Talk:Romani people

Archives

For older discussion, see:

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

Made some minor changes

I didnt change the genetics section yet... even if it fully states it requires a CLEAN UP! I removed some weasel words here and there instead. But this genetics article is disgusting, offensive and if i didnt know better one might think it was written by Josef Mengele in Auschwitz!

By: MadeinFinland

Request that an adm. protects this page

Once again racism has shown its ugly face and re-inserted weasel words and extreme racism, i request that an administrator lock/protect this page so disputes can be solved asap, ill never stand for a topic that says genetics which sounds like some insane Josef Mengele test lab report. If you think you are "funny" why dont you come to Finland with that fucking article and lets see what happens next?!

By: MadeinFinland

Maybe this is just your interpretation, there is nothing wrong with displaying studies made on the origins of the Roma people. Stop making personal attacks, or you may be blocked from editing. Sfacets 01:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Stealing and the Christ legend?

Is there a pages on wikipedia that gives the story of why gypsies believe they morally have the right to steal? I searched and couldn't find it. I want to tell it when I perform the gypsy handkerchief switch. How I remember being told it is that the Romans came to a blacksmith and asked for four spikes to nail Jesus to a cross with. That night god came and told the blacksmith "Don't help them kill my son." The blacksmith knowing that the Romans would kill him for not making the spikes only made three. When the Roman bought them he used the gypsy handkerchief switch to sell the Roman four and only gave him three. God was like "Thanks man. From this day forward it's cool if your family steals stuff." and the blacksmith's family became the gypsies. Woxoxow 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No there isn't; probably because anecdotes are not encyclopaedic. István 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How is that not worthy of Wikipedia? There is hundreds of other bits of cultural mythology such as the Greeks or Christian legends in Wikipedia. It is what some people still believe in. It probably doesn't belong under the Roma people section but from the research I have been doing their are still people out there who believe this story, call themselves Roma, and feel they have the right to steal. From what I can tell at a time the majority of Roma people felt this way but if they mix with modern morality stealing has become a sin again. I understand it might be a sensitive subject to talk about but Wikipedia also has other sensitive things such as the Mohammed Cartoons. Woxoxow 15:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have written "anecdotes" in inverted commas; the above makes the offensive presumption that Roma believe they have the right to steal. This is untrue. Despite having infinite opportunity, its proponents have never given proper reference to back such a claim. One could not imagine including anecdotes which imply even noncriminal traits, e.g. explaining why black people struggle at maths, why Germans are prone to hypochondria, or why Indians (asian) never win at the Olympics - much less implicitly accuse millions, by circumstance of birth, of bona fide criminal activity. It is eloquent testimony that Roma are the last ethnic group in Europe considered fair targets for prejudice. István 17:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Some people of Roma ancestry do use the story as an excuse to steal. I know these very few might give the others a bad rep but that doesn't mean that the legend itself and information on these bad seeds shouldn't be posted. My ancestors were from Italy. Should the mafia pages be removed because someone might see it and think I am a criminal? History and legend should not be covered up by political correctness. If the problem is that people now believe it is untrue that at one time most gypsies believed in the legend then that should be stated. Woxoxow 02:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent analogy - Italian/Mafia - it illustrates the point perfectly. On one hand, the story of the Mafia is real and encyclopaedic. On the other, an "anecdote" about "why Italians feel they have a right to kill" would be inappropriate; it presupposes that an entire ethnic group, by circumstance of birth, is engaged in criminal activity. (and in the case of the mafia, the true numbers tell the story eloquently - less than 5,000 out of 20+ million Italian immigrants to North America were ever involved in the mob). IMHO, examining the specific stereotypes ascribed to Roma in Europe one sees striking similarities to those ascribed in the 19th century to Irish in the UK and to American Indians in the US; these are bound to fade as well. István 03:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see why if some Roma people have in the past believed and the present still believe in this "anecdote", it shouldn't be here. This is probably the wrong page for it to be on, maybe it should be on the history page or have a Roma mythology page. How can we properly exam the stereotypes without having all of the information? You obviously know the story. Wouldn't it be a better idea to write it out for everyone than try to cover up the legend exists and the people who do still believe it? As for me, I don't care enough anymore. I got a hold of someone who grew up believing in it and acting on it and now have what I need for my act. Woxoxow 20:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I know it. But one trouble (of many) with anecdotes is there are usually many versions floating around, and conclusions drawn from one may be contradicted by others. Specifically, take this lyric (in Hungarian):

