Talk:Romani people in Romania

I added Portal:Romania.
I added Romania portal because many Roma gypsies live in Romania and they are apart of Romania history because they were enslaved in the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.19.75.28 (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Horahane roma
Why are the Muslim Roma, (Țigani turci, Horahane) in the dobrudja hardly mentioned in this Article? They are an old part of the population of Dobruja, along with Turks, Tatars and Germans. Too bad, but that makes the impression that they don't exist. Țigani turci (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, Țigani turci. I think it is because me and other users who have edited in the past haven't seen many sources on this. If there is any good stuff in Romanian about Muslim Roma, I'd be happy to work with you to add this important information. --Boynamedsue (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Undiscussed move
@Ninhursag3: I've reverted your move of this page to Roma in Romania as other pages are still "Romani people in (location)", and it seems like such a change needs more discussion. Care to explain your reasoning for moving the page?  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 11:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. Roma is a noun, Romani is an adjective, gramatically correct is Roma. The "Roma" name is the most formal use that the World Roma Congress decided back in 1971 by the Roma leaders themselves. The most used formal plural form in most countries is Roma, not Romani. Here is the word Roma used in formal contexts: European Roma Rights Centre, Decade of Roma Inclusion,  Contact Point for Roma and Sinti Issues etc.
 * Hope this clears it up, I look forward to a response. Ninhursag3 (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the title of the wikipedia page "Romani people" should be changed to Roma (people), similar to how "Doma (caste)" is: Doma (caste)
 * Romani is the feminine singular adjective form of Rom, singular masculine form. Gramatically correct as a noun, in plural form is Roma, not Romani.
 * Can you please help me with changing the title of the wikipedia page "Romani people" as well? Thank you in advance. Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A discussion on that is already taking place, which you know. Largoplazo (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't clear it up because, as you said, "Romani" is the adjectival form, which means that "Romani people", an adjective qualifying a noun, is a perfectly valid reference to them, just as "Roma" is. Therefore, "Romani people in Romania" and "Roma in Romania" are both valid titles. If you think the latter is better than the former, you need to convince others that that is so, and get a consensus.
 * What really amazes me is your misleading edit summary: Fix grammar: Accepted after discussion. As I noted, if "Romani" is an adjective, then "Romani people" is good grammar and doesn't need correcting, and your claim that the move was "accepted after discussion" is a lie because you made the move with no discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the latter is better than the former because Romani sounds too close to Romanians. At the start of the Romanians wikipedia page it even says "Not to be confused with Romani people."
 * Like you said, "Roma in Romania" is valid as is Roma instead of Romani people, since you agree with that I hope others will agree as well, especially since there is real confusion of readers, they often confuse Romanians with Romani people, because they're so similar. Also, together with the Hungarians, the Roma are the biggest minority group in Romania, leading to even more confusion. Ninhursag3 (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It was accepted here: User talk:LilianaUwU
 * By @Rosenborg BK Fan and @多多123 as well as @LilianaUwU Ninhursag3 (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this discussion: User talk:LilianaUwU therefore it's not a "misleading edit", I didn't misled anyone, please don't start insulting or lying about me: No personal attacks Harassment Ninhursag3 (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A private discussion on one person's talk page doesn't constitute "acceptance" of a move. Only a positive outcome of a formal move discussion does. When you call a move "accepted", it means it was discussed and agreed to on the article's talk page (here). If you didn't understand that, then I apologize for the characterization of your comment as a "lie". But it was incorrect, and it still wasn't a grammar fix, because the current grammar is correct. Largoplazo (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm here, doing a formal move discussion. I'm new to wikipedia so I thought since the title of the topic was "Request to change the title of the article from "Romani people in Romania" to "Roma in Romania" on the page of the person who declined the name change the first time (@LilianaUwU in this case) I wrote both on the "Romani people in Romania" talk page and on @LilianaUwU's talk page and she only responded on her talk page, not on the main page. But eventually @LilianaUwU agreed with me and so did @Rosenborg BK Fan and @多多123. The positive outcome of that discussion was what I meant when I said Fix grammar: Accepted after discussion . I didn't try to misled anyone. Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand. Again, I apologize. Largoplazo (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's ok, glad you understand now, thank you for apologizing. I will wait for @LilianaUwU to change to Roma (people) or I will do it myself. You said you agree with the title change to Roma (people) on the Romani people, so if you can request it for me, I would be grateful.
