Talk:Romani people/Archive 2

message: I think the discussion of crime and economic factors should be expanded, as it's a rather complex issue.  The article makes it sound like it's simply a discriminatory myth that "gypsies" are thieves, but it's actually a fact that in many areas, especially tourist-filled areas, Roma women and even (or perhaps especially) children make up a large proportion of the pickpockets, as well as engaging in somewhat deceptive and aggressive "marketing practices" like thrusting items into peoples' hands and then demanding payment.  This is partly due to the fact that there are few economic opportunities in modern European society for nomadic peoples, and fewer still for people who aren't of the majority ethnicity (many Spaniards would prefer not to hire Roma, for example).  People being surrounded by groups of "gypsy children", some of whom distract the tourist while the others steal a wallet, are fairly common in Rome, Seville, and even some cities in Greece. --Delirium 09:26, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
This article has been sacrificed at the altar of gypsy PC.   Gypsies are not just nomadic, they often absolutely refuse to work a steady job as it's "against their religion".
I can see American tourists reading this article and going to Europe and thinking "aaahhh what beautiful little roma children gathering around me, they are harmless I hear, just discriminated against....hey, where's my wallet!"
I agree--it's a well-attested fact that gypsies/Roma/whatever are often thieves.  This shouldn't be glossed over.
It is a well-attested fact that many non-Gypsies are also often thieves. I would suggest that any reference to crime is treated sympathetically and not as if it's a racial characteristic. Also, please note that Gypsies do work and many are actually very well off - a lot of them are land-owners.
:There are, of course, Gypsies who work.  But it is undeniable that many Gypsies in Europe steal for a living.  This is not a theory but a phenomenon, well established by the findings of police forces throughout Europe.  A culture has to be scrutinized in its entirety -- including the unsavory parts.  A similar article about American Settlers that did not mention cheating the American Natives would be just stupid.  -- ATC
::Stop the press! People who live in poverty/diaspora/deracination have a crime problem!  Surely it would be better to say that someone or a group of people has suffered from affects associated with these?  Rather than "Gypsies are often thieves".  One says that crime often follows being a (so-called, rather inspecific term) gypsy, the other says that crime follows a particular set of circumstances. <P>Circumstances that are independent of race.  There are as many poor white criminals as there are gypsy criminals, and race is no more a cause of crime for white criminals than it is (so-called) gypsy criminals.  <P>Because a criminal is a criminal, not a white-criminal or a black-criminal or a Hispanic-criminal.  The acts that make them criminals are not related to their race and (in theory at least) are treated equally in law.<P>So instead you should say something like 'Many gypsies live in bad areas, and suffer from the associated problems, such as crime, poverty and substance abuse'.  Not 'Many gypsies are criminals', which is a useless, generalised statement which tars people with the same brush and pisses them off in large numbers.<P>Even then referring to such a large group of disparate people with the collective term gypsies is just plain lazy (this comment included).   No better than saying Jews, Muslims or Christians.  Which Jews? Which Christians?  Which Muslims? <I>Which gypsies?</I>  Get specific if you're going to call people something.
:::This is my first post in this section. Let me start by acknowledging that I'm very far from saying that all Roma are thieves, or lazy, or criminals, or anything. But I will say that one gets the feeling that, while the first visible layer is indeed irrelevant when talking about ethnicity (many Roma are thieves), looking one layer below the one you just dissected (many poor people are thieves), there seems to be something "wrong" there, as seen by a non-Roma (WHY are many Roma poor?). In my opinion and experience, many Roma are poor because many Roma won't work, as opposed to "many Roma can't work" (due to disabilities) or "many Roma can't find work" (due to discrimination). I'll take the issues one at a time.
:::Discrimination -- there certainly is discrimination against Roma in many of the Eastern European countries where they live. But, believe me, there is also strong discrimination by Roma against non-Roma in the same areas. While that certainly doesn't make it right, it also doesn't make it easy to stop the whole damned thing. Nevertheless, I think there is not enough discrimination to actually stop a well-prepared Gipsy from getting a job -- and I live in a country where Roma are percieved as a "problem". I honestly agree they don't have an equal chance with non-Roma (and that is unfortunate, but I'm talking about facts now); however, I also think they do have a good chance at getting a job, if they're well-trained and responsible (or whatever other criteria potential employees are subject to in the institution that hires).
