Talk:Romani people in Romania/Archive 1

Redirect
Please make rroma minority in Romania redirect here. I don't know how te make it myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.7.7.4 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 5 November 2006.


 * Done. In the future see Help:Redirect. Khoikhoi 23:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Terminology
I think the text: "The spelling "rromi" (with a double "r") is also sometimes used in order to distinguish them from Romanians (români). This spelling does not, however, have any etymological grounding, even though it is preferred by some Roma groups." should be changed, as rrom means men in rromani language. The site of romanian rroma community states that, and the Rroma-Romanian dictionary Preceding unsigned comment added by DI.goe (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

minor changes
I've tried to improve the integration chapter that looked biased and unfounded. It still could use some reliable sociologic data. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.231.67.1 (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I also have re-worked the integration portion to neutralize obvious bias against Roma. I've tried to convey some of the feelings of the original piece, but without the misinformation and hatespeech.  I think it's now easier to see a couple different points of view and understand reality on the ground.  - A non-Romanian living in Romania —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.122.209.106 (talk • contribs)

Some inadequacies
--Vintila Barbu 16:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * though “unofficial sources” are mentioned in the article, no explicit source is given for the claim of a 2 million population
 * the spelling "rromi" (with a double "r") is used predominantly, not only sometimes as the article alleges
 * asserting that the reason of the double r-spelling in “rrom” is “to distinguish them from Romanians (români).” is a very hazardous speculation. Please add sources.
 * the allegation “This spelling does not, however, have any etymological grounding” needs badly be backed by sources
 * in Romanian, unlike in English or German, the term ţigan is not necessary derogatory. Moreover, it is accepted as exonym by nearly every …ţigan
 * the section "Integration in Romanian society" is biased and ignores several facets of the discrimination faced by Roma people in Romania.
 * the pejorative meaning of the “ţigan” resides mostly in the… eyes of the observer

indeed. Just like, as long as society continues to stigmatize homosexuality, any term used for homosexuals will acquire pejorative meanings: the pejorative nature is in the thing referred to, not in the term referring to it. It's exactly the same with ţigan, which simply means "gypsy": as long as the Roma have a bad image, any term for "Roma" will be taken as a pejorative. It's really pointless to keep exchanging terms because they are allegedly pejorative as long as the derogatory attitude towards the group persists. --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Words often carry meanings that are not explicit but have an implied undercurrent. Collective terms for groups of people are particularly prone to this duality. They are effectively labels which imply certain characteristics (positive, negative and quite often ambiguous, depending on context and local understanding). Collective names are always to some extent 'political' and therefore contested. Depending on the image an observer wants to ascribe to a group, they will favour the use of particular terminology. So I think the choice of words matters and can never be entirely objective or neutral. NPOV is an ideal, it isn't a formula. What it means in practice in Wikipedia is a fluid search for compromise by constantly negotiating the choice of terms, a 'collective epistemology'. Just my 2 cents.RashersTierney (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Roma = Roms
For those of you that have trouble in using correctly Roma, remember that Roma is the plural of Rom, so Roma = Roms. Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The demographic data from this article
Some infos from this article related to demography are duplicated: in the intro section and also in the demography section. We should decide where do we keep them (I think that that demography section is enough). Also, any speculation about how many Roma have emigrated from Romania is kinda OR, as there are no sources for that. Kenshin (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bulibaşa image flagged for deletion
Just to bring to general attention that this image is to be deleted shortly unless outstanding issues are adequately addressed. RashersTierney (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This image is very old and popular. I don't know much about copyrighting, but I'm pretty sure that is in the public domain by now. Kenshin (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also the question of verifiability, which applies as much to images as any other data included in Wikipedia. If a source book for the photo could be identified, it may still be salvaged. I agree it is potentially an interesting addition to this page. RashersTierney (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is something that I've found at a quick look, there are other sources for this image: Kenshin (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice one! The book is Gabriel Sala's  Neamul tiganilor gabori: istorie, mentalitati, traditii  Editura: DACIA  ( 2007 ) ISBN: 973-35-2301-7. If anyone can access it, it may answer all the outstanding questions regarding the cover photo. RashersTierney (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This book is about the Gabors, a Romani caste from Romania, but I know there was an earlier book with this cover that was referring to all Roms from Romania. I'll keep in mind to search for them, though I have little time this days. As far as I know, the guy from the picture is a Caldarar (Kalderash), not a Gabor, but, from my own experience, I know that it is probable that the Gabors have separated from the Cadarars, so that might explain the photo there. Anyway, I've read some of the articles by Sala that are available online and he seemed to me relative superficial compared to other authors. Kenshin (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have asked around about this image and apparently is from a collection of photographs done by two Viennese Jews, who were interested in the ethnic groups that lived in the Romanian areas. These pictures have been exposed in the Brukenthal National Museum around 1860. I think that by now they are in the public domain. Kenshin (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How can we improve this article?
How can we improve this article? I am asking this question more to Romanian users (Dahn, Olahus, Biruitorul). Is this article imbalanced? What is it missing? Please add you opinions, I hope that in the end will remove the tags from the top of the article. Kenshin (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, for a start, it currently talks very little about their traditional culture and society. bogdan (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it should be more written about the basic facilities of a minority: newspapapers, kindergardens and schools in Romani language. --Olahus (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