"Egész világ ellenségünk / Ũzött tolvajokként élünk"

"nem loptunk mi csak egy szöget / Jézus vérzõ tenyerébõl"

"The entire world is against us / we live like thieves on the run"

"We haven't stolen except for a nail / from Jesus' bloody palm"

This from a traditional song "Zöld az Erdõ" refers to the same Jesus' crucifixion/nail/stealing legend. Importantly, it is a lamentation, not a vindication or rationalisation for an excuse to steal. This speaks to the original point that the major problem with including the first anecdote is that it misleadingly takes as granted that Roma believe they have a right to steal; implications of this ilk would not be tolerated with any other ethnic group (e.g. "why Italians feel they have a right to murder"), nor should they be here. István 04:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. The legend, then, would seem entirely appropriate to mention in a section about common perceptions of Roma. We should certainly write about all the stereotypes that the Roma have been assigned through the years (to leave them out would just be a misleading omission--this stuff happens whether we like it or not), and the "thief" one is as good as any. Then we can talk about the legend, and about the Roma reaction to it, etc.....K. Lásztocska 14:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There used to be one yes. Its naturally gone now since "legends" only appeals to neo nazis and Jews. The killing of JC was entirely a Jew business.-unsigned comment by MadeInFinland

How do we go about reporting this individual to an admin to prevent him editing this page again?--81.152.118.21 13:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Easy, you report yourself before you go to Adolf Hitler homepage mr. 81.152.118.21-unsigned comment by MadeInFinland

I'd rather try to clean up the entry about my people, after you keep editing it, thank you very much MadeInFinland. Your persistent ill-informed edits are doing no favours for us at all. If you think this entry doesn't represent the Finnish Kale, feel free to create a new section specifically about them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.234.96.9 (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for that, I've also attributed the previous two comments. For reference, user 81.152.118.21 and 143.234.96.9 are both me. --143.234.96.9 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

History in Eastern Europe

Please check my changes in that paragraph. Please feel free to revert them if inferior vis-a-vis original formulation.

Roma as victims of Nazi Genocide

Although there are wikipedia articles on porajmos and on anti-ziganism, I believe this article should contain a fuller reference to Roma victims of Nazi genocide. We read a great deal about the suffering of the Jewish people under the Nazis, and also about the suffering of the Poles and other nationalities. But very few people are aware of the Nazi persecution of Roma, and they ought to be more aware of it if we want them to appreciate the Roma people and their history. Tom129.93.17.174 04:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Roma people suffered much more than the JEWS during the WW2 Nazi regime (in % a lot more roms were killed than jews), while the JEWS were compensated the Roma people received no compensesation.

Languange

Really? I didnt know this lie "Most Roma speak both Romani, an Indo-Aryan language and the dominant language(s) of their region of residence. There are independent groups currently working toward standardizing the language, including groups in Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, the USA, and Sweden. Romani is not currently spoken in India" were true!

Fact: They speak the dominiant languange only. Can i delete that above fucking lie daddy or do i need special permission?

Many Roma still speak Romani. For an academic description start here[1]. István 03:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A new category

Please tell me if you think this is appropriate. I think Roma are one of several stateless ethnic groups. I want to start Category:Stateless ethnic groups. Any problem with that? Can you suggest other ethnicities to put in this category? ike9898 03:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the category would be fine, though there might already be a similar category in existence (something like stateless nations, maybe ‘nations without territory’). In any case, the Kurds would be the first stateless ethnic group to come to mind.The Myotis 01:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The number of Roma people in Bulgaria