:::Disability -- I'm addressing this issue because many people see disabled Gypsies begging. I'm quite certain that, if most Roma had the same level of hygiene and medical care as most non-Roma, they'd be one of the healthiest ethnic groups in the world -- I truly believe that. The reason is exactly that many of them don't follow the same norms of hygiene and medical care as most of the other guys -- so natural selection was, and probably still is working to their advantage. True, they have high mortality rates (especially infantile), but that's how natural selection works -- give a 5 year-old Gypsy the same bowl of cereal the dog ate from 5 minutes ago, and he'll be quite all right, while your son would probably miss a week's sleep to diarheea in the same conditions. Not to mention giving birth, which is a joke for many Roma women, while quite a lot of non-Roma would literally die when giving birth if not attended by a full medical staff. Hitler and the other guys only got half of the truth: while genes are important, theirs are better, not worse than ours, when push comes to shove. Many of the disabilities you find in the streets are inflicted. Yes, sad but true, they're either self-inflicted (rarely), or inflicted by the parents (or their agents), specifically for begging, typically when the child is very young.
:::Work -- I said they're better fit than non-Roma when push comes to shove. The problem is that in this century, push rarely comes to shove when speaking about survival in the strictest sense, at least in Central/Eastern Europe, where most Roma live. And under these conditions, many Roma fail miserably. "Fail" being a relative term, as always -- they "fail miserably" by non-Roma standards; by their standards, most of them live quite a full, happy life (and who's to judge after all? but then again, that's philosophy, we started from criminality, so back to the point). The real problem is that most Roma simply do not want to work, in the responsible, long-term way most non-Roma think "work" -- and many don't want to work at all. "You racist bastard!", you'll all scream. Hang on, I didn't place this information in the article -- this is the talk page, I welcome a discussion. However, I have many personal and very close people's first hand "testimonies" which support this. I'll only give you one example, there was a Roma community study on TV, made in Romania by a foreigner (Western European, I can't remember their exact nationality). I personally saw this, and I'm honestly not making it up. Imagine yourself being filmed, with the whole camera crew, sound engineer, reporter, translator, camera -- the whole "officially on TV" feeling: you'd surely be on best behavior, right? Well, within this setting, the reporter notices that it's early spring and the land surrounding the house the Gipsy woman he was talking to was sharing with some 10 other people (family and friends) was barren of any kind of vegetables. Her answer: "well, we hope the Romanians will have a good crop, so we can steal from them -- we're not very keen at agriculture ourselves, you know...". I've seen or heard several other similar lines from Roma ("Work? ME?! What, am I mad or something?!"; "Give me some money, give me something to drink!" -- "Ok, come on in, you can help out cleaning in the yard and I'll be happy to pay you" -- "Umm... no, thanks, see you!")
:::Why? -- there are several theories. Most have to do with the Roma "free spirit" -- i.e. nomadic life. Here's the one I find most reasonable. Do you know how you feel free when you're on vacation and you're visiting another city within your own country? That feeling that the rules can be bent, and no harm's done? Think about it, feel that "vacation" feeling before saying I'm wrong. Now think about when you're going abroad, especially in a country where they don't speak your language -- doesn't that make rules even more flexible? I don't mean you spit people's faces on the street, I'm talking about the feeling. Now imagine that you had lived like that your entire life. Moreover, imagine that your ancestry is made of people who lived like that. And that all of your traditions and culture are in perfect accord with that way of living. And finally, that you are, and feel you are, ethnically different from the people who inhabit those countries. That would grant most individuals a huge degree of freedom in breaking "the rules" -- just think about the British hooligans, those guys would be a lot worse than the Roma if they were nomadic indeed! Now, with this kind of feeling of freedom running deep through your veins, you migrate to another country, at a time when borders aren't very definite, and, most importantly, when the society's norms are a lot stricter than today. You don't want to do any harm, you just migrate, like you and your kin always have. The society being judgemental as