'Rom' as adjective
What is the rationale for this novel use of a noun as an adjective in this article? RashersTierney (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a common practice, and apparently OED gives Rom as an adjective, too. Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not common practice, in fact it is a practice begun on Wikipedia by yourself only very recently. Further, it is NOT given as a usual adjectival form in the OED, at least not in my copy. Romany or Romani are the adjectives used. RashersTierney (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for your explanation. RashersTierney (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Rashers, this is all very confusing, and I for one am staying out of the debate because there is really very little I can contribute (please don't think I'm ignoring you). I'm delegating in this whole naming and noun-adjective issue, and will enforce whatever it is you guys adopt as the norm. Oh and: there are plenty of other problems with this article that need fixing, and I promised myself I'd play a part in fixing them in the future. Dahn (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks at least for your response. I agree that this article has many issues. One of them is the apparent random interchange of the words 'Rom' and 'Roma' as adjectives. While the latter form has considerable track-record of use in this way, the former does not. There is enough inconsistency of language use on Romani articles without the introduction of another novelty. RashersTierney (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, there is an issue if the name is ungrammatical - at the risk of sounding stupid, I frankly still don't know for sure what's ungrammatical and what isn't in this case. Meaning that I personally have adopted Romani as the adjective, it being it only version which no side in this controversy believes is ungrammatical (right?). If neither is ungrammatical (and, unlike "Gypsy", neither is loaded), then the variety is not, I believe, a major issue, as long as the links point to the same articles. [Obviously, I mean "over several articles" - any single article should use a single nomenclature, and I welcome the copyedits here.]
 * And please also accept my apologies on not responding to an earlier query on my talk page (on an issue I know even less about). I just snapped back from a month-long absence, and there are many other things on my mind. Dahn (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My favoured adjectival form is also Romani, but one step at a time. We previously touched on the need for an agreed nomenclature through a Romani Manual of Style. In its absence it is unfortunately necessary to challenge each introduction of novel language use that would tend to make matters less consistent and comprehensible. RashersTierney (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A special MoS section would be the best thing (as per my comment about an endorsed guideline). Now, provided the presently-used versions are ungrammatical (and I for one don't have, well, the competence to assess the point you're making), you're absolutely right to assume that it's imperative for articles to follow a proper form. However, if it is an issue of equal weight but different personal preferences, I say we could tolerate several variants being in use, at least until such a time as when wikipedia will have a special guideline or rule of thumb (as in "Romanians" vs. "Rumanians"). It all hinges on a "correctness" or "more correctness" issue, in view of a centralized discussion which I would follow with interest and sympathy, but to which my contribution would be, at best, marginally relevant. Either way, I really don't object to your changes. Dahn (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me explain better. Roma is used as an adjective in literature, but that is grammatically incorrect, and here we use the correct English language. Rom and Romani are both nouns and adjectives. Romani is far more used than Rom (especially when is used for all Romani groups), but for this particular article I have used Rom not to "upset" some Romanians, that are already hysterical. If you wanna change it with Romani, than is absolutely ok with me. Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have to finish the MoS, but when to do all that, as currently I'm kinda the only user still active on Romani article, and I don't think I'll be able to that for long? Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Show me where Rom is correctly used as an adjective (anywhere near to the extent that Romani is). Romanians are as welcome as anyone else to offer opinions on English grammar but that argument could be made for any and all uses of the correct terminology. I think part of the trouble goes back to drawing a distinction between 'Roma people' and 'Romani people'. This distinction is not generally clear and so subtleties of language will be absent. But lets not get any further into the realms of original research by 'making it up'. RashersTierney (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Rashers, please don't get upset and read carefully what I have written. Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Kenshin, please don't be patronising and address the issues at hand. RashersTierney (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK:


 * Show me where Rom is correctly used as an adjective (anywhere near to the extent that Romani is) - It is not hard to find Rom as an adjective and I have already said that Romani is far more used than Rom
 * Romanians are as welcome as anyone else to offer opinions on English grammar - I wasn't talking about my opinion, or other opinion, but about the English language as it is given in the dictionaries
 * I think part of the trouble goes back to drawing a distinction between 'Roma people' and 'Romani people' - is not about 'Roma people' vs 'Romani people' anymore, but about Roma as an adjective in any context
 * lets not get any further into the realms of original research by 'making it up' - It is taken from the dictionary and literature (though rarely) is not 'making up'


 * Thank you for reconsideration of your edit, but for future reference its less stressful all round if the discussion can take place first. RashersTierney (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But Rashers, you didn't wait for the discussion to be finished. I only said not yet.Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I also favor Romani over Rom, but Roma is not grammatically correct as an adjective, even if it is common "outhere", and I think that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should stick to the correct English language. Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, don't fight over this. To what I have said, let me add: if Romani is the correct form (and it could be), there is no need to court supposed Romanian sentiments (or rather irrational fears and prejudices which, I'm glad to say, I for one don't have). That would only be enforcing the paranoia over the internet meme we had to deal with. As I have said, it hinges on finding out if it is accurate, correct and/or preferred. Once you get this out of the way, if "Romani" is the verdict, go for it. No more "Let a thousand flowers bloom": these articles are already riddled with too much xenophobic crap, original research and patent nonsense, all of which should be dealt with, and all of which are more burning issues. Dahn (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree! Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope a robust exchange of views leading to general agreement isn't misunderstood as a fight. I think it was a worthwhile and productive example of discussion leading to consensus. RashersTierney (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The logical end point of this discussion is an article name change to 'Romani minority in Romania'. RashersTierney (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, or to "Roma in Romania". I have tried to move it to "Roma in Romania", but there is a redirect there and it didn't let met. But to rename this article (and also "Roma minority in Hungary") was in my queue. Kenshin (ex AKoan) (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, as a speaker of this language, let's try to get one thing straight:

