. Does anyone have any suggestions on geographical regions to add as subheadings? France? Germany? Italy? Benelux countries? Scandinavia? Dinlo juk 11:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, probably something like this. I'd add also the subheadings Commonwealth of Independent States, North America, Latin America, Oceania (i.e. Australia and New Zealand). I'd suggest to drop the first repetitive part of the subheadings "Romani people in..", to remain only the geographic area. The construction of these subheadings would involve a lot of work, mostly in searching for sources (and currently I don't have so much time personally), so I'm thinking to make some stub subsections. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

However, I don't know if all the sections proposed for Europe would be imporatant, for example Benelux. Probably if there will appear sourced informations (since the population there is small) then it should be tried a Benelux section. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 16:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Roma boy in bear costume

I don't know why the boy in this image may be considered of Romani ethnicity, so I propose its removal. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you suspect he's not Romani?

There are two other photos that I think could do with being replaced. The image of Spanish Gitanas from 1917, and the photo of the woman begging outside a church in Rome. While it's undeniable that poverty has been a recurrent feature of the Roma, these photos paint a stereotype that doesn't really need to be reinforced. The photo of the Spanish girls is historically interesting, but it doesn't really belong in the genetic evidence section. Dinlo juk 09:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

He does not have... let's say, stereotypical Romani features. But this is not the problem, since there are many Roma with non-stereotypical physiognomical features. He is playing an originally non-Christian ritual with uncertain origin, performed on the New Year's Eve, by both Roma and non-Roma in Romania, dressed as bears. It is not something that would qualify somebody necessarily as Rom. Many non-Roma who imagine the Roma as Gypsies, include also non-Romani persons who look strange, unusual in the Gypsy category. And the main problem here is that the person who took the picture "immortalized" a (probably desired) Gypsy angle, presenting him as smoking happily. It is the usual habit of selecting and presenting only bad things about Roma (some even not pertaining to us, as probably in this picture) to create a negative image. Small things, like this one, that amassed enforce the bigger Gypsy image, which further feeds a vicious circle. Things that most of the time exist also among non-Roma, just there is not this negative selection. For example, among non-Roma in Romania there are a lot of children using to smoke, but they are considered just some naughty children (... or Gypsies, as it may be in this case). So I support to get rid also of the other two photos. There are enough normal things to be presented about Roma, like, for example, the hardworking Romani craftsmen. In Romania, the caste names show the craft or trade the specific caste is doing, like Căldărari (cauldron crafting), Aurari (gold crafting) Argintari (silver crafting), Florari (flower sellers), Lăutari (singers) and many others. I think this would be a normal way of presenting the Roma. I hope I'll find the time and the external sources to contribute in presenting things like these. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 18:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos for use in entry

For a while, the main photo on the page was an amazing portrait of three Romani girls. It was deleted because it was identified as a professional shot and it wasn't clear that the photographer had given permission for it to be here. The photographer was Vasilis Artikos and the photo appears here.

In discussing the deletion it was mentioned by user Istvan that:

"There is, of course, an outside chance that Mr. Artikos was the one who posted the image, in which case he may be willing to release copyright, but a pro photographer is almost always loathe to do this."

I took the liberty of contacting Vasilis Artikos, asking whether he would be happy for the photo to appear in the entry. He replied:

Dear *****

I give you the permission for use my photo with pleasure.

I would place my name with the photo and inform me the place of[REDACTED] will be.

Thanks a lot!!!!

Now, I'm not particularly experienced at uploading photos to WP, perhaps somebody could do this for me? I propose the photo is placed where it originally was. Dinlo juk 08:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded it at Image:Romanigirls(Greece).jpg. Now you may inform Vasilis Artikos about its location. Right now I'm not sure which copyright tag is appropriate for this photo. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just one small question, since this arose with a recent edit: what is the exact title the photographer gave this picture? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted! The photo's title is "Girls of Gypsies" Dinlo juk 20:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Since that makes absolutely no sense in English (the photog is obviously not a native English speaker), I'm changing the caption back to "Romani girls", without the quotation marks. It doesn't have to be the actual title of the photo, just a descriptive caption. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, what about this photo, what should be the appropriate tag? I think the admin who deleted it was overzealous. It would have been appropriate just to point to the right tag. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why was it removed, and who removed it? I thought that we had gotten permission from its creator to use it here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright laws? Please explain!