According to the last Bulgarian census in 2001 there are 370,908 citizens who declare Roma identity. It is fact that there are more than 300,000 other citizens with Roma origin and dark skin in Bulgaria, but they declare their identity as different from Roma. The bigger part of them have Turkish identity and the smaller part Bulgarian. I wonder how is it possible for some Wikipedia editors to count them as Roma when they do not want to be considered as Roma? Do they have the right to choose their identity? Isn't it racism or Roma nationalism to count them as Roma only because of their skin and origin?! - Jackanapes 18:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Roma people according to the last Bulgarian census (from the article Roma in Bulgaria):

Province	Roma	Total population
Blagoevgrad Province	12,405	341,173
Burgas Province	19,439	423,547
Dobrich Province	18,649	215,217
Gabrovo Province	1,611	144,125
Haskovo Province	17,089	277,478
Kardzhali Province	1,264	164,019
Kyustendil Province	8,294	162,534
Lovech Province	6,316	169,951
Montana Province	22,784	182,258
Pazardzhik Province	23,970	310,723
Pernik Province	3,035	149,832
Pleven Province	9,777	311,985
Plovdiv Province	30,196	715,816
Razgrad Province	8,733	152,417
Ruse Province	9,703	266,157
Shumen Province	16,457	204,378
Silistra Province	6,478	142,000
Sliven Province	26,777	218,474
Smolyan Province	686	140,066
Sofia	17,885	1,170,842
Sofia Province	16,748	273,240
Stara Zagora Province	16,748	370,615
Targovishte Province	9,868	137,689
Varna Province	15,462	462,013
Veliko Tarnovo Province	6,064	293,172
Vidin Province	9,786	130,074
Vratsa Province	14,899	243,036
Yambol Province	9,729	156,070
Total	370,908	7,928,901

The official data in Bulgarian could be checked here, see fifth column on the right. - Jackanapes 18:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This fact was already debated regarding the number of Roma in Romania. The official numbers are disputed as being diminished because of the social pressure and lack of ID cards. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 20:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, but here we are talking about Bulgaria, not Romania. You offer only an abstract argument, which could not be sufficient for such serious speculation as total denial of an official census in a democratic country. Lack of ID cards - pardon me, but this is nonsense, all Bulgarian minorities don't have special ID cards but there aren't similar "troubles" among them! In contemporary Bulgaria there isn't any policy, formal or informal, of diminishing of any minority and especially Roma. The offered explanations could not clarify why over 350,000 Roma citizens don't feel such administrative and/or social pressure and freely declare Roma ethnicity in two censuses for last 15 years. This means obvious tendency, their number (and of course demographic growth!) seems stable within these borders. More than that, it is an absurdity to assert than the Bulgarian authorities and/or society are authors of pressure, which leads as result to... sizable Turkish self-identification. This situation is result of the Ottoman rule, which ended in 1878/1912, and is relatively old tradition, which isn't imposed by modern Bulgarian state and society. One of the best known examples is Plovdiv's district Stolipinovo, where only 5,000 inhabitants declare Roma identity, while the other 40,000 declare Turkish ethnicity. I think that every person have the right to choose his identity and therefore ethnic polymorphism, transitions and changes are more than usual. If one person of Roma origin defines his identity as non-Roma, this choice must be respected as his basic human right. Every human being have the right to belong or not to belong to any nation.

Finally, I expect relevant proofs that the results of this concrete last census in 2001 are disputed. It means serious academic references. This concrete sitution needs concrete and relevant argumentation. - Jackanapes 21:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I spent time in Bulgaria last year and repeatedly witnessed the kind of treatment Roma receive from official authorities in Bulgaria. Whether or not they have ID, Roma in Bulgaria live in illegal shanty towns, hardly the place where census counters go to get their counts, and even if they do, not a stable enough place that census counts are likely to be accurate. There is certainly enough reason to believe that the census may be inaccurate. Again, it's in dispute, not being thrown out. Your unwillingness to allow people to see both stats (with references!) and make up their own minds is confusing, if not suspect. - TheMightyQuill 23:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear TheMightyQuill, I'm afrad that any personal opinion which is not based on relevant references isn't appropriate as element of a serious discussion and that your suppositions could not be treated as arguments. We are talking about over 300,000 people. 300,000 people without any kind of personal ID cards - this is unbelievable and quite unrealistic, at least it has to be referenced. Note - partly inexact census is something different from totally disputed census. 300,000 missing people from a presumed group of 750,000 - this means totally disputed and corrupted census. Finally, you're not right that I don't want people to view both statistics - in fact all statistics are shown in the note below the line. But before my addition there wasn't not even a word about the census in 2001, it was passed over in silence, which was really suspicious. - Jackanapes 00:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You're totally correct, my personal opinion and your personal opinion of the population figure is irrelevant, but since different references provide different numbers, the population figure is disputed. Just like any other wikipedia article, both sides have a right to have their POV expressed, so long as it is backed up with references. That keeps the article NPOV. The census may well be 100% correct, I really have no way of knowing, but since there are other estimates, the number is definitely in dispute. - TheMightyQuill 03:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