Řom = Gypsy man (noun) Řoma = Gypsy men (noun) Řomani = Gypsy (adjective, feminine singular form)

This 'řomani' form is only so common because it just so happens that 'śib', that is to say tongue or language, is feminine, hence řomani śib = Gypsy language. However, this form, without diacritics, either as romani or romany, is adequately embedded into the English language that it only seems fair to keep it, rather than start confusing ourselves with plural forms and such. Personally, I feel romany is the most authentic English rendering, and as it isn't itself as 'authentic' as a Gypsy word as romani, it wouldn't seem as strange to use it in a technically incorrect (grammatically speaking) manner. As this article is in English, and we have already decided to ignore the grammar of the native language (except for, strangely, in rom > roma), may I suggest we all just agree to write 'romany' as the adjective in all instances? Reinconc (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This article may be inaccurate in or unbalanced towards certain viewpoints
Preceding unsigned comment added by RashersTierney (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:800:63A5:E20E:5DAD:E24E:8A64:5AE (talk)

The neutrality of this article is disputed
I have initiated the above two discussion topics, as should have been done when the tags were initially applied. If 'concerns' are not addressed within a reasonable period, I propose removing these banners from the article page. RashersTierney (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that it is relatively balanced for a Romani article. Dahn has expressed the opinion that it doesn't completely reflects the negative aspects related to Romanis in Romania. I hope that he will tell us more specifically what he thinks that this article needs. Kenshin (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean about "negative aspects": stuff that sheds a negative light on them? negative conditions that they face? Either way, I don't recall having said that. Let me clarify a couple of issues: I have not added the tags, not have I endorsed them. You may be referring to a comment made by another editor, about the lack of positive aspects about gvt policies in respect to Romani people - an argument I for one actually find untenable, since you can't consider a text unbalanced for not measuring what the sources indicate is negative to what you think is positive. It would be almost like saying the article is unbalanced because it fails to mention that your cousin was once beaten up by a Romani man.
 * For now, I am not committing myself to assess this mess article fully, but I will unequivocally call it a mess. If anything, gentlemen, you need to add tags for this article for now: portions of it are childish or unreadable, and the text (which shows only vague awareness of the WP:MOS) alternates between contrasting accounts to the point of confusion and ridiculousness. Referencing is poor, and improper language abounds. As for the tags, they are required, but in fact required mostly for the very opposite reasons. Take a look if you will over the second half of the text or so: it is entirely written from an editorial position, gathering facts in order to answer questions nobody asks, and doing its best to throw collective blame around. The sources cited are in breach of WP:SYNTH, since the facts described follow an editorial interpretation who traces back to a wikipedia editor (and not to what the sources say or use the information for). Evan beyond that, it is entirely one-sided, since it collects only data that, in some parallel universe, would justify negative comments on the Romani people in Romania as a whole, without bringing evidence of community responses etc.
 * In short, gentlemen, my actual approach is the following: as I have done to other slanted articles in the past, I would take out the existing article, keep the few facts that are properly referenced and the corresponding attributable opinions, and rewrite from scratch, using profusely (not liberally, not causally) sources dedicated to the exact subject (of which I have at least two entire books within easy reach), giving ample coverage to the events described, and covering all quotable sides of a debate where a debate exists. I don't hold the article subject to that, but, if you want my opinion, this kind of editing is the best and possibly only way out of this quagmire. Given the extent of the job, I'm not really jumping up and down at the though of doing it myself, but I will take an interest in this article later, and I will edit it myself once I have the time and strength. And I guarantee I will maintain all edits which have improved or will improve the article by then. Dahn (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Dahn. Thanks for your comprehensive reply. I didn't mean to put undue pressure on any individual editor when I proposed a comprehensive review of this article. I agree that a root and branch approach is probably necessary to purge it of WP:SYNTH and just plain ol' POV, and am willing to give it what time I can. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And I didn't mean for it to sound like a reproach on any individual editor. But you see my predicament. Dahn (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dahn, I was referring to what you said on Olahus talk page, much of it you repeated here. You are probably right with the style. Though I recognize its importance, I'm not pretty much into this; I am more interested in having good and balanced informations. Thanks for your advices. Kenshin (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Roma and the image of Romania
I have removed this section in its entirety per WP:OR. None of the references given deal directly with the issue of 'The image of Romania', much less the effect Roma have on this issue. RashersTierney (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that I started this section (with some existing paragraphs) in order not to be accused of being "politically correct"! I don't know what sources could be considered serious, but, indeed, a great deal of Romanians blame the Roms for the negative image that Romania has among foreigners. If we avoid this problem, we'll probably be accused of a pro Roms attitude. Kenshin (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue of 'national image' is so subjective that unless there are specific academic papers on it, it has no place here. All general commentary by editors will inevitably be WP:OR. To give an Irish example, there is no section in Republic of Ireland on Republican paramilitaries and 'the image of Ireland', though arguably this has had a disproportionate impact on how the country is viewed overseas and more easily quantified re. lost tourist revenue and external investment. RashersTierney (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is fine by me. Kenshin (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Observation
Observation: Though this article links to the Romani people article it still needs to do a better job of explaining up front who the "Roma" are. The article seems to presuppose the reader has generally heard of the Roma and doesn't need to address what makes them a distinct group (the way the article comes off now one could suppose that "Roma" is just a generic term for "poor people" in Romania). Perhaps some abbreviated content can be borrowed from Romani people to make this article more complete.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Roma after 2007
The author wrote: "After 2007 The accession of Romania to the European Union in 2007 determined many members of the Romani minority, the most socially disadvantaged ethnic group in Romania, to migrate in masses to various Western countries (mostly to Spain, Italy, Austria, Germany, France) hoping to find a better life. " The "hoping to find a better life" is biased in my opinion. it should read:"presenting new opportunities" While I'll bite on a lot of gypsies being hard working people, most of the ones migrating WERE NOT those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.30.24.98 (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I do agree, however, with the statement that the gypsy population might be bigger than the 2% or so. Least in Banat (where I grew up) and knowing a lot of the villages and cities I could easily put their percentage at 5-6%. In our village of 1200 or so there were least 50 gypsies I knew. In Gataia (which had maybe 3000-4000 population) I could easily see couple hundred gypsies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.30.24.98 (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing items.
I'd like to point some missing information in the article. While the article mentions the gypsies being great "lautari", it doesn't mention anything about their tinkering abilities. I will never forget watching a gypsy making pots from a sheet of copper with nothing but a hammer and an iron. That was art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.30.24.98 (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ştefan Răzvan's lineage
Here on this page it says Ştefan Răzvan had a Romani mother, while the page at 'Ştefan Răzvan' (where you get if you follow the link) says his father was Rom while his mother was Romanian. Which is true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.58.98.210 (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Emigration
Quite many Romani people are dispersed around the EU. They are visible in Poland. Xx234 (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This nonsense is not about EU--91.34.218.117 (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Romani people in Romania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140719002903/http://www.inotherwords-project.eu:80/content/project/media-analysis/terminology/terminology-concerning-roma to http://www.inotherwords-project.eu/content/project/media-analysis/terminology/terminology-concerning-roma
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061208083001/http://www.maxim.ro:80/circus/feature/841/regale_cioaba_vs_iulian_imparatul.html to http://www.maxim.ro/circus/feature/841/regale_cioaba_vs_iulian_imparatul.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Romani people in Romania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140526235947/http://www.romanes.ro:80/ to http://www.romanes.ro
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090305133536/http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/pubst/roma04_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/pubst/roma04_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Demographic History
The article currently states that "In combination with the Mongol invasion of Europe the first Romani had reached the territory of present-day Romania..."