We cant copy and paste an entire article even if its 100% fair and balanced? So how come that people can copy and paste an entire WP article and post it like it was theirs on web pages?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the difference between plagiarism on the one hand (swiping material and sticking it into a Misplaced Pages article) and web scraping, the somewhat slimy, but legal practice of copping Misplaced Pages content and putting it on one's site (as on many sites which scrape content from Misplaced Pages). +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Guess it will make my major edits about Romani people that lives in Finland much more difficult but ill do it whatever it takes. MadeinFinland 21:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Christian

"Romanes" as an adverb???

The "Etymology" section currently says

... while Romanes is the adverb.

This can't be correct. An adverb modifies a verb; for instance, in "the boy looked longingly at the Romani girl", the word "longingly" is an adverb (modifying the verb "looked"). There's no way, so far as I know, that the word "Romanes" could be used as an adverb. Somebody must have made a mistake in that sentence. Can someone who knows please check this? +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Word by word, translated in English, Romanes means in the Romani way, manner, or *Romanily, if you want an English counterpart. In the Romani language, it is used more often than it would be expected in English, in contexts like xuravel pes Romanes ("is dressing in the Romani manner") or del duma Romanes ("is talking in the Romani manner"). In fact in some dialects, the expression Romani chib ("Romani language") is much less used than Romanes. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Btw, what did you think Romanes is? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that; maybe you could work some of that into the etymological explanation, as it's bound to be confusing for others as well. (By the way, the idiomatic English phrase would be "word for word".) +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks too. I added some explanations in the entry. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Prof. Hancock's book We Are the Romani People could be cited as a reliable source for this claim. If it is appropriate to cite this claim using that book, could somebody cite it as a reference? Otherwise, maybe I'll do it some other time (provided it is OK and not unnecessary). --Kuaichik 05:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Romani girls picture! What gives here ?

Cant post pictures of young and handsome Romani girls? But pictures of old ugly women are ok? Dont we understand eachother yet? Yes, no? And you ask me why im so angry! Anti-jew remarks? Well guess if my best friend is a jew or not. Come on i give you two guesses. Never in his life has he played the "race card" you see we are all equal here in Finland, i know this fact may come as a shocker to evil racist Eastern Europeans.

Like i said what gives? I want that picture back now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had enough of your guff. You're behaving like an ignorant shithead, and I have nothing to say to you until you stop. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

For once we agree shithead!— Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 19:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair and balanced pictures?

I dont think so. Guess that picture of young handsome Romani girls were too much for Eastern Europeans to handle. Fair and balanced pictures please! Old ugly women are not fair and balanced. And why do i have to ask for permission every god damn time before i edit something? I mean who are you? Who gives you more right than me?— Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 20:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Because you are nothing more than a little teenager with a chip on his shoulder, who obviously has few people he can talk to so tries to vent his frustrations by vandalising wikipedia. If you can't handle the truth about what you are as a Gypsy, then maybe you should do something constructive in life to change the facts, rather than try avoid them. --Hayden5650 08:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To user Hayden5650: you are pretty new at Misplaced Pages and it seems you did not learn yet to behave politey. You're responding with the same disdain. If you can't stop your anti-Romani feelings don't come here to preach about how the Gypsies from your imagination are. Plus, this page is about Roma, not Gypsies. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

My personal feelings, whichever way they may lean, have absolutely no bearing on how I edit an article. I do get extremely angry though when a little vandal continuously vandalizes an article. I sense alot of selfhatred resonating from MadeinFinland --Hayden5650 08:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of photo from entry

I asked an admin for clarification about this issue and, unfortunately, permission for us to use the photo is not enough:

The image is a professional one that is copyrighted. You have the photographer's permission, but we're not allowed to use images with permission, because it restricts the use to our website. We must either claim fair use (which wouldn't be appropriate for an image like this), or ask the photographer to release the image so it can be used by anyone for any purpose. He would retain his copyright, and he can insist that he is credited whenever it is used, but anyone, commercial and non-commercial alike, would be able to use it, including derivative use i.e. they would be allowed to crop it, add it to a teashirt etc etc.

If you want to ask him to do that, he would have to e-mail you with these words: "I am the copyright holder of this image (link to image) and I hereby release it under a Creative Commons Attribution license." You would then forward that e-mail to permissions at wikimedia dot org. Then you could use the image in the article.