it used to be, they draw a line between "you" and "them". At first it's probably funny, but then you realize you don't really have the same rights as they have. Moreover, your kind is taken into slavery (Gypsies in Europe were not "imported", like the blacks in US and the Indians in UK -- they migrated here --, but they were taken into slavery nevertheless). The separation between "you" and "them" grows quite a lot wider now. "They" teach their children to despise your kind. What do you learn your children? F*ck them, that's what! It's only natural, what would you do in their shoes? (Of course, I'm not talking about you personally, whoever you are, with your current education and level of understanding -- I'm talking about "you" as the average XVII-XVIII century, uneducated Gypsy, who's reacting to the uneducated non-Gypsies living at the same time, and who took you into slavery). After some generations live like that, and pass on that oppressed feeling so much that you need to invent a word for non-Roma (Gadje) -- freedom again! Nomadic people, taken into slavery, and then free again -- what do you do? Do you get an education, make a life insurance, settle down and start a family business, now that slavery's over? Hell, no! Not only that you're nomadic by nature, but you've just been released! You'll obviously move on with a vengeance! And not only that you have that "freedom spirit" you've always had, which allows bending and breaking the rules, not only there's an ethnic barrier between you and the "other guys", but now you also hate their guts for what they did to you, and your brothers, and your sisters. Of course you'll steal from them if you can. Of course you'll trick them when you can. And most importantly, you'll certainly avoid working for them -- haven't you for so long, and for free?
:::So yes, I honestly believe that many Roma are the incarnation of freeloading. Yes, I believe that many Roma are criminals (in the broadest sense -- mostly beggars, prostitutes, pimps, pickpockets, thieves -- that is, mostly not involved in organized, or horrible criminal activity; the Mafia in America in the 30's, made of the Italians we respect as a nation, was quite a few levels worse than the average Roma level of criminality). I know that many are uneducated to the point of illiteracy, and that it's mostly because of their parents and the way they're educated at home to disregard rules made by Gadji. But that's a result of their (a) history, (b) home education, (c) current discrimination, and last but not at all least, (d) ethnic philosophy. By "ethnic philosophy" I mean that in my opinion, the Roma still bear the nomadic "gene" (metaphorically speaking) in their blood. They still have the truly intrinsic survivalist philosophy us Gadje have lost somewhere along the way: attack Germany today, and all will stand up as one -- if you're strong enough, you'll kill them all; try to attack the Gypsies today -- regardless of how strong you are, they'll not only survive, but they'll also steal your weapons. And back to the "ethnic philosophy": most non-Roma Westerners would consider the Roma a primitive people, judging by most aspects of their life (lack of personal hygiene, lack of education, lack of stability and/or reliability, level of poverty). In my opinion, that's a false conclusion. The Roma did not stagnate as a culture. They just chose a different path than we did -- but their culture evolved on that distinct path, just as well as ours has evolved on the path we chose. I believe that most Roma are intrinsically happier than non-Roma Westerners. Would you rather have your right arm cut down that live the shame of having your son in prison? For a Roma, that's no big deal, because it's not their people's prison, or judgement which led to prison -- it's the Gadje prison, it's the Gadje judgement -- so it's not a moral issue for them, it's just something to learn from -- at best. In my opinion, the Gypsies live their lives a lot more intently, on both the pleasurable and the painful sides, than non-Roma do. Isn't that a more fortunate way to live your life, rather than being pampered about the pain, and not letting go enough to feel the pleasures of being alive? Who are we to judge?
:::Now, back on topic -- I agree with the previous contributor who said that the criminality is a direct result of poverty. Moreover, as explained extensively above, I truly, most honestly sympathize with the Roma's poverty -- but, again, as explained above, I believe their poverty is a direct result of their unwillingness to get a proper education, and to work in a stable, responsible way (of course, I'm not talking about all Roma, quite a lot are pretty wealthy -- I'm talking about the many poor ones). While philosophically I don't think that's a tragedy or a shameful thing for Roma, it still is a fact. So it still needs to be addressed in the article.
:::Anyway, I'd welcome comments on my opinions shown above, especially from our anonymous Roma contributor(s). --Gutza 23:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic and crime discussion 