P. s. Please, don't miss the point - there are sizable groups of Bulgarian sitizens of Roma origin, which traditionally have non-Roma self-identification. They are listed in the last census as Turks and Bulgarians because of their own will. Are they Roma? Are they Turks and Bulgarians? Who have the right to define? May be you or me? I really doubt... ;-) - Jackanapes 00:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Information from the leading researchers Elena Marushiakova, Veselin Popov, "The Roma in Bulgaria", Sofia, 1993 (in Bulgarian: Елена Марушиакова, Веселин Попов, "Циганите в България", София, 1993): all statistics, concerning Roma in the second half of the 20th century, are defined as inaccurate because of significant number of citizens, who looked like Roma and lived like Roma but declared non-Roma identity. There were several censuses of all citizens, who identify themselves as Roma: in 1956 - around 194,000; in 1959 - 214,167; in 1976 - 373,200. Because of the obvious and significant difference between this self-identification and the total population with "Roma appearance" in 1980 was taken special census of all people, defined as Roma through the opinion of the neighbouring population, observation of their way of life, cultural specificity, etc. - 523,519. According to the next census in 1989 there were 576,927 counted as Roma, but in an explanatory note was stated that more than a half of them prefered and declared Turkish identity (pages 92-93). The same situation is found from the authors in the first years after 1989 and is depicted and interpreted in detail (pages 100-109). - Jackanapes 01:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit war continues with full strength. In fact there is no dispute about the number of the people with Roma identity in Bulgaria. It is clear after so many censuses. There is a dispute how to treat people of Roma origin with non-Roma self-identification because from the ethical point of view it is more than problematic to count these people as Roma against their own will! I'm suprised of the fanatical behaviour, shown from some Wikipedia editors, who refuse to discuss but insist to edit. - Jackanapes 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, Jackanapes (and other anon editors, like the one above): I'm only going to address one simple aspect of this situation, which is this: yes, the population of Roma in Bulgaria is disputed. It's disputed simply by virtue of what's already in the article.

Here's what's in the reference element for Bulgaria in the article's "infobox", stripped of its <ref></ref> formatting:

According to the last official census in 2001 370,908 Bulgarian citizens define their identity as Roma (official results in Bulgarian here, see fifth column on the right). 313,000 self-declared in 1992 census (Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov, The Gypsies of Bulgaria: Problems of the Multicultural Museum Exhibition (1995), cited in Patrin Web Journal). Traditionally more than 300,000 citizens of Roma origin have Bulgarian or Turkish self-identification. 450,000 estimated in 1990 (U.S. Library of Congress study); at least 553,466 cited in a confidential census by the Ministry of the Interior in 1992 (cf Marushiakova and Popov 1995). 750,000 ±50,000 is Marushiakova and Popov's 1995 estimate.