 * As for the change to Roma in Romania, I guess I will wait for people to discuss? What if no one will discuss on this matter? How long do I have to wait? Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, you need to initiate the formal discussion. See WP:RM for the instructions for requesting a move. When a formal discussion is created in that way, a listing is created for it on the WP:Requested moves page as well, so that people with an interest in move discussions in general as well as people who follow this article will be aware of it and can contribute. If the reviewing administrator can tell after seven days that there's a reasonably clear consensus, then they'll make the decision. Otherwise, they may relist the discussion, putting the decision off for another seven days. Largoplazo (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, thanks ^^ Ninhursag3 (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just noticed, wouldn't we have to change any of the Categories' (related to the topic) names? Or would they stay the same? 多多123 ( ✉  •  ✎  )  16:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think some of them might have to get changed from Romani to Roma. But Romani people to Roma would be the most time pressing matter right now. It's very important to take into consideration that Romani is a feminine singular form adjective, it's not suited for adjective plural form either.
 * See here:
 * Roma- noun, plural form
 * Rom- adjective, singular masculine form
 * Romani - adjective, singular feminine form
 * But recently Romani became adjective plural form, for both masculine and feminine? That's a very confounding recent change. Ninhursag3 (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, Romani grammar is irrelevant because the language in use here is English. With a handful of legacy exceptions [né(e), blond(e), Latino/a--with née virtually obsolete, né never really having had a purpose, and scant awareness of the blond/blonde distinction], there is no modification of adjectives for gender or number in English. We likewise don't refer to the Mexicana border or Mexicanos immigrants. It's just, invariably, "Mexican".  Largoplazo (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, even so, the most used and formal way to call them is Roma, not Romani. Romani became a recent change from Roma that seems to want to earse all mentions of Roma and replace it with Romani. That's all I'm saying. Roma (people) is correct as a wikipedia article title.
 * Thank you for taking your time to speak with me ^^ Ninhursag3 (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I wish you would stop contradicting yourself. If "Roma" is a noun and "Romani" is an adjective, then the difference between them is their respective parts of speech. The noun should be used where a noun belongs and the adjective when an adjective is called for. Formality has nothing to do with it. Largoplazo (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, why is necessary for the article title to be Romani people when it can be Roma (people) just like is the case with Dom (caste)? (a noun and the parenthesis makes it more exact). Ninhursag3 (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just another question on top, on the Roma (disambiguation) page it says:
 * shouldn't this be just Roma instead of Roma people?
 * 多多123 ( ✉  •  ✎  )  18:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, just Roma is okay in that context. Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll just message the author and change it. 多多123 ( ✉  •  ✎  )  19:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I messaged the user who wrote this in, making them au courant, per se. 多多123 ( ✉  •  ✎  )  19:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support reasoning, by the way. 多多123 ( ✉  •  ✎  )  19:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, hugs ^^ Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @多多123 Ninhursag’s reasoning to move the page is incorrect and shows a basic lack of understanding for how the Romani language works. As a native Romani speaker, Romani people is perfectly grammatically correct and is the preferred usage by Romani scholars for many reasons which I have discussed on the talk page for Romani people. Ninhursag seems to believe the word “Romani” was made up by a Romani historian named Ian Hancock to mimic Romanians, however that is utterly untrue and an insult to my native language, we have been using the word Romani to describe ourselves for centuries.  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You see this only from your perspective. I will therefore present you another perspective: Romanians call themselves "români" but many using internet don't use diacritics and it's just "romani". That's exactly, letter by letter the same as "Romani" (Roma). So that's already very confusing. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @多多123 Thank you again for your support. Please take my new point into consideration: Romanians call themselves "români" but many using internet don't use diacritics and it's just "romani". That's exactly, letter by letter the same as "Romani" (Roma). So that's already very confusing.