message: : The German name Zigeuner is believed to be derived from Ziehende Gäuner, which means 'travelling thief'.
I think that's wrong. Zigeuner probably is derived from tzigane, a term which is also used by Slavs,  Romanians, etc. Most likely the term borrowed by Germans from the east, as the Balkan people met them before the Germans. Bogdan | Talk 19:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ziehende Gäuner 

message: I disagree with AndyL's comment, "it's either pejorative or it's not. "known to them pejoratively" is a nonsensical statement" and with the respective edit. The original statement was quite accurate.
The term "Gypsy" (in Romanian: "ţigan") is the common/traditional word used to name the Rroma in Romania. In itself the word does not have a pejorative meaning. It may be used in a pejorative manner by people who believe that gypsies are a primitive, inferior people, but the name of ANY people can be used in this manner; the word "ţigan" is mostly used bona fide to identify members of the Rroma community.
However the Rroma themselves strongly dislike being called "ţigani". They use the word themselves as an insult to other Gypsies, or sometimes as a self-deprecating way to address their own people. In a way the word is similar to nigger, which is safely used by African Americans in reference to themselves but is seen as an insult if used by non-blacks - another example of word which has a pejorative meaning only in some contexts. FlorinI 22:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gypsy = Pejorative 

message: *"Estimates suggest that there are between approximately 5 and 10 million Roma worldwide. As many as 6 to 8 million Roma live in Europe."
I need not point out what's wrong with the above, but does anyone have a source for the correct numbers or a source with an explination of the contradiction? Hyacinth 02:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Romania alone has more than 2 million" -- the latest Romanian census states that there are little more than 500,000 Roma ("Rromi" in Romanian in the PDF). I'm not sure how that affects the rest of your argument, but it certainly isn't something to support your objectivity overall. Where did you get the information that Romania has over 2 million Roma? --Gutza 01:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Coudn't it be difference between official census and estimate? E.g. in the Czech Republic only about ~17,000 of people claimed to be Roma while the estimate is 200-300 thousands. Pavel Vozenilek 01:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: There is conflicting data on the Roma population in Romania, the figure 2 million appears Roma & Transition . . . on page 3, the source for this was Wheeler, 1999, from Liegeois, J-P., Roma, Gypsies, Travellers Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 1994. p. 34.  The figure 2,150,000 is the midpoint of the range, but I have no idea what the standard deviation is for these data. L Hamm 01:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: Why is there no section on the fate of the Roma during the Nazi Final Solution?
:There is one paragraph in the middle of the Rejection section. Rmhermen 02:55, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
:And a full article at Porajmos. Trilobite (Talk) 21:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porrajmos 

message: What is the etymological source of the word? In the text, there is the idea that it was "derived from Egypt" and some paragraphs later it is said to be derived "of the term gyp, meaning cheat". If it is not sure, which one is correct, maybe they should be mentioned at the same position. But I don't know. Someone got an etymological encyclopedia by the hand?
:I think it's clear that "Gypsy" drived from "Egypt" to describe the people and, subsequently, "Gyp" dervied from "Gypsy" as slang for "cheat".  AHands 00:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of "Gypsy" 

message: The page should be moved back to Roma (people). No matter how correct or politicaly correct the Rrname may be, per Wikipedia naming policy we should use the common name. --Wikimol 10:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roma/Rroma 