Remember, I didn't write that: that came straight from the article as it stands currently. So you see that there are several figures to choose from:

• 370,908 (official census)
• 450,000 (1990 estimate)
• 553,466 (1992 Ministry of Interior "confidential census", whatever that is)
• 750,000 (Marushiakova & Popov's 1995 estimate)

So unless you're prepared to somehow demolish these other figures (and back up your demolition with good references), then it's self-evident that the population figure is disputed. So please stop taking this out! +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To the users TheMightyQuill and ILike2BeAnonymous - excuse me, but obviously you don't understand the statistics, which are shown in the article and in my notes here. I will write the same to you again - in fact there isn't dispute about the number of Roma people in Bulgaria, but there are two methods of counting Roma people. The first counts citizens, who have Roma self-identitification, and the second counts citizens with Roma identity + citizens who don't have Roma self-identification (they traditionaly have Turskish or Bulgarian identity!), but who show characteristics of Roma origin, and it is clearly and unambiguously written by Marushiakova and Popov in their book "The Roma in Bulgaria" from 1993, pages 92-95. Note - this is not my personal point of view, this is the position of Marushiakova and Popov. By the way, there is another reason for these differences - the constant and relatively high growth of Roma population in Bulgaria, which doubles its number in the last 40 years. This growth leads to the higher number of Roma in almost every later statistics. The conclusion is: there is no dispute because the approximate number of Roma in Bulgaria is clear, but there are two ways of counting Roma, and the second of them is problematic because it counts as Roma individuals who don't feel as Roma and who don't declare Roma identity. This mass non-Roma self-identification among people of Roma origin and sizable and unshakable Turkish self-identification is old Balkan tradition from the times of the Ottoman empire. The last census from 2001 is exact, free and fair as far as possible, it isn't corrupted, but it couldn't impose Roma self-identification on over 300,000 people of Roma origin without Roma self-identification. I hope you will understand this at last. - Jackanapes 09:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

P. s. In fact Marushiakova and Popov are correct in their manner of expression, they define their estimate count of 800,000 as "the number of the individuals of Roma origin in Bulgaria" (In Bulgarian "броят на лицата от цигански произход в България", "The Roma in Bulgaria", Sofia, 1993, page 94) and add that "it is separate question how many of them would wish to declare themselves as Roma because of one reason or another" (in Bulgarian "Отделен въпрос е колко от тях биха желали, по едни или други причини, да се декларират като цигани...", page 95). They don't speak about their highest estimate counting as for "the Roma people in Bulgaria", but for "individuals of Roma origin". I insist that this significant difference must be understood and included in the article. - Jackanapes 10:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, Jackanapes: for the sake of discussion, let's say what you wrote above is correct. That still means that there is a dispute over the population figures of Roma in Bulgaria, since there are clearly at least 2 different figures. What you're saying, and you may well be onto something important that should be incorporated into the article, is that there are at least two different methodologies for counting people of this ethnicity in Bulgaria. Without commenting on the integrity of either of the methodologies, one can still truly say that there are two figures which are at odds with one another. (It seems to me that the official census would be the one to be doubted here: if it only counts those who declare themselves to be Roma, is it not incorrect to not count someone who is Roma but declines to so state?)