This raises more questions than it answers. Did the Romani arrive as slaves of the Mongols, as mercenaries, as allies or perhaps just coincidentally at the same time? Peynirli (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Romani people in Romania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304024041/http://rss.archives.ceu.hu/archive/00001112/01/118.pdf to http://rss.archives.ceu.hu/archive/00001112/01/118.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.romanes.ro/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.romadecade.org/about-the-decade-decade-in-brief

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Romani people in Romania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305184235/http://recensamant.referinte.transindex.ro/?pg=3&id=1244 to http://recensamant.referinte.transindex.ro/?pg=3&id=1244
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100602093058/http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=36003 to http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=36003

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The "History" part seems like complete fantasy
The Romani language has a lot of Greek and Armenian borrowings and influences, including in grammar, which suggest a long stay in Anatolia while Greek was still the common language there. The amount of South Slavic words and phrases (most of which do not exist in Romanian) is also considerable and points to a long presence in Balkans during the expansion period of the Bulgarian Empire. All that suggests that the theory that they were brought over by the Mongols as slaves in the 13th century is total garbage, and I'm pretty sure you won't find any evidence for it than the sayings and inventions of some nationalistic "savants" and such.

09:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0E:D012:2F00:188E:E23D:71A1:D680 (talk)


 * Hi, it is actually a misuse of the source by Viorel Achim. Achim states that the Roma arrived from Anatolia via Greece and the southern Balkans, around 1370. He then details the nationalist historiography you mention, but states it's not true. The link to the Ottoman expansion (which of course is connected to the collapse of the Bulgarian empire) is stated by Achim and Yann Matras, the big man of Romani studies in Britain, agrees. So yeah, you are correct. I am on my way to expanding the whole history section and splitting off the discrimination part, so it should look better soon. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Wallachian/Moldovan control
Re the tagged statement: The source, The Roma in Romanian History by Viorel Achim, states "The Gypsies were also enslaved in Transylvania, more particularly in the regions that were for a time under the control of the Wallachian and Moldavian princes. Even after the end of the dominion of the two Romanian states there, the Gypsies remained for a time as slaves a vestige of that previous era." Boynamedsue (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