message: The Roma people [...] are commonly known as Gypsies in English.
ok, the overwhelming majority of Gypsies live in Europe, more exactly in Central and South-East Europe, where they are commonly and collectively known as Tsigany. Gypsy refers more exactly to "nomads", not to the people commonly known as Tsigany, and this term is specific to and "common" only in Britain. 
what formulation contains more information  :
*"The Roma people are commonly known as Gypsies" ? which aplies for Britain and other english speaking countries, but where there are very few Rroma people, or 
*"The Roma people are commonly known as Tsigany" ? which aplies for Central-South-East Europe where the overwhelming majority of the Rroma people live 
:It should definitely be the first one. For an English language encyclopedia, gypsy is by for the most common name. I've never heard of Tsigany. It's true that "gypsy" can sometimes mean anybody with a wandering lifestyle, but I think most educated people are aware that it's an ethnic group. - Nat Krause 08:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rroma people are not commonly known as Tsigany *in English*, which is presumably what's meant.  That word is pretty much unknown to English speakers and it's doubtful whether it could be called an English word. The word Roma (one R) is now quite often used by people worried that gypsy' migt be offensive or politically incorrect, but not Tsigany.  Yes, there are very few Rroma in Britain, but when they're referred to (for example arriving as asylum seekers) they're lumped together in people's minds with all other kinds of "gypsy". Flapdragon 15:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  commonly known as Gypsies 

message: *The word "Roma" may be traced to an older word describing a specific caste of nomadic singers in India (due to their caste their equivalents in India are generally not well accepted either).
pls provide evidence/reference to that older word from which the word Roma evolved. i could say The word "Roma" may be traced to an older word designating the citizens of the Roman Empire. After the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire the gypsies adopted the word Roma to associate themselves with the glory that was the Eastern Roman EMpire (Byzantine Empire). see what I mean ? -- Criztu 12:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  tracing back the word Roma 

message: These two people suggest Roma people do not come from India but from Mezopotamia and are Semitic, not Indoeuropeans. They do not provide sources, only vague sentence as "Today such theories [about origin from India, from 2001] are discredited".
I have certain doubt of reliability of these edits, especially when 62.94.91.238 added in sentence "There is another Roma representant at the European parliament for the Czech Republic". which is wrong.
Could someone more knowledgeable take a look?
Pavel Vozenilek 20:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  dubious edits by 62.94.91.238 and 217.222.166.25 

message: Concerning the conventional theory that Roma are originated in India, it is based exclusively on language. It's important to notice that language is not a good parameter; for example, Jews have spoken either Yiddish, Ladino or Aramaic for centuries, and on linguistic basis, one must assume that they were three different peoples of Germanic, Spanish or Babylonian origin, which is undoubtedly false. Today most Roma do not speak Romany, but other languages. Instead of language, the psychologic features, traditions and culture are by far more relevant, and it is clearly evident that there is not any Indian cultural factor among Roma. If they were actually of Indian origin, some remnants of Indian beliefs and philosophies must be traceable, but as a matter of fact, not the slightest trace of Indian psychology, culture or belief exists among Roma. There is not any trace of belief in reincarnation among Roma. If they were of Indian origin, they would have at least attempted to return back to their alleged homeland, but they did not. Roma do not feel attracted by Indian culture. On the contrary, they feel quite identified with Semitic cultures. They have many characteristics that attest their Mesopotamian origin before they settled (or were exiled) in India. To assert that Roma are of Indian origin is offensive towards Roma! (not because of racial prejudices against Indians, but simply because Roma feel rejection towards Indian customs).
The problem cannot be understood by "Gadje", since they cannot know Romany spirit...
: DON'T REMOVE OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS! Thank you. ;-) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 20:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, we're not supposed to take any sides, but only present the facts using a NPOV (Neutral Point of View) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 21:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm just asking for a reference, i.e. a scholarly published work that writes about it, because Wikipedia also has a No original research policy. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 21:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: True, all true. But unfortunately what you're suggesting qualifies as original research -- Wikipedia welcomes any research and conclusions of any discussions to be included in the articles as long as they have been published by respectable sources, in a peer-reviewed environment. As long as we're talking about discussing secret sources and doing research on Romany on Wikipedia, whatever conclusions we might reach don't even begin to qualify as worthy of inclusion in the article. Remember, Wikipedia is not necessarily supposed to present the TRUTH, it's supposed to present an objective image of how things are currently viewed by the academic community -- in other words, the current KNOWLEDGE, as to avoid presenting probable opinions as the truth. --Gutza 07:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The question on origins 

