Talk:Vagrancy

Crime
This crime is still being punished with a 30 - 180 day stint in JAIL in the US, because business concerns, law enforcement and "solid citizens"'s concerns regarding criminal behavior of vagrants and illegal aliens. 205.240.146.156 06:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Solutions for homelessness
"Historically, vagrancy in Western societies was associated with petty crime, begging and lawlessness, and punishable by law with forced labor, military service, imprisonment, or confinement to dedicated labor houses."

There's an undeniable implication here that military service is a sort of punishment, or at least comparable to detainment in a labor camp or a prison. Military service greatly differs from country to country, as well as time to time, and surely it is not apt to list it in such a manner as one of several "punishments" that were inflicted upon the homeless throughout history. Military service may, for some, be a solution for vagrancy if one deems it as a problem they want to solve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A041:E93F:FDCD:62D3:2297:8A8D:B020 (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Vagrancy versus Beggars
I think there is a distinction between the term Vagrancy, beggars and destitute, therefore I question whether it is ok to use any of the term as a synonym to the word vagrancy in the article?

Secondly, one also need to explore what are the outlook in other countries as well, like for the matter in context of Capitalism, Social Movements and Reforms. Changes from the ages in the perspective of the government and the society towards such class.

thirdly we all can come together to at least discuss and bring out our feelings, experiences on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mansha Singh (talk • contribs) 12:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

UScentric
The opening is far too biased and American centric, with the following line "Vagrancy was a crime in some European countries[when?], but most of these laws have been repealed. Laws against vagrancy in the United States have partly been invalidated as violative of the due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution. However, the FBI report on crime in the United States for 2005 lists 24,359 vagrancy violations.", making it seem as if vagrancy laws were uncommon outside of Europe. Theoretical opinions on the vagrancy laws and the U.S. Constitution are not well here, only the true relation, which from the statistics and American section, are not very good. The Russian section also needs someone who can understand it to rewrite it, with better grammar. 174.112.18.193 (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article should be re-written to offer a world-wide viewpoint, if possible. Cited scholarly analysis is always preferable to mere quotation of law; we shouldn't aim to provide a directory of vagrancy laws, country by country. Vagrancy laws are a form of social control, and have historical dimensions. They're framed in response to a particular set of social and economic conditions, and are usually altered in response to changes in the same. Haploidavey (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
I have just cleaned up the entire article. It took me some time to get all this done properly, then two editors came by, reverted my edits, then included scraps of my contributions into the article that made it an even bigger mess than it was before, and put up a cleanup tag.

In return, I have decided to undo my edits to previous revision prior to my contributions, and spend my time doing something more worthwhile in the future. I came here under the assumption that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and I was proven wrong. 210.213.17.203 (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've responded at your talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. I've just noticed this removal, which said that towns in the developed countries have shelters for vagrants, and explained that vagrants are called 'gentleman of the road', with the summary explanation of the removed content being "contentious and oversimplified, contestable material." This is coming from the same editor who first reverted my edits (and has responded above this message).

I get it, you are biased against governments of the United Kingdom and the United States. You didn't revert my edits because I have deleted parts of the old content (my contributions were flawless, with citations from credible universities), you've reverted me because you didn't like the new direction the article was taking, and you will remove any evidence proving that over the past century no severe law existed against homeless vagrants in the Developed countries, while several improvements have been made to help them. You refuse to accept the fact that we live in the 21st century, not the Dark Ages. 210.213.17.203 (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Calm down, please, and don't presume to know what I think, believe or intend. I'm not engaged in an edit-war with you; you're free to restore any cited content; though have to say, it worries me a little when any editor describes their work as "flawless". There's no such beast. Are female vagrants also known as "gentlemen of the road"? Haploidavey (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If my work weren't flawless, then you wouldn't have just rewritten a part of it here from the source I have provided in my lead. Have fun with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.17.203 (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear oh dear. As I've said above: "I'm not engaged in an edit-war with you; you're free to restore any cited content"; you could have restored that yourself. Haploidavey (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And Clue-bot reverted your edits before I did. Haploidavey (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been reverted again (on this talk page). Apparently I'm not allowed to speak here. Have a good one, everyone! 210.213.17.203 (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

#Germany (3rd Reich)
"In the Weimar Republic the law against vagrancy was relaxed, however it became much more stringent in Nazi Germany, where vagrancy, together with begging, prostitution, and 'work-shyness' (arbeitsscheu), was classified 'asocial behavior' as punishable by confinement to concentration camps."

I find the pararaph on vagrancy "law" in the third Reich misleading at least. The concentration camps were not institution of punishment, and the act of being sent there was no penal process at all. As a consequnce, not the penal code was applied to "asocial" people, but rather the Polizeigesetze, the [Reichstag_Fire_Decree] (1933), the "Grundlegender Erlaß über die vorbeugende Verbrechensbekämpfung" (1938), and the like (not penal law, but crime prevention law legalizing sheer administrative arbitrariness). I am not aware that penal law had much influence on the confinement to, or the treatment in concentration camps. Convicts were still sent to jail by the courts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.193.93.249 (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Unlawful demands of officials
The article says: "In the U.S., some local officials encourage vagrants to move away instead of arresting them." Such encouragements are unlawful, because there is no law, according to which the person must leave some place and there is no law, by which police can make such demands. Besides, everyone has the right on fair trial and it is the court, who must make decision about presence or absence of the offence.RethraTemple (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Citations needed for United States section
That section only has two lines that don't need citations, which seems unacceptable for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.200.33 (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

"Re-enlisted back into slavery" *after* the Civil War?
This statement in the "United States" section needs some temporal qualification:

"After the American Civil War ... they [unemployed Black Americans] would ... inevitably be re-enlisted back into slavery by white slave holders."