KIENGIR, you can't just keep putting an unsourced statement in to the text without discussion. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is simple copyedit and close pharaphrasing, you again started to edit in an area which you don't understand well. Such as periods of control is fallacious assertion of yours, which is not even stated in the quoted source, since there was a time of control, not periods, on the other hand they were fiefdoms which were granted by the Kingdom of Hungary, not simple areas, the reader has to understand what we are discussing about, since no area was ever under Wallachian and Moldavian control, which was as well erronously stated by your first trial edit.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC))


 * Unfortunately, we have to base base the contents of articles on Reliable Sources, otherwise they constitute WP:OR. My latest edit reflects the text of the source almost exactly. Your preferred edit is: The institution of Gypsy slavery also existed in Transylvania, especially in fiefdoms which were controlled by Wallachian or Moldovan princes


 * Your view may or may nor be true, it certainly does not contradict the RS, but you must provide an RS stating the following to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS:


 * 1. There was Roma slavery in areas of Transylvania


 * Those areas were:


 * 2: fiefdoms
 * 3: controlled by Princes of Wallachia and Moldavia


 * Do you have such a source? (please include "yes" or "no" in your answer, along with the relevant text and translation if necessary) If so I have no problem with the changes you wish to make. If not, I am happy to find compromise wording regarding the "periods", although in the text "periods" could refer to a period of Wallachian and a period of Moldavian control, even if they were exactly simultaneous, there is ambiguity there. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't cite rules, especially when you don't follow what you cited, OR/SYNTH was what you did with your first two trial edits (especially, you should have investigated these before making any edits to the subject, given the fact you lack of knowlegde in this area). What I said is true, Bogdan was granted a fiefdom in Máramaros, who later became the first voivode of Moldavia, while Omlás and Fogaras fiefdoms were granted to Wallachian landlords.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC))


 * What's the part of those documents that talks about slaves? You need to quote the relevant passage providing a translation into English. If there is no reference to slaves, it counts as WP:SYNTH as you are combining two sources to create original research.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've now seen that one of the documents is in English, but makes no reference to slaves, fiefdoms or Roma. It does not seem to be relevant to the case at hand. Please cite the part of the Hungarian text you feel to be relevant. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, and if you continue this nonsense, all the sentence will be removed per no consensus. Those documents do not have to talk about slaves, since the issue is your ignorance about 2,3, other parts are not debated (a close pharapharsing of one word has nothing to do with SYNTH). These RS prove which fiefdoms were granted to Romanian landlords, consequently there could be only slavery. Don't ask for sources and translations, if you are unable to read and interpret them properly (I don't need to quote anything, you may just ask me), e.g. "the Wallachian voivodes were the feudal lords of {1-573.} estates in the Omlás district of Szeben and in Fogaras". So don't say there is no reference to what I said. The other  A másik vajdaságot – Moldovát – is Nagy Lajos magyar király megbízásából szervezte tartománnyá 1346-ban Drágos vajda, kit 1364-ben a néhány évtized előtt magyar földre telepített, de hűtlenségbe esett Bogdán máramarosi vajda űzött el. Similary. Just revert yourself, and please don't steal from editors precious time, you were asked more times and I ask you the last time!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC))


 * The use of "region" does not preclude the areas concerned being fiefdoms, but you have not provided a source for this that supports the use of "fiefdom". If you provide another source that doesn't explicitly state the areas where slavery was practiced were fiefdoms, using fiefdom is WP:SYNTH. You are required to provide English translations of the relevant parts of your sources when requested, but the automatic translation of the text you link does not mention slavery, or Roma.


 * Kiengir, you are once again attempting to use the deletion of text you know to be sourced hostage with the threat of deletion to force through your preferred edit. This is disruptive editing. If you continue with it, I will report this pattern of behaviour to an administrator.