message: It was an amazing mixture of hatred to horse thiefs, mixed with admiration with their skills, respect to the mastery of smiths and coppersmiths, wonder of fortunetellers, love of gypsy romance song and fire dance, and romanticizing of vagabond way of life. I regret I cannot write such section, but at least here is a graphical portrayal of the first item of my list, illustrating the say "to steal the horse from under a horseman" (will be deleted soon, since it is most probably copyrighted, but I claim "fair use" for a couple of days). mikka (t) 5 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)
Please stop deleting parts of the talk page. You will be blocked for vandalism. mikka (t) 19:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pesception of Gypsies in Russian history 

message: Hi,
the first paragraph says:
:Most Roma speak some form of Romany, a language closely related to the modern Indo-European languages of Europe, northern India and Pakistan, North America, and Australia.
This is wrong in two points. (In one it is surely wrong, in the second I believe so and will be happy about any correction).
It is wrong, that it is closely related to the modern Indo-European languages of Europe [...] North America and Australia.
They are most related to the IE Indian/Pakistani languages, but those again, while being IE, are not closely related to the European ones. Therefore the Roma language neither is.
This wrong information (of close relationship to European Indo-Europan languages is (fortunately) not repeated in the section "Language". It ought to be corrected in the first paragraph, probably saying
: [...] Romany, an Indo-European language most related to languages spoken in Northern India.
to make the primary information less ambiguous.
The second point is: I am really not sure, if most Roma speak some form of Romany. My experiences (in several countries) show, that the majority has adopted the language of their living country (but using a lexicon containing several loan words from Romany).
I'd definitely change the first paragraph about the language relationship, and ask for discussion and experiences, knowledge concerning the second issue. -- Szabi 10:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please provide some source that explains that Roma language is related to IE Indian/Pakistani? At least in Serbia, most Roma people are bilingual, and I'll try to edit it to reflect that (I'm sure it's like that in most other countries). --Dejan Čabrilo 05:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  relatives of Roma language (FIRST paragraph) 

message: I moved them to what seems a more appropriate place. I honestly doubt that this is what "defines" Roma people, but unfortunately it still is present. --Dejan Čabrilo 05:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stereotypes about fortune-telling, etc. 

message: I recently found the following concerning the legal status of Roma in the Czech Republic:The Roma suffered disproportionately under the 1993 Czech citizenship law which rendered a large number of them stateless, and drew the condemnation of numerous international intergovernmental organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and domestic critics, many of whom argued that the law was specifically directed at the political exclusion and physical expulsion of members of this vulnerable group. from Rae, Heather. States, Identities and the Homogenisation of Peoples. Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2002. p 250. The article referenced by this statement is Jirina Siklova and Marta Miklusakova. ‘Law as an Instrument of Discrimination: Denying Citizenship to the Czech Roma'. East European Constitutional Review 7: 2 (1998), 338.  Would this be relevant? L Hamm 15:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't really know until someone who's a student at that university can confirm it... But anyway, such a closed-circuit URL has no relevance in Wikipedia IMO. --Gutza 18:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll attempt to find accessible versions to replace the reg. required URLs, so that they can be verified.  I go to that University, hence the access, I was unclear as to whether it would allow others to link. L Hamm 18:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I have updated the URL within my previous post. L Hamm 18:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I am investigating this in order to develop a paragraph on the situation of Roma in Europe today, legal status et cetera, I have not yet checked the EU websites as to their position.  So these data could segue into a paragraph concerning the EU position regarding Roma, and Roma position regarding the EU (still looking for sources).  L Hamm 04:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejection 