I think that's a lot to ask from Mr Artikos. It's a shame, it being potentially such an iconic photo, but it's not a request I'd be comfortable asking. Dinlo juk 11:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not even a representative photo, they look nothing at all like your average Gypsy. Or roma as you call them. It would be like me having Arnold Schwarzenegger and Miss World as representative photos for the white race. --Hayden5650 12:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So, where can I find one of your "average Gypsies"? The stereotypical pictures we've so far seen are the equivalent of illustrating an entry on "white" people with pictures of filthy, drunken homeless people. The photo in question does not portray unrealistically attractive people in any case. Dinlo juk 12:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been searching extensively for some good photos of Gypsies that will be considered NPOV and I must say it is quite difficult. --Hayden5650 12:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

About the new vandal kid on the block, Hayden5650: after the insertion here of the phrases "They are known throughout Europe as being associated with pick-pocketing, stealing, begging, and scams. But, it is unclear what percentage actually engage in these activities.", it became obvious this user has some problems, so I perused a bit his/her edits. I found that in the second month of activity had added at the userpage this boasting boxes later removed by a concerned user. Most of the edits on articles are in controversial topics, like Holocaust, Roma, Jews, Homosexuals, expressing extremist disdain. The rest (besides some edits about the New Zealand) are concerned about the Nazi regime and its followers. So, I don't think there is much weight one should put on the opinion of this user. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 12:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please try to be a little less ignorant when writing replies. With regards to the user boxes, at the time I did not know how to create them, so I copied the code from an admin page and pasted it, however before I got a chance to change the details it was deleted. This was promptly cleared up with an admin. Perhaps you should do a little more indepth research in future before making such accussations. And I did not create the pickpocketing etc phrase in question, I simply reinserted it. As it is very true, it is a common stereotype or assumption that people make about Gypsies. It was not making a statement that that is indeed what they do. As I have stated previously, my own personal beliefs have no bearing on how I edit an article, unlike your wee Gypsy friend MadeinFinland. I actually feel sorry for you, as personally I am nothing but proud of my race, but you both seem almost in denial about whom you belong to. I hope that in time you stop the self hatred I feel you are harboring. Misplaced Pages is lightyears from being a NPOV source of information, I just hope I can help. --Hayden5650 12:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate if you stuck to editing subjects you have some knowledge about. Dinlo juk 13:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a video with a typical Gypsy woman from Northern Moravia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5XfGWQHEpU

It is illustrative for a better insight into the Gypsy culture and the realationship of Gypsies with native European populations. 82.100.61.114 13:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is illustrative about the prejudices of the non-Roma, that select every negative aspect they find and present it as "typical Gypsy". The usual racist crap... You want to say that you can't find a non-Romani Northern Moravian getting drunk? And afterwards to present her to people outside Czech Republic as a typical Northern Moravian non-Romni? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Gypsies in New Zealand

There are none, however will get the reference tommorrow and write a proper paragraph. --Hayden5650 13:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What's this? Dinlo juk 13:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Roma Genetics

I am also going to start a page on Romani Genetics, as unlike some it seems, I was able to understand the original 'scientific' Genetic section just fine. Also for such a unique society in terms of ancestry, I feel such an article will be very interesting, especially tracing the roots back to India, Pakistan, etc. All material to be sourced from world renowned research of course though. --Hayden5650 13:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with the original "scientific" version, was that it was largely nonsense. I felt justified in re-writing it as I am a geneticist and was able to review the data in the original papers. There are three items of interest in tracing Romani ancestry to the Indian subcontinent, and they are covered in sufficient detail in this entry. Dinlo juk 13:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It just seems to be Hayden5650's moment of glory, thinking about being an important person, by making waves here. However, I am asking him/her: don't you think it is pitiful to base this self-boasting exactly on the people you despise? Don't you think you depend too much on us, you prop-up on the Romani people? Where is your identity? You're just a non-"imaginary Gypsy"? So, I wish you a strong be yourself! and get a life!. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

USER:Hayden5650 at it again

Vandal Hayden5650 tries racism again...... this time i leave it to the pros. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

"Sedentarize"?

Another nitpick: currently, the "Assimilation" section says

In Austro-Hungarian Empire under Maria Theresia, a series of decrees forced the Roma to sedentarise, removed rights to horse and wagon ownership

First of all, is "sedentarize" even a word? If it is, it certainly isn't one ever used in idiomatic English. This must have been put in by one of our many non-native English speaking editors, who probably meant something else. (I presume this means something along the lines of "being forced to abandon a semi-nomadic lifestyle".) There's got to be a more appropriate word for this. Anybody?

While I'm at it, a note to these same editors: in English, it's customary to include articles before names, so it should read "In the Austro-Hungarian Empire ...". Hope this helps. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A 'Sendentary Civilization' is 'Not Migratory', that is, they do not migrate. In other words, sedentarise would mean 'to settle'. Not sure about the grammar of that word though, but it sounds wrong. --Hayden5650 06:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that's pretty much what I said.