 * I have requested a third opinion now, as I feel both cases have been stated.(This has now been withdrawn as a third user is involved)Boynamedsue (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Achim clearly states that Mircea the Old "held dominion over the land of Făgăraș with the title of fief". Borsoka (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I hadn't noticed that part. It would still again be synthesis, as this statement refers only to one Wallachian noble and one region, whereas the first statement refers to both Moldavian and Wallachian nobles and various regions. The word "region" does not exclude them being "fiefdoms", and is exactly stated by the source. I'm at a loss to understand why there is such a fuss here. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand your remark. Could you quote the text from Achim that verifies your version? Borsoka (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. "The Gypsies were also enslaved in Transylvania, more particularly in the regions that were for a time under the control of the Wallachian and Moldavian princes. Even after the end of the dominion of the two Romanian states there, the Gypsies remained for a time as slaves a vestige of that previous era." (same chapter, paragraph 38 of online version)Boynamedsue (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Boynamedsue,
 * I presented two sources, and I even present a third one, which may be retrieved by anyone with a minimal knowlegde in the topic area. Your competence issues are very annoying again, as well that you refuse to hear the point. Sorry, our rules are clear (not a threat), if there is no consensus, we should restore status quo until the end of the dispute resolution (still you did not manage to get this in months? Our rules has nothing to with "disruptive editing"), so your possible report to an administrator would be a boomerang.
 * I'm at a loss to understand why there is such a fuss here -> surpising, you were told all along, but you refuse to WP:HEAR, not the first time! Again: close pharapharsing has nothing to with SYNTH, you've got the necessary sources for both the Wallachian and Moldavian lanlord parts, which attest the status of those lands, which are in fact essential part of the general knowlegde of history in the topic area, e.g. like London is the the capital city of the United Kingdom.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC))
 * If "fiefdom" and "region" are close paraphrases that do not require sourcing, then why do you insist that the word used in the reliable source must be changed to one that you personally prefer? Surely if this were a close paraphrase, there would be nothing wrong with my version from your perspective, and a compromise would already have been reached. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? 1. You were asking for sources, 2. Regardless of your erroneus view of the situation, the purpose was to enlight you (if you started to edit in an area, without doing your homework, since your first phrasings were terribly wrong). Fiefdom is an accurate description, region is very loose and not necessary would stand at all instances (and I explained this already above). Failure on compromise is your part, especially this recent attribution does not solve the situtaion, the article's scope is outside of the issues of medieval history (we don't promote alternate theories), here we just summarize the facts. So, revert this, as well your earlier edit, you may add the sources for fiefdom if you wish, just don't waste other editor's time more regarding evidential issues, will not be a partner anymore to it.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC))
 * You haven't provided any sources for the claim "Roma slavery occurred in fiefdoms", you are attempting to synthesise 3 sources that relate to various regions of Transylvania that were fiefdoms with a source that states slavery occurred in "regions" of Transylvania. This is WP:SYNTHESIS, no matter how much you refuse to hear it. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * KIENGIR States: "Fiefdom is an accurate description, region is very loose and not necessary would stand at all instances (and I explained this already above)" This statement recognises that "fiefdom" and "region" are not equivalent terms, as one is more precise than the other. Therefore, mixing a source that talks about "fiefdoms" but not slavery with a source that mentions both "slavery" and "regions" but not "fiefdoms" is WP:SYNTHESIS as this states> "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Boynamedsue (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, this statement does not recognize what you say (not surprized again your failed interpretation, missed the meaning of not necessary), they may be equivalent, but fiefdom is the accurate, specific description, and as already told, has nothing to do with synthesis. In the Kingdom of Hungary, fiefdoms were under control of Wallacian and Moldavian princes for a time. I'll wait around two days to remedy this, you've been presented all the evidence, you were told about our guidelines and policies, even others explained, so this game will not continue here.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC))
 * We'll wait to see what Boroska says, I'm quite happy to accept his judgment on this. If he makes no comment, I'll take it for a third opinion. If you delete sourced content for the reason that you believe both that "fiefdom" and "region" are equivalent, so WP:SYNTH can not apply, but that they don't mean the same thing, so "fiefdom" must be used despite what the source says, I will speak to an admin about this. There are clearly very serious issues with the way you edit if you do this. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. Both the Wallachian and Moldavian princes held regions in fief in Transylvania in this period. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You are welcome Borsoka. Thanks for the input. So you do prefer the use of "fiefdom" to "region" in this case? I don't know if you saw it above, but Achim's text was: "The Gypsies were also enslaved in Transylvania, more particularly in the regions that were for a time under the control of the Wallachian and Moldavian princes." Like I said before, I am happy to accept "fiefdom" if it is your preference, but I want to make sure you have seen the quote in the discussion above.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, my beliefs has nothing to do with this, you were explained the situation (despite, you again reinforced you did not understand what I said about the relation of the two terms, since they may be equivalent etc., it is not dependent as well whom and when you're willing to speak). I am surprized about your remark judging our policies and guidelines as a "clearly very serious issues" of editing, still disappointing you reject them, in fact this would mean what you referred. Don't worry, Borsoka reads important content issues carefully, now you were the second time reinforced what we are discussig about in fact.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC))

1893 census
This was, in fact, a Roma-only census. See for example here, page 19, but also many other sources, if you search “1893 Hungary Gypsy”, “1893 cigányösszeírás“ or similar. Achim himself, available for free here, writes: “The census of 1893 ... unlike the general population census, recorded all persons considered by public opinion to be Gypsies.” — Biruitorul Talk 23:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Biruitorul. I must have skim-read that part and missed the clause "unlike the general census", the sentence before looked like it was a general census. Achim's work is historically very detailed and of great merit but Christ, does he manage to over-complicate the organisation of his texts sometimes. Happy for whatever language you prefer to use on that sentence. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks fine as is. I suspect his text sounds better in the original Romanian, where long, meandering sentences, multiple dependent clauses and such are the norm. It could definitely use some editing... — Biruitorul Talk 19:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * adevărat, frate :) Boynamedsue (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Poland
,

do you read the edit logs, or at least the sources your refer to and use? (it would be advisable, since then you would not perform unnecessary reverts and render unnecessary issues, and save time not just for yourself, but other editors). I indicate in advance here as all that your bold addition like this has no consensus, because it's erroneous. Poland, which you referred is present-day Poland, which did not exist in the 19th century but dates from 1989.