The "disputed" tag on the population figures should remain; if you want to expand upon this and incorporate some material about the census/estimate methodologies, that might be a worthwhile addition to the article. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ILike2BeAnonymous, if you persist to count as proper Roma people Bulgarian citizens who traditionally have Turkish or Bulgarian ethnic self-consciousness and Roma predecessors and cultural heritage - go ahead. I'm afraid that this strange practice to increase speculatively the total number of Roma people to its maximum possible extent leads to deceiving article, corruptive treatment of the sources (Elena Marushiakova and Vasil Popov speak about 800,000 citizens of Roma origin with different ethnic self-consciousness but not for 800,000 Roma people!) and to violation of the fundamental human right of self-identification of more than 300,000 Turks and Bulgarians of Roma descent. There is significant difference between the categories "Roma people" and "people of Roma origin"... There are many examples for similar historical ethnic transitions but I think the common practice in Wikipedia is to accept the self-identification as a major indicator for ethnicity and of course the results of the official censuses (when there are no relevant proofs about their inexactness and dishonesty). According to me the number from the last official census in 2001 (370,908) must remain in the statistics of "Regions with significant populations" and the whole detailed referenced explanation about the citizens of Roma origin - only in the footnote. - Jackanapes 14:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the sources write about the pressure to declare other ethnicity for the Romani people, including in the Balkans. Just see the position of UNDP in this issue at [2] (page 2 of the pdf). Many are not of Romani origin, they have to hide their ethnicity because of the discrimination. This especially in the former East European Communist bloc, where, excepting Yugoslavia, in the Communist years, for two generations, all the states denied the existence of the Romani ethnicity, naming it just a social problem and pursuing an active policy of assimilation. After the fall of the Communism, more and more Roma declare their real identity, this may be seen in the evolutions from census to census (increasing figures not supported by a natural growth). It may take some decades until there will be clarified who is Rom and who is of Romani origin, since largely the discrimination issues and the social pressure to say other identity continue also nowadays. Until then, they need to be presented both figures. For example see the case of Delia Grigore, who asserted publicly her real identity that her parents denied. She is educated, it was easier for her, but the others? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 13:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You are too speculative. I'm so sorry but the topic is about the number of Roma people in Bulgaria, not in former Yugoslaviya or in any other country. Marushiakova and Popov don't speak about such kind of pressure! They write about spontaneous "ethnic processes among Roma people in Bulgaria" (Marushiakova and Popov, "The Roma in Bulgaria", pdge 95). After the fall of Communism in Bulgaria there were two censuses and both of them show similar results - about 350,000 Bulgarian citizens self-declare their ethnicity as Roma. It is an absurdity to speak about "their real identity" - obviously you act as Roma nationalist. I think it is scandalous for Wikipedia to operate with editors who are able to define the real ethnic identity of any nation... according to their personal preferences. The ethnic identity is the identity which these people declare. As far as there are no concrete proofs of any kind of violation of the human rights of the Roma in Bulgaria in the aspect of their ethnic self-identification, I can't accept "arguments" like yours. Please stop your edit war! - Jackanapes 14:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If I would have been a Romani nationalist, as you name me, probably I would have militate only for the presentation of the real figure, but as anyone can see, I request to appear both figures. Who is the nationalist here? On what basis did you delete the UNDP source, where there are cited experts for the 700,000 - 800,000 figure? Try to remain civil, refrain from personal attacks and think first if you are right or not. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I will ask you for the last time - how is it possible for you to explain mass Turkish self-identification with the pressure of the Bulgarian authorities, now or in the recent past? This is a process of turkization, not of bulgarianization! Do you understand the ethnic difference between Turks and Bulgarians? By the way, I don't want to erase any sourced information. Note - you erased the whole text, written from me! - Jackanapes 15:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously user Desiphral-देसीफ्राल offers abstract and speculative "arguments". He denies the sourced data from Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov, who don't speak about the ethnic differences among Bulgarian citizens of Roma origin as a result of mass forced bulgarianization, organized by the Bulgarian autorities during the Communist period. They speak about large group of people who traditionally have Turskish self-identification and whose number is slightly smaller than this of the people with ethnic Roma self-identification (1993, page 94). The "arguments" of Desiphral-देसीफ्राल have nothing to do with the concrete information about Roma people in Bulgaria. I don't understand how it is possible for him to persist upon his abstract ideas as a source for Wikipedia. - Jackanapes 15:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all there is the UNDP source to support the unofficial figure. Regarding the identification as Turks, this is very logical. Both the Roma and the Turks have problems of discrimination (the main issues, from the point of view of the majority, being that they are still considered foreigners that impurified an otherwise very European Balkans and because of them allegedly everything goes bad in this area). The Turks ar in a better position because their homeland is close, somehow they may prove that the Turkish people can modernize, it is not their fault for all the problems in the Balkans. They have a better lot. The issue of Romani transient formal identifications is really one of negotiating better chances of survival in an adverse society. To identify as Turk, for those who know the Turkish language and customs, adds more security, but in the same time, does not expose to assimilation as it would be one as Bulgarian. There are Roma in Bulgaria who identify as Romanians (like in Vidin area), but the same as in the previous case they are not interested about creating social and political ties with the populations they say they identify. In the case of the "Romanians" many even say that they are Old Romanians or even the True Romanians. Closer, in Kosovo, the Roma who speak Albanian, and under pressure because of their ethnicity, invented a new abstract identity, the Ashkali. This is because they live together with a Albanian majority. If they would have been in Bulgaria, probably they would have identified ad Albanians. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

1 objection. UNDP's source, offered by you, speaks about unnamed experts, who estimate Roma people up to 800,000. There are no more concrete arguments about Bulgaria in this document. I suppose these unknown experts are the same Marushiakova and Popov.

