![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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.
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)
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).
-- Vintila Barbu 16:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? 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)
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)
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)
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)
Rashers, please don't get upset and read carefully what I have written. Kenshin (ex AKoan) ( talk) 12:06, 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Roma family in Haranglab (Central Romania).jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Roma family in Haranglab (Central Romania).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC) |
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)
Quite many Romani people are dispersed around the EU. They are visible in Poland. Xx234 ( talk) 08:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Romani people in Romania. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Romani people in Romania. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
References
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)
@ Boynamedsue:,
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 [[Congress Poland|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 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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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.
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)
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).
-- Vintila Barbu 16:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? 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)
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)
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)
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)
Rashers, please don't get upset and read carefully what I have written. Kenshin (ex AKoan) ( talk) 12:06, 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Roma family in Haranglab (Central Romania).jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Roma family in Haranglab (Central Romania).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC) |
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)
Quite many Romani people are dispersed around the EU. They are visible in Poland. Xx234 ( talk) 08:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Romani people in Romania. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Romani people in Romania. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
References
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)
@ Boynamedsue:,
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 [[Congress Poland|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 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)
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)