The source introduce the issue at the relevant section like this "In Galicia and on the territory that today forms part of southern Poland, a wave of Gypsies arrived...". Galicia is Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, while the territory besides that is referred as "today forms part of southern Poland" is part of Congress Poland. When the author later refer to Poland, it refer the latter one, after clarifying the terminology. Hence, my edits were correct, and anyway even contradicted nothing, since I piped Poland, so even the author's later common reference has been identified with it's colloquial name (anyway it has been very inconsistent you to link to the Russian Empire, a contemporary country, but next to it you tried to link a present-day country).(KIENGIR (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC))


 * The first reversion was conducted by another user, who preferred the version now in place. Your edit was not discussed here, so I reverted to the status quo until consensus could be reached. I have no strong position on this, but I feel protocol should be followed. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * you did not revert to the status quo, the status quo would the version before you added the sentence. Well, here you are, discussion opened.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC))
 * you did not revert to the status quo, the status quo would the version before you added the sentence. Well, here you are, discussion opened.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC))

The status quo was the consensus version, two users agreed on the Poland link, one disagreed. Therefore the version now in place is the current consensus, the status quo. Please do not start your threats to delete text over a disagreement about a link, or I'll report you for disruptive editing. I'll await Biruitorul's input, then give my opinion. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Fully agreeing with Boynamedsue, I evidently prefer the version that reflects the source, one without Easter egg links that prioritize one user’s parochial obsessions with imaginary issues. Everyone knows what Poland is, so there really is nothing further to discuss about this red herring. — Biruitorul Talk 22:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, there is no consensus to change. The original source states "Poland" and refers to a process of migration that continued after the creation of the modern Polish state, so it's fine how it is. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * it is quite concerning you still fully did not understand our policies, despite so many times was explained. Regarding this addition, there has not been any consensus version. You added a bold edit, I contested one part of it. The status quo version about this is, before your bold addition about this . Regarding this addition just so, not all user's agreed, hence cannot be consensus. Your repeated and phrase about "threats...I'll report you for disruptive editing" is completely ridiculous, and I reinforce I am not afraid of any editor's bogus report, since the outcome will be a huge boomerang, at minimum you will be informed about the same I told you several times.
 * it is quite concerning you still fully did not understand our policies, despite so many times was explained. Regarding this addition, there has not been any consensus version. You added a bold edit, I contested one part of it. The status quo version about this is, before your bold addition about this . Regarding this addition just so, not all user's agreed, hence cannot be consensus. Your repeated and phrase about "threats...I'll report you for disruptive editing" is completely ridiculous, and I reinforce I am not afraid of any editor's bogus report, since the outcome will be a huge boomerang, at minimum you will be informed about the same I told you several times.


 * when you will drop bad faith remarks and try to be professional, as an experienced editor (too bad you ignored my analysis above, it seems there was no error in it you could contest)? I cited from the source in which above it is clearly defined what the author consider and refer as Poland, in the relevant section and context and evidently he does not refer present-day Poland, but uses as a colloquial name. At least the wikilink should be removed if noone prefers wikilinking, since linking to the then non-existing present-day Poland next to then existed Russian Empire ridiculous around the 1860s.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC))
 * when you will drop bad faith remarks and try to be professional, as an experienced editor (too bad you ignored my analysis above, it seems there was no error in it you could contest)? I cited from the source in which above it is clearly defined what the author consider and refer as Poland, in the relevant section and context and evidently he does not refer present-day Poland, but uses as a colloquial name. At least the wikilink should be removed if noone prefers wikilinking, since linking to the then non-existing present-day Poland next to then existed Russian Empire ridiculous around the 1860s.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC))


 * Consensus does not require unanimity, the current version has the support of two users who have explained their reasoning, you have explained yours. Life goes on. If you attempt to delete a paragraph you have no genuine disagreement with over which type of Poland it is linked to, I very much doubt you will be able to summon up a coherent justification. You haven't directly threatened that yet, but it is something that I have seen you do on various previous occasions, and I am simply advising you of what will happen if you do. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * your cherrypicking interpretation does not justify you, since in WP consensus may be achieved in various ways, which is not in all cases unanimous in the end, but it does not mean what you erroneusly believe now, that you count the opinions and declare the majority as consensus (as the second part of the sentence related, you just ignored). False. Currently there is no consensus over your bold addition in that form, so it will be conluded if it will be consensus or not. Furthermore, I am really sorry you are still insisiting your errenous assertion, coherent justification is our policies. As well, I warn you to watch your words, there has been not any "threatening", if you consider keeping our policies and guidelines as a "threat", then you should not edit this encyclopedia. Consequently, you should abandon your recurrent, inappropriate "advices" and better gain more experience before giving them, too many mistakes so far.
 * your cherrypicking interpretation does not justify you, since in WP consensus may be achieved in various ways, which is not in all cases unanimous in the end, but it does not mean what you erroneusly believe now, that you count the opinions and declare the majority as consensus (as the second part of the sentence related, you just ignored). False. Currently there is no consensus over your bold addition in that form, so it will be conluded if it will be consensus or not. Furthermore, I am really sorry you are still insisiting your errenous assertion, coherent justification is our policies. As well, I warn you to watch your words, there has been not any "threatening", if you consider keeping our policies and guidelines as a "threat", then you should not edit this encyclopedia. Consequently, you should abandon your recurrent, inappropriate "advices" and better gain more experience before giving them, too many mistakes so far.