The word "domesticate" comes to mind ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This page on Patrin describes the same thing, using the word "settle." So, would "settle" perhaps be a preferable alternative to "sedentarise/sedentarize"? I suspect that "sedentarize" is, in fact, a word, but if another term is preferred, I have no objection to it being used. --Kuaichik 06:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, "sedentarize" is what I call a "verbification" of a noun; a real word in theory, but extremely dubious. So "settle" is better, even though it's a bit weak and vague. Probably better than "domesticate", which is more often applied to animals than to people. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "settle and be assimilated"? I guess it sounds a little awkward, but if you're worried about the vagueness of just the word "settle," maybe this will help explain it a little better...And while you're at it, why not add the word "the" before "Austro-Hungarian Empire" ? :) --Kuaichik 06:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll second the use of 'settle'. It sounds much more appropriate than 'domesticate', as they have never really done that, nor was it the order of the Empire. --Hayden5650 06:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I stand (sit, actually, being sedentary at the moment) corrected; "sedentarize" is, unfortunately, a real word. I don't care for it (it's an academic monstrosity), but won't fight it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sedentarize" is the correct and most appropriate word to use in this context. It is used specifically in relation to the transition from a nomadic lifestyle to one that is permanently settled. The word "settle" does not convey this.

See for example this link.

"Settle and assimilate" is not the same as "sedentarize", as it is possible to sedentarize without assimilation. "Domestication" is specifically the adaptation of animals or plants by selective breeding for use by society. Yes, that would be insulting.

Oh, and ILike2BeAnonymous, do you think you might be able to edit typographical errors in future without an EFL tutorial? Dinlo juk 09:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In answer to that last, no, not really: these aren't typographic errors, which are mistakes made by typing fingers, but usage and grammatical errors. Let me put it this way: if, by some chance, I were to edit the German Misplaced Pages, I would fully expect to be bound by the rules and conventions of that language, and to be "mercilessly edited" as they say here, with no slack given me because I don't happen to be a native German speaker. It's the editor's responsibility to know correct idiomatic usage of the language they're writing in. (Substitute whatever your native language is here ...) +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, believe it or not, it was a typographical error, made by my fingers, as a result of typing too quickly in my native language (English). Dinlo juk 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; in that case, all is forgiven (chalk it up to "happy fingers"). +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sedentarise or Sedentarize

Where is the rule on Misplaced Pages that says we must use American English spelling? Americans butcher English through their lazyness.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayden5650 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Great; another editor who can't seem to make a statement without deliberately offending some ethnic, religious or national group.

By the bye, speaking of "lazyness", it's normally spelled (or spelt, if you prefer) "laziness". +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into a debate about the merits of each system, consistency is appropriate here. Moreover, the "-ize" suffix is acceptable in British English and prescribed by the Oxford system of spelling. Dinlo juk 11:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but I'd (also) like to apologize for suggesting "settle and be assimilated" instead of "sedentarize." Dinlo juk, thank you and najis tuke for clearing that up! --Kuaichik 05:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Extreme errors in history

You say origin is in India. Correct answer is Turkey! May i shock and awe people by a total historian rewrite on this one? (I got proof too )

Fictional represenation???

FU! How about Bush and whites? No wait a min. that wouldnt be fictional! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

MadeinFinland, please use less inflammatory language, that way others may take you more seriously. You are achieving nothing by constantly vandalising the article, as you unsourced and POV edits will be reverted every time. Also, before any major changes are made to the article, you must discuss it here on the talk page first. I really am quite surprised you have not been permanently blocked yet. --Hayden5650 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

LESS inflammatory language you say..... what do you think that made me so angry in the first place mr. Hayden5650? You know i dont get it either why the hell they let a person like you post on WP. I know your type prick.

How to contact a REAL moderator, neo nazi vandals as usual

Those fucking neo nazis revert and revert my contributions all the time, so whats the point unless i can speak with a REAL moderator? Some of those people ya know should perhaps get a visit from me and my best friend who also happens to be a JEW he speaks Nazi languange too (Not German but by force)! So A-hole dont come here and say that i make anti jew remarks when you know shit about me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I'll have my Zyklon B ready. Get off wikipedia, I don't care about your ethnicity or religion, only facts, which is all that counts here on wiki. --Hayden5650 07:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed India articles
• Unknown-importance India articles
• Unassessed-Class India articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists