User talk:Bradux

June 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Konrad Bercovici appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. RashersTierney (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear RashersTierney

Thank you for your feedback and please rest assured that I didn't intend to break any Wiki or common sense rules when, in Konrad Bercovici's wiki page, I replaced the term 'Roma' with 'Gypsy'. I did it to increase the accuracy of the article, as 'Gypsy' was the correct term used in Romania at the time Mr. Bercovici was a child. In this sense, you may notice that Mr. Bercovici himself, in his autobiography "It's The Gypsy In Me", used the term "Gypsy" and not "Roma":

---[quote from the first page of his autobiography:


 * It's The Gypsy In Me
 * MY EARLIEST childhood memory is of a winter afternoon when a caravan of Gypsies crossed the frozen Danube River in front of the
 * home of my parents.[...]. Gypsies in long sheepskin coats and tall, black fur caps marched ahead of each sled, probing the ice
 * with long, iron-tipped sticks. [...]. When the first sled pulled up on the shore, the Gypsy jumped into the driver's seat, let
 * out a loud yell, and gave the horses their heads. [...]. When the last one had crossed, the Gypsy men unrolled a huge tarpaulin
 * canvas, with which they roofed the square. [...]. That same evening all the Gypsies men, women, and childrentrooped into our
 * enormous kitchen, which was warmed.

---[//end quote

'Roma' is a term introduced in Romania in the late 1990s and it is also not commonly used in English, so refering to something that happened 80 years ago with new terms would be confusing. In this sense Wikipedia mentions that 'Romani are widely known in the English-speaking world by the exonym Gypsies (or Gipsies).' [[]]

In conclusion, for the reasons above, I believe that my changes were justified and helped improving the accuracy of Wikipedia content.

Respectfully, Bradux (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My edit was prompted as much by your changes at Names of the Romani people as the above. It should also be borne in mind that we aren't wedded to dated terminology. A contemporary term in English for 'Romanians' was 'Roumanians', not a spelling that would be used on Wikipedia even if referenced back to a historical source. Of coarse when quoting, we use the original phrasing verbatim. RashersTierney (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's page "Gypsy" [] provides links to several ethnic groups' pages: 'Gypsy', 'Romani People', 'Dom People', etc. As you can see, the "Romani People" page [] has the appropriate title "Romani People", and so does "Dom People". However, the linked page "Gypsy" [] has the title "Names of the Romani people" which is, in my opinion, is not consistent with the link and also duplicates the "Romani People" one. This was the reason I changed the sentence to explain what Gypsy people are. If you are OK with this discrepancy, so be it, I have no problem with this.

With respect to the article regarding Mr. Bercovici: it inadequately uses a recently adopted term instead of the one that was in use at the time described there. The difference between the new and the older term are significant, unlike the minor variations 'Romanians', 'Roumanians' or 'Rumanians' you mentioned. [As a matter of fact, I landed into the "Gypsy" page because of this article]. Bradux (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference between the new and the older term are significant - how so? RashersTierney (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You know very well that "Gypsy" is a widely known term, while "Roma" is just being used recently in some media channels and is virtually unknown to most people. Is it anything wrong with the term "Gypsy" since you constantly replaced it with "Roma" in Wikipedia? 1. The page that was linked as "Gypsy" was named as "Names of the Romani people". ["Names of..." should be a link on its own] 2. The first part of the article about Mr. Bercovici uses text from his autobiography where you replaced the original term "Gypsy" with "Roma"

I feel that your behaviour is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, as you use your editorial privileges [and plenty amount of time] to manipulate content and favor one term against the other.

Is it anyone [at Wikipedia] that can bring a neutral and qualified opinion in this issue? Bradux (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the term 'Roma' was introduced by another editor with this edit, and did not replace previous terminology. This, therefore is the stable version. You replaced it. I reverted explaining why here. It is for you to justify why you think your change is an improvement to the article. On the basis of this discussion I am not convinced it is. If you would like the views of other editors you can invite views at the article Talk Page, or simply copy this conversation there. (I'll do it for you, if that is what you want, just let me know). You can also seek the opinion of an 'outside editor' with Third opinion or post a request for comment. I'll add a 'welcome' template to this page with introductory links explaining how Wikipedia 'works'. If you really feel my "behaviour is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, as you use your editorial privileges [and plenty amount of time] to manipulate content", you can make a formal complaint at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but please read 'Assume Good Faith' and the other links above before doing so. RashersTierney (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello "RashersTierney" Thank you for explanations and clarifications.

Before moving forward, I would like to recap the issue:
 * 1) 	I replaced the word “Roma” with ”Gypsy” in a wiki article referring to someone living in Romania in early 1900s, because, “Gypsy” was the correct term for that time and place. [For the same reason we talk about “Vikings” – and not “Swedes” - raids in Ireland 1200 years ago]
 * 2) 	I received a notification from you that “[my contribution] appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and [my] edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem.”
 * 3) 	I explained you my the reasons, the context, etc, and then I reverted back my changes
 * 4) 	You didn’t accept my explanations, commented that “we aren't wedded to dated terminology”, and reverted back to original.
 * 5) 	I couldn’t accept your explanation because “Gypsy” is a very well know term world wide, as opposed to “Roma” which is being promoted after 1990s by some Roma/Gypsy organizations. Trying to understand your reasons I found out things that made feel that you have the will and the resources to manipulate content to favor a biased point of view rather than sticking to a neutral approach [see #7].
 * 6) 	You came back with some explanations regarding the issue, and also indicated, per my request, how can we dispute this issue
 * 7) 	Here are the reasons that make me feel that your opinion is biased and manipulates the content:
 * a.	Persistently forcing the usage of the term “Roma” instead of "Gypsy", disregarding the context of the article.
 * b.	Manifesting a great deal of activism favouring Romany people [in your other contributions], which is laudable provided you do not manipulate content.
 * c.	Producing large number of daily Wiki contributions looks to me like the actions of an organized group rather than of a single person. For instance, on the 23rd of June you submitted 50-something contributions from 0:03 in the morning till 23:45 at midnight. Moreover, some edits were submitted at the same time or within two or three minutes [I may be wrong, but these are my thoughts].

Per your suggestions, and also per “Wikipedia:Dispute resolution” recommendations I think that the best approach is to address this issue to the “Neutral point of view/Noticeboard”

However, per same recommendations, I will stay cool for a while [, as I am busy living my life:) ].

Regards, Bradux (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)