 * Better concentrate on the subject, the context is the 1860s, in both parts where from you drawed your sentence, would you remove the wikilink from Poland as a consensus offer, as it would solve this confusion?(KIENGIR (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC))


 * A consensus exists User:KIENGIR, which reflects exactly the RS, I don't think there is any need to alter anything. I would strongly suggest you avoid deleting text for such a trifling reason, when two users have expressed their disagreement to your proposed version.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * please avoid repetitive bogus answers. Consensus does not exist you were explained why. From the RS I cited the relevant section, if you are have problems with understanding, we may review the relevant texts here again, the author does not refer to Poland after 1989. So, unfortunetaly I have to repeat my question, would you agree to remove wikilink to resolve this issue?(KIENGIR (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC))
 * Ok, we have all given our opinions, I disagree with the removal of the link. We have 2 users in agreement, one who disagrees, and the matter has been fully discussed. There is nothing more to be said here.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean you don’t want a long, meandering discussion about the meaning of “consensus”? You don’t want a separate section to talk over every single word in the article, including “a” and “the”? You don’t want to give up weeks of your life arguing about the hermeneutics of Poland? I’m truly disappointed with your lack of pedantic spirit. — Biruitorul Talk 18:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of having a beer instead, to be honest. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would understand your humor, if it would be well founded, however you should not put the blame on something I am not responsible., made the bold edit, ONUS/responsibility is on him/her, also not I opened the discussion, and it is not my fault the user do not understanding some basics (again reinforced by the user's answer). And yes, you, as a very experienced editor, could have found a satisfiable solution if you would just ignore any personal stance towards me, and would remain professional, too bad you are even backing something you know is not really perfect or fair. Practically you could have been the wise, instead you support this unnecesary discussion because of single everyday wikilink/piping inssue (so don't you ever blame me for long discussions which I did not even open or not caused by me). This is truly disappointing. As well you again ignored the content part, you don't debate the sections were the sentence were drawn are referring to the 1860s?(KIENGIR (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC))
 * You have made your argument at great length. There is a two to one preference for the text as it stands. It is unreasonable of you to expect us to waste more time on this tiny matter WP:SATISFY is relevant here. I will not respond any further on this matter as I do not feel it is useful, nor am I required to do so by any policy.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You better avoid referring to policies, until you don't openly acknowlege you failed to grasp what status quo and consensus means, repeatedly. It is apart from that what you support, however, avoiding to react on the content issue, despite the context is clear is the most unprofessional thing to do, as well possibly being to proud to acknowledge an obvious mistake. You should only satisfy our policies and reflect the source's context appropriately, which you did not do. To say nothing of, the policy you cited refers to you in fact, since I am the one who try to build consensus (even offered more solutions), and I even did not "badger to restate something...", since I asked one question each lately, for which no answer was given (1860s). So you even failed this, sadly, you're just try avoid what is inconvenient to you.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC))
 * You have made your argument at great length. There is a two to one preference for the text as it stands. It is unreasonable of you to expect us to waste more time on this tiny matter WP:SATISFY is relevant here. I will not respond any further on this matter as I do not feel it is useful, nor am I required to do so by any policy.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You better avoid referring to policies, until you don't openly acknowlege you failed to grasp what status quo and consensus means, repeatedly. It is apart from that what you support, however, avoiding to react on the content issue, despite the context is clear is the most unprofessional thing to do, as well possibly being to proud to acknowledge an obvious mistake. You should only satisfy our policies and reflect the source's context appropriately, which you did not do. To say nothing of, the policy you cited refers to you in fact, since I am the one who try to build consensus (even offered more solutions), and I even did not "badger to restate something...", since I asked one question each lately, for which no answer was given (1860s). So you even failed this, sadly, you're just try avoid what is inconvenient to you.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC))
 * You better avoid referring to policies, until you don't openly acknowlege you failed to grasp what status quo and consensus means, repeatedly. It is apart from that what you support, however, avoiding to react on the content issue, despite the context is clear is the most unprofessional thing to do, as well possibly being to proud to acknowledge an obvious mistake. You should only satisfy our policies and reflect the source's context appropriately, which you did not do. To say nothing of, the policy you cited refers to you in fact, since I am the one who try to build consensus (even offered more solutions), and I even did not "badger to restate something...", since I asked one question each lately, for which no answer was given (1860s). So you even failed this, sadly, you're just try avoid what is inconvenient to you.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC))

Term "gypsy"
The term "gypsy" is used in various places in this text as many sources in English use it frequently to discuss Romania's Roma population. Gypsy is not considered offensive in British English, and its use in scholarship is widespread. Indeed, English Romanies generally prefer Gypsies to "Roma" or other terms. The Romanian equivalent, Tigan, can be slightly more offensive, and definitely informal in modern usage, but it is generally acceptable when used carefully. It is not correct to simply state the term gypsy is "derogatory" (in English) as this is an oversimplification at best and a falsehood at worst. There is a naming section, which probably requires work, but no qualifiers should be added in the lede to warn about the possible offensiveness of the term "Gypsy". Boynamedsue (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)