message: This unexpected change, usually hardly criticized by many, has greatly contributed to a better image of Roma in society - this appears in the section religion and its a confusing and badly constructed sentence: clarification: has the change hardly been criticized by any?, harshly criticized by many?, clarification please?L Hamm 23:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusing phrase "usually hardly criticized by many", has been removed.  How's that for prompt action?  --Blainster 05:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I am an Indian Hindu, and though I admit there are some similarities between the Roma language and customs,I have another point against the argument that they were originally Indian Hindus.
In Hinduism, for a very long time, to cross the seas, that is to leave Jambu Dweep(India) was considered a sin and meant excommunication from the religion and exile. No one wanted this, and even during British Rule, many Indian Sepoys refused to fight for the British overseas, fearing for their souls.
Also please be a little less derisive about Hinduism, we're not demon worshippers as some Tele evangeists would have you believe.
: Dear Hindu friend: Thank you for your contribution, though I guess it's idle to tell people the truth when they are not willing to know it. WE Roma have shown them what OUR culture is, YOU Indians do the same, but THEY, the non-Roma and non-Indian, but pseudo-intellectuals, will insist in holding their ridiculous theories. By the way, I respect Hinduism, I simply made clear that our religious heritage has nothing to do with it.
:: Get over yourself already. Wikipedia isn't the place for hysterical victim complex tirades.
:::You shut up.   I happen to be christian, but whatever's cool with you cool with me.  OK, enough religion stuff.  I heard the Roma came out of India long before British rule, possibly even before Hinduism really got started.
:::66.205.108.8 06:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ORIGINS IN INDIA 

message: i'm sick and tired of this crap its hard to say things if u dont know the youngest i've seen someone in my family get married was like 16 i've heard younger never seen i'm in the USA but this is redictulus i dont mind being called a gypsy i like it actually and its just annoying to read this it's sad u shouldnt bad mouth people i dont really know any thiefs in my family hustlers con's at times not thieves we make a hard living asphalt sealing panting cutting tree's lot of thing but come on just odnt be racist and yeah some of the people quit school early ok most of um i'm still in i'm smart there normal out in about 8th grade which i'm in but not quitting going to college people shouldnt be so judge mental romnies in the hizzle dog so bye folkie damn divya suvers by bye damn gadjas 
:Anthony T.
:Fair enough. If you see the article badmouthing Roma people, please feel free to edit the part you find offensive, and/or talk about it here, and we'll make sure the article doesn't badmouth anyone. It is very important to us that Wikipedia be fair and unbiased. 
:But please, please don't just delete a page if you disagree with some of it. That is considered vandalism. Let's work together to make it better, instead! Thank you! :) -- Ashenai 14:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From a Romnichel 

message: After a lot of thought, I decided to remove 66.27.199.50's contribution (the line: "Though some [Roma people] do perform fortune telling"). I simply don't feel that this statement means anything; some Caucasian people also perform fortune telling. So do some people of African descent. "Some Roma people do this" isn't very encyclopedic; how much is "some"? Is it a larger percentage of Roma people than Caucasian people who do this? I did a quick Google search, and found no credible research on this. Until and unless something less vague can be said about Roma fortune-tellers, I just don't think it's a worthy addition. --Ashenai 12:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed vague reference to fortune-telling 