2 objection. UNDP's document doesn't contain even a word about mass Turkish self-identification among citizens of Roma origin. This text sounds quite general and is irrelevant to this concrete problem.

3 objection. The Turks in contemporary Bulgaria are definitely not discriminated on ethnic base. They have relatively big political party, called Movement for Rights and Freedoms, which participates in Bulgarian political system since the fall of Communism. It was coalition partner in the previous Bulgarian cabinet of Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (2001-2005) and is part of the present Bulgarian government, led by Sergei Stanishev. More than that, there are several ethnic Roma political parties and movements, and some of them are coalition partners of the Bulgarian Socialist Party in the present cabinet. Please don't speculate with the words "ethnic discrimination"! You must prove such accusations with serious documents! Obviously your explanation is in contradiction with the well-known facts about Bulgaria.

4 objection. Romanian self-identification among people of Roma origin in Bulgaria is insignificant case. The total number of Romanians in Bulgaria is 1,088 (+ 10,566 people who declared Vlach identity). Note - we talk about 300,000 people of Roma origin with non-Roma self-identification. The example is irrelevant.

5. There are many examples for many countries in your motives, but there aren't concrete and sourced facts about Bulgaria. This shifting of one concrete regional pattern over another is quite speculative and problematic. For example - Romania wasn't under lasting direct Ottoman rule and wasn't affected by mass Turkish colonization and subsequent turkization as was in the case of Bulgaria. The effects on the Roma people in these two countries in this aspect could not be the same.

6. And so on...

The conclusion. You fail to offer me concrete and relevant arguments and sources. Some of your statements differ from your sources. You speculate freely with unproved accusations of ethnic discrimination in Bulgaria but you persist to count as proper ethnic Roma Bulgarian citizens who don't declare ethnic Roma identity. This means ignoring of Marushiakova and Popov's explanatory model. I think it is time to stop your edit war. - Jackanapes 18:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be the time for you to understand what other users told you before, namely that it is an disputed issue and thus to stop your edit war? Why don't you bring so-called relevant sources? Why do you speculate about who are the experts? After so much debate, I think it is time to understand that the figures are disputed, it is wrong to present only one side of the story. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

---

* * * * * * * * TIME OUT!!! * * * * * * * *

---

Thank you; now that I have your attention, may I remind all of you who are bickering above that this is a general-interest article about the Roma people, not an exhaustive treatise on the convoluted history of the Balkans, the thousand-and-one details about counting populations, nor any of the highly specialized points that are being so hotly argued here. Please try to keep things in perspective. While some of what's being discussed here is actually germane to the article, much of it is not. (It's not up to me to decide what is and isn't; I hope you can all calm down and work that out among yourselves.) Okay? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken belief of an origin in Egypt

It is not a mistake..it's that people are including everyone who migrated a lot as being Rom. Everyone from peasant Irish to Indo-european,Persians,Ayans so on. ROMA are SEMITES. When the Nazis killed them people they went after Semites(Hebrews,Roma) Hitler himself was of IndoEuropean blood which is considered white. And since none of you knew..these groups hate eachother hence the middle eastern problem. -Mari

Although there was an attempt to label the Roma as semitic, this was later abandoned as it's patently untrue. http://www.geocities.com/~patrin/porraimos.htm --143.234.96.9 11:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm always confused for something mixed with black and when I explain what I am they look at me like i'm lying because I don't look Italian which is what everyone thinks we look like. Mari

The Nazi party was well aware of the Indo-European nature of the Rom, but declared them to be a danger due to the fact they had heavily 'mixed' with 'other races' in their travels (this is well documented in the Porajmos article) and so were even more dangerous. Oddly enough, Heinrich Himmler even proposed making a reservation to study a few 'pure gypsies' early on.The Myotis 02:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Number of Roma people in Finland

{{editprotected}} I was going to add the statistics for Finland, but the page was protected: |region9 = {{flagcountry|Finland}}
|pop9 = 10,000+
|ref9 = {{lower|<ref>http://www.edu.fi/english/page.asp?path=500,4699,6276,15850,15996</ref>}} --Silvonen 13:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going to try unprotecting the page to see if the edit war has died down. So you can make the change yourself. Everyone should take care to follow the three revert rule. CMummert · talk 23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Ive heard that number myself (10,000) here in Finland but thats an ESTIMATED guess because we dont count people according to race here maybe they do that it in the racist eastern europe (Want the link?)