 * While Roma as a noun, plural form is already perfectly grammatically correct. Also, maybe TagaworShah, a Sinti, calls himself "Romani" but all the Roma I talk to call themselves Roma, not Romani.
 * Also, since you agree with Roma, please show your support here as well: Talk:Romani people Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, you're pretending people haven't given you the reasons for their objection. And I was asking you to stop reiterating bogus reasons for changing it, such as gender and formality, neither of which is relevant. Largoplazo (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think gender in grammar is a bogus reason but here are more reasons regarding confusion with another ethnicity: Romani sounds very similar to Romanian, it even says at the start of the Romanians wikipedia page "Not to be confused with Romani people", clearly indicating that confusing Romani (people that came from Northern India) and Romanians (Balkan people) is something that happens OFTEN.
 * Also, Romanians call themselves "români" but many using internet don't use diacritics and it's just "romani". That's exactly, letter by letter the same as "Romani" (Roma). So that makes it even MORE confusing.
 * While Roma as a noun, plural form is already perfectly grammatically correct. Also, maybe TagaworShah, a Sinti, calls himself "Romani" but all the Roma I talk to call themselves Roma, not Romani.
 * Also, unlike what TagaworShah said, when specifying Roma (people), readers won't confuse it with Rome (city), Roma in Italian. Also, Rome is just one city, while Romanians are an entire ethnicity with about 25 million people in the world.
 * Last point, the reasons why Romanians call themselves Romanians is because the Romans conquered Dacia in 106 AD (the territory of Romania today) and the mixed Daco-Thraco-Romans began to speak a Roman language (Latin), thus the name "Romanians". They continued to speak the Latin language because of the influence of the Latin-speaking Eastern Roman Empire aka the Byzantine Empire had in the region. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * the reason* not reason, sorry, my mistake Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ninhursag3, the Wikipedia Admins will block you sooner or later as suspected sockpuppet of another User. If you share the same opinions or interests, or edit the same pages as a blocked user did before you, anyone can consider you as a sockpuppet and a suckpuppet investigation will be done against you. Believe me, I know what Im talking about. Nafteta (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I was accused of being a sockpuppet of another user by a Hungarian, now I'm being accused of being a sockpuppet of a totally different user from the first one by an Armenian Roma. Isn't that abusive if I don't agree with a certain user? Ninhursag3 (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think gender in grammar is a bogus reason English (except for the very few, unusual cases I mentioned) has no gender in its adjectives, so, yes, objectively speaking, it's a bogus reason. And I already gave you the example with "Mexican" to show how irrelevant the grammar in the source language is to English usage.
 * As for the Romanian word for "Romanian", it's irrelevant because, as I keep pointing out, this is English Wikipedia. And, finally, how can you state so declaratively, and fretting over it, that people are going to confuse the Romani people with Romanians (because somehow English Wikipedia readers all know both the Romani and Romanian languages), and then state just as declaratively when specifying Roma (people), readers won't confuse it with Rome (city), Roma in Italian. How do you know? I mean, if there's one thing that English speakers usually know, it's that the Italian name of Rome is Roma. It's even in the names of a tomato (Roma tomato) and the song title "Arrivederci Roma". How do you know exactly which things people will confuse and which things nobody will confuse? You don't.
 * Finally, there's the business of you going by your own experience outside of Wikipedia (all the Roma I talk to call themselves Roma, not Romani) while ignoring what people are telling you here on Wikipedia, as though the latter don't count. If you're going to go by what you hear other people say, then expand the diversity of your understanding by listening to the people on here as well as the people you'd been listening to before you first began this campaign. You've accused at least one other person of bias, yet here you are biased by what you've already heard against what you're hearing now. Largoplazo (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I vote for Ninhursag3. All the best to her and all the best to everyone on this thread! I hope you will reach consensus as soon as possible! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I support her points of view. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I support her points of view. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I've just restored the original title again pending the initiation and outcome of a formal move discussion. I'm not opposed to the move, but as LilianaUwU already indicated, it should be open for a discussion first. Largoplazo (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)