message: There's been a minor edit-war on this lately. I looked at some Hungarian news articles, on the subject, and found that there is, in fact, uncertainty regarding that age of the bride.
The article is here: . Here are very rough translations of some of the critical bits:
:Legally, tsigany-king Cioaba's 12 year old daughter was raped by her husband -- claims a member of the European Parliament. Emma Nicholson is lobbying for Ana-Maria's rights, but the Tsigany community says their customs are nobody else's business.
:Tsigany-king Cioaba's daughter could be sent to an orphanage -- said Serban Mihailescu, the minister without portfolio responsible for interparliamentary contacts, yesterday. He claims that authorities started an investigation in response to a request by Emma Nicholson, a member of the European Parliament.
:(...)
:While national and international publications seem unable to come to a consensus regarding the girl's age (it is apparently between 12 and 14 years) (...)
:(...)
:Romanian law allows young people to have sexual relations from 15 years of age, and to marry (with the consent of their parents) from the age of 16. Ana-Maria's fiance was determined when she was seven years old - children are often engaged to each other in Roma communities, and authorities turn a blind eye. The Tsigany people claim that forcing their children into marriage is part of their traditions.
:"It is good for children to marry young"
:– said Cioaba, then advised Emma Nicholson to become informed first, and judge later. "I'd like her to know that my daughter is not going to be put in an orphanage, and that her father wants only what is best for her. If she marries when she is 13, that is because this is our custom.
Please note that I have no opinion on this matter. I'd merely like to keep this article neutral, NPOV, and verifiable.
If there's anything more I can do to help, please let me know. I'm a native speaker of Hungarian, and a professional translator. The above translation is not representative of my work in general; it's just a quick-and-dirty hack job, but probably sufficient for the current debate.
Cheers! --Ashenai 09:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps better than a newspaper article or what a politician said would be serious sociological study (not that I can point to something now). Article should try not to be collection of anecdotes. Pavel Vozenilek 17:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principle, but beggars can't be choosers. I am, unfortunately, not aware of any studies on this subject. Until and unless we find one that is credible, I'd say mainstream newspaper articles are significantly better than nothing. :) --Ashenai 17:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How can I argue with such saying ;-) Howevere it should be clear the info comes from newspaper. About the recent edit wars about a age number - unless there's reputable enough source I think it is better to omit the numbers completely. They are obviously controversial and there's nothing to point as authority. Pavel Vozenilek 19:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I agree. What do you think of the current version? --Ashenai 19:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is better, IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 20:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the age of Roma brides 

message: This article contains some dubious material which would be quite objectionable if made about some other ethnic groups e.g. they are better off on welfare, they ought to have smaller families. PatGallacher 17:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV issues

message: Most "Roma" people look like people of Afghanistan, Kashmir, Sringar, Sind, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Iran. The languags that closely resembles romany are Pothohari from mountain laguagues of Pakistan, Pashtu, clasical Punjabi, Dardic languages and somewhat old Rajasthani (North India).
: The language argument is convincing, but that they "look like" one another? The Bushmen look more East Asian than African, yet African is what they are, and have been for thousands of years. Saying one people "looks like" another is unscientific and singularly useless. thefamouseccles 02:15, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roma are Indo-afghan or indoiranian (persians of India) 

message: Hi, can someone help me check this article to see if it is accurate?
Three questions:
*Are they the same as the Machvaya? Should the articles be merged?
*There are millions of Machvano in the world? This seems sketchy considering that there are 8 to 10 million Roma in the entire world.
*They are banned from living in the Serb Republic in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Why?
Thanks in advance.
-- ran (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checking [[Machvano]] for accuracy 

message: Laura,
Try ssalo@capaccess.org.  
This group of Roma answers a variety questions.  Intergrating Roma into settled societies requires some to give up key aspects of their belief system and to leave behind certain traditions.   I'll provide a reference in short order (hard copies of a couple of articles that I've shoved somewhere or other.;).  In the meantime, look into the way in which affected institutions like schools and hospitals are trying to make the Roma feel more comfortable.  Sickness is often viewed not as a medical issue by the Roma, but rather as bad luck.  As a result, some Roma patients do not follow doctor's orders or hospital rules.  Schools curricula often present a cultural gap.  Western classical education and cultural references have little relevence for Roma students.  
All,
I'm an aspiring fiction writer.  I've been looking into Kalderash culture and beliefs and I've have been in touch with a local Romani group for a couple of years now.  The Wikipedia article isn't so bad really, but it could be better.  I'm wondering why Ian Hancock isn't among the references.  He is an eminent Romani scholar, whose books and articles are readily available.  Also, the Patrin Web Journal lists a wide variety of resource materials about the Romani people, including a web version of Ian Hancock's 'The Pariah Syndrome':   
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/patrin.htm
msklystron 05:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References and resources

message: The above "peer review" is a joke and its very presence does more harm than good.  I propose removing it at least, and possibly getting a proper peer review.  Any seconds? Istvan 15:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Peer review notice archived instead. --Gutza T T+ 20:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review