Dear MadeInFinland, please do not dismiss all of Eastern Europe as "racist." That in itself is somewhat prejudiced. K. Lásztocska 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

---

By all means show us a fair and balanced article about Roma people written in Eastern Europe!

WHY is the HOLOCAUST called Persecution on this page??

More Roma people in quantity were exterminated than jews during WW2 and they received no compensation unlike jews so why doesnt it say HOLOCAUST or dont they teach that in schools? What gives here? I edit something and somebody changes it back, im not in the mood to play around like some highschool girl here, how do i make my edits stick? And how do i report a racist to a moderator, these "edit wars" are stupid. And btw where is that link on genetics? You see WP demands reliable sources which means we can axe the racist Eastern Europe at once. Unless you can show some proof ill axe that morbid article.

The Porajmos was part of a wider persecution of Roma. It has its own entry. Nobody knows for certain how many of us were killed in the Porajmos, but it is not true that it was larger than the number of jews killed. The number is estimated at between 220,000 to 1.5 million Roma compared with 6 million jews. It has been argued that 70% of Roma may have been wiped out... to compare that with 66% of Jews and say "we had it worse" seems redundant to me.--143.234.96.9 14:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You cannot make your edits stick. The Genetics section is in need of cleaning up, but its sources are explicitly named.Dinlo juk 13:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Genetics and Neo NAZI internet terror

There is no WP standard link of proof to those insane neo nazi accusations only wild accusations from the neo nazi scum of the earth Eastern Europeans here. So bye bye and hate another day. Just not today! Ok, Adolfs? Now some questions:

1.Its states that the article needs a clean up! Why do you bring in wild Eastern European accusations here? When WP says it only accepts fair and balanced PROOF?

2.Im not a vandal, i actually would like to talk to a moderator about that morbid serves no purpose genetics article — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous peer-reviewed publications dealing with the genetics of the Roma. Several are mentioned in the text of the Genetics section.

That portion of the article serves a number of purposes, the main one being to demonstrate their origin as a distinct people. Linguists and historians had demonstrated that the Romani languages have similarities with Indian languages and had hypothesised an Indian origin for the Roma. This had been disputed by some who suggested the Roma acquired aspects of Indian languages through their nomadic lifestyle. The genetic data is exceptionally strong evidence of a physical Indian origin.

There is no explicit or implicit racism in investigating the origin of a people.

What are the "accusations" you have a particular problem with? That the Roma come from India? Why would that be an issue?Dinlo juk 14:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

MadeInFinland, you are really crossing the line. I refer to your comment about "the neo-Nazi scum of the earth, Eastern Europeans." As a part-Eastern European myself, and one who is fiercely opposed to racism, Nazism, hate speech etc., I am really quite offended to be called "scum of the earth" and an "Adolf." Interesting that you fly into a rage at even the merest hint of racist comments about the Roma (even when there was no racism there to begin with) but you have no problem making racist statements about Eastern Europeans?! K. Lásztocska 16:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)

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.

The living conditions of the Roma have invariably been poor. As housing was one of their biggest problems, the state authorities have, since the 1970s, tried to facilitate the acquisition of homes by Roma families through housing allocations and low-interest loans. Despite these measures their housing conditions have not improved much and Roma still face discrimination in the housing market. Moreover, modern housing patterns have accelerated the break-up of the customary extended Roma family.

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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia, 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article) and web scraping, the somewhat slimy, but legal practice of copping Wikipedia content and putting it on one's site (as on many sites which scrape content from Wikipedia). +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 Wikipedia 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)