The Civil War ended May 9, 1865; slavery was illegal as of the 13th Amendment, ratified December 6, 1865.

(And in any case, "inevitably" is hyperbolic.)

BMJ-pdx (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 01:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Vagrancy (people) → Vagrancy – Seems to me that when compared to Vagrancy (biology) this is the clear primary topic, comparing a massive and pressing societal phenomenon to a biological curiosity. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. The societal issue seems to be the most common meaning according to GBooks search and |Vagrancy_(biology)|Vagrancy_(horse) page traffic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. A clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (even allowing for the horse). Station1 (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, probably speedy close - unnecessary disambiguation as the current primary redirect ill-suited while we have this article. -- Netoholic @ 09:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support definitely an improvement. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge from Rogue (and Tramp?)
As was pointed out, it seems rogue is pretty much a synonym of vagrant, and vagrant rightfully redirects here, since we usually describe professions / occupations (if this can be called that) under social phenomena (so, homeless (person) redirects to Homelessness). Sometimes those are split due to length issues, etc., but in this case this is not a concern. Anyway, going back to the merge, I can find no reliable sources that discuss difference between rogue and vagrant, except for regional / historical use of those words. Everything that's currently in the rogue article (and that's very little, in fact) could be safely merged to Vagrancy. PS. We may also need a separate discussion about whether Vagrancy and Homelessness shouldn't be merged. It seems to me that Vagrancy is de facto a history of homelessness overview, but the underlying topic is the same, with the only possible difference is that vagrancy implies traveling, whereas (modern) homelessness does not have thos connotation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge – as I argued at Talk:Rogue (person), there is nothing in the articles that indicates that the two terms are different, save for some connotations and historical usage. I don't think that it should be merged with homelessness, as being a rogue is only a subset, and a historical aspect of homelessness. However, there is another article, tramp, more focused on the US, whose scope also largely overlaps with Vagrancy and Homelessness. While not a reliable source, here's a WordReference forum thread on the issue, which largely confirms significant overlap between the terms. I'll feel free to add a Merge to to Tramp as well, and expand this section heading, for clarity. No such user (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Support merge with tramp, too. PS. What about Hobo? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hobo is about migrant workers, chiefly on railroads and similar projects, a term rather specific for the US history of late 19th-early 20th century. The article contents are rather extensive and would not gracefully fit into vagrancy. I think it deserves a separate article. No such user (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on the most recent move discussion at Talk:Rogue (vagrant), I don't see many likely objections to the first proposed merge, so I've boldly merged the relevant text into this article (diff). It may still need some basic copy editing to integrate it with the existing text. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Coment I am glad Rogue was merged into Vagrancy page. I Oppose merging Tramp or Hobo, as they have distinct histories that are not international, and have particular context ie migrant workers and gendered/sexualized slur respectively. Additionally I propose merging Loitering page, since the anti vagrancy laws and anti loitering laws tend to have a lot of overlap and continuity. Their differences can be fleshed out in one article. Shushugah (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think loitering is more of a legal concept, and as such the page seems fine as a stand-alone, when focused on describing various legal acts, and so on. Whereas the page here is more of a social science aspect of things, describing the topic from a non-legal perspective (sociological, cultural, psychological; I won't say historical because all articles are historical anyway). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sympathetic to what you are saying. The bulk of this article, however is about legal definitions of Vagrancy by country and thus should be consolidated with other similar domains. For now, either way, both pages for now could use additional work, and link to each other as needed. Shushugah (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the articles about Vagrancy and Loitering are primarily law-oriented in nature. But they seem to refer to different crimes. "Loitering" is hanging around in a public place for seemingly no reason. "Vagrancy" refers to unemployed, homeless wanderers. You can have a job and own a home and still be "loitering" but you would not be considered a "vagrant".&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 17:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose Rogue & vagrant are not synonymous; rogues are not inherently homeless wanderers. Loitering is an entirely different matter (in law & in fact). This is over-merging; the goal of Wikipedia is not to mash as many topics as possible, into as few articles as possible. 23.91.230.26 (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Complex opinion:
 * Support a partial merge with "Tramp": I support merging with "Tramp" except for its usage referring to a promiscuous woman, which can be kept as its own article or merged elsewhere.
 * Support a partial merge with "Hobo" I support merging with "Hobo" except its use in the United States where it refers to migrant workers (especially fired railroad workers) during economic downturns. It also has a considerable cultural and historical aspect to it too.
 * Oppose merge with "Loitering" because they are two different things. Simply put, if you own a home or have a job, you can still loiter but you are not a vagrant.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 17:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge with "Loitering", because otherwise we should also merge swagman into the article. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Gypsies/Romani
Should their be a section on the status of Gypsies/Romani/Roma in medieval and modern Europe ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.246.205 (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)