Talk:Irish Travellers/Archive 4

Anti-Romanyism in the article
I had to remove some biased statements in the article. They may be of Romani origin. We should not try to hide this theory. Fakirbakir (talk)
 * I really don't understand what the problem is with this issue. I added the Keane reference in the following context: "They may be of Romani extraction, although this theory is disputed by some, and theories of pre-Celt origin also exist. ". As a legal research journal, Keane doesn't appear to be a biased or unreliable source so, as User:Fakirbakir says, what is the problem with documenting the conjecture?


 * jxm (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Great Jxm you were more balanced than his edits I have no problem with balance. The concern here is he claims bias statements anti-Irish Traveller and anti-Romanyism. As an editor on this page I am a member of the Gypsy community and from the UK so anything on wikipedia that is clearly anti-Gypsy-Traveller is of a concern. His quote discusses percentage of population within the wider label of Gypsy-Traveller in the UK. All these groups (including mine) are under under a one size fits all label. Like calling Vietnamese, Pakistani, Indians South Asian. This does not mean all Travelling-Gypsy groups are Romani and vice versa. The ‘Romani origin’ quote is an assumption on behalf of the author. DNA evidence [] points to an Irish origin. In fact the settled communities use of the term 'Gypsy' as a label for Irish Travellers is problematic as it creates confusion hence for the distinction. He also removed edits that stated Irish Travellers are a native group to Ireland. He should refrain from further reverts till other wikipedians discuss this.Uthican (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do not you want to mention the "Romani origin" theory? I think you approach is biased. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On what grounds? With all due respect Fakirbakir I don't think you're very well read up on the subject. Its accepted the Pavee are of native Irish origin thats well accepted in both British Gypsy/Traveller and Irish Traveller groups. In fact Pavee Point in its web page describes the group as an Irish ethnic group here []. Irish law states the Pavee as thus :- "Traveller community” means the community of people who are commonly called Travellers and who are identified (both by themselves and others) as people with a shared history, culture and traditions including, historically, a nomadic way of life on the island of Ireland." They are not recognised as a group of other origins as Romani/Roma groups are. So where is the bias? Discuss Pavee origins with other users like Rashers Tearney he is very well read on the subject and also disagrees with the Romani origin hypotheisis and of course the TV documentary In the Blood on Irelands own national broadcaster RTE discussed the Pavee as a group indiginous to IrelandUthican (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We are talking about scholarly theories... You don't have to prove me that Irish travellers are ethnic Irish.... Is their origin disputed? Yes. Is there any study that states Irish Travellers may be of Romani descent? Yes. Your approach is still biased. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Their origin is only disputed by a fringe group of scholars and activists who want to assert that Irish Travelers are really "people of colour", because the go-to rhetoric for discrimination in the west is that you have to be non-white or non gender confirming to be oppressed in any manner.--82.153.161.212 (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The claim that "the go-to rhetoric for discrimination in the west is that you have to be non-white or non gender confirming to be oppressed" fails a simple reality test: Jewish people are mostly not "people of colour" but only the lunatic fringe suggests that they've not been oppressed for most of European history, and still do suffer discrimination.

Another reality check is the easily-verifiable fact that (vile, sickening) "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish" signs were once displayed on rental accommodation in Britain-that is, Irish people (almost all white) in Britain used to be subjected to exactly the same discrimination which was (and too often still is) applied to Black people.

The claim is also not backed by any reference at all.

Another reality check is this: how can anyone be sure of the origin of any group of people? Currently, the only known method is by genetic testing and comparison: unless a definitive large-scale study showing the origin of a population group has been published, the origin of that group is uncertain—Irish travellers or any other group. I'd argue that only "fringe" thinkers would contest that idea.

I note that a study is referenced above[]: however, the newspaper report states "DNA samples were taken from 40 Travellers around the country" which is a tiny sample and can hardly be extrapolated to all or even most travellers in Ireland. My point is not that the study is incorrect, but that it is too small to provide a definitive resolution to this matter.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the point the OP was making was based along critical race theory lines which emerged in US college research in the c. 1980s, which states the only victims of racism are people of colour. I wholeheartedly disagree with the appropriation of the term "racism" by a group of scholars to mean institutional racism, but I don't think it's controversial to state that Irish travelers are almost certainly unrelated to the Indo-origin Romani. The basic tenants of burden of proof would be drawn here, and if someone is trying to argue that Irish travelers are non-European in origin (which is synonymous with white in this instance) then they have a burden on their hands to say the least! Now, the Irish question is interesting, because residual anti-Irish sentiment still exists here in Britain, whereas in the US one can scarcely make the claim that the Irish diaspora there face any ethnic based hardships today.--SinoDevonian (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Manually archived old stuff
Way too much cruft going back to 2008, manually moved to Archive 3. Even the thread immediately above is old, except for a few comments that arose from a thread that ended in 2016, but since it's 'active' I'm leaving it be for now. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Red & Black Revolution
, Red & Black Revolution has none of the hallmarks of a reliable source, i.e., known for reporting statements of fact, usually with an editorial policy or professional pedigree. It's a movement periodical to be interpreted by academics and journalists, not something an encyclopedia should be citing directly. For more information on what makes a source reliable, see WP:RS, but please revert your revert. czar 00:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi . Not really seeing what the issue is, here. It is (was) a periodical that's not listed at Reliable sources/Perennial sources and is being used for a non-controversial fact. Biased sources may be reliable in a specific context, and there is nothing to indicate that it's incorrect or biased in this regard? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's no different than a blog. It has little to do with bias and more to do with having no claim to editorial discretion and therefore no claim to reliability. It doesn't matter that the fact is right or wrong but whether the publication is trustworthy for the fact. And if noteworthy, there should not be an issue finding a suitable secondary source replacement. czar  02:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)