Loading AI tools
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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Romani people in Austria are about ~50.000. Another source say about 40.000 Romani in Austria.[1] Can someone include this number in the infobox? 212.241.98.39 (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
-- There was a suggestion above, done by somebody else an year ago about the name of the Romani people in Georgian language: "A Romani person in Georgian is called like ბოშა [bosha] or აწინკანი [atz'ink'ani], but not ციგანი — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.241.74.222 (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)" I am a native Georgian speaker and I confirm that the above is correct. The use of the word "ციგანი [tsigani]" borrowed from Russian is on decline, while ბოშა [bosha], used for centuries, is both a literary term and a more widespread one. Its origins are probably linked to the lifestyle of the Romani people as ancient Georgians saw it - in some Georgian dialects "bosha" is still a general word for "poor wanderer" http://www.nplg.gov.ge/gwdict/index.php?a=term&d=28&t=4229. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C6C:6040:19C8:F8C9:5CBA:D52 (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, the article could be rearranged to provide the historical and less technical information near the top of the article. I appreciate the linguistic analysis; however, I do not think the average person cares about that subject.
I think that some of the technical language that is used in the article could be simplified. For example, the use of the terms exonyms, endonyms, agglutination, etc. Also, the exonym article linked to in this page is equally confusing. I feel as if the writer is trying to educate the reader on the finer details of linguistic analysis. Perhaps that is the intent. If it is, then I would recommend simplifying the language to make it more accessible to the general audience.
AndrewMcGraw1970 (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
"Gypsy" and "Gypsies" redirects here, but the Romani are not the only Traveller groups traditionally called by those names; the Pavee, the Yenische, Scots Travellers, and more share that name and have faced the same discrimination and abuse as the Romani people.
Suggestion: redirect "Gypsy" and "Gypsies" instead to a page something like "Traditional Traveller groups"? From that page we could link to the individual pages, rather than the current erasure of indigenous European Traveller groups (some of whom do still use the word "Gypsy" for themselves). Zentomologist (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Gypsy is a racial slur that means Romany. It does not mean traveller. It means romany and its not a colloquial term. Its a racist slur. Crycakes (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Who has decided what's an exonym and what an endonym?
Catalan Gypsies call themselves gitanos, but in this Wikipedia gitano appears as an exonym. If you are in France and you find a Catalan speaking Gypsy and ask them what language they speak, most probably they'll don't answer Catalan but «Gitano». They even call the language, Catalan, Gitano. So, imagine how an endonym it is, however, you consider it an exonym. Nonsense.
For more information on the subject, read *Els gitanos catalans de França - Llengua, cultura i itineraris de la gran diàspora*, by Eugeni Casanova. ISBN 978-8499758053
https://www.amazon.com/gitanos-catalans-Fran%C3%A7a-Casanova-Solanes/dp/8499758053
--77.230.102.45 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The single source cited for Romani people § Endonyms is an academic paper in Romanian, which however has this English note between the author's name, Lucian Cherata, after the text, as a quasi-signature, and the bibliography:
To me that looks just like an author's defense of their fringe theory.
Gypsy is considered extremely offensive by many Rom, please stop romantising the word. Its been used for centuries to persecute and opress us. It needs to be removed, you wouldn't say that African-Americans are colloquially know as the N word now would you? Crycakes (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, from the gadje side, you are saying more than is true. “Gypsy” has been used negatively, of course, but it is also the English translation of “Zigeuner” and “Cigány”, and thus is found in the English titles of “Der Zigeunerbaron” and “Der Zigeunerprimas”. There is a superheroine named “Gypsy”. There are songs called “Gypsy”. Oh—just look up Gypsy (disambiguation). The word is neutral. John W. Kennedy (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Romani people in the Netherlands. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 23:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Romani people in Argentina. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 23:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I propose that Roma_people be merged into Romani_people. Reading both page it seems they talked about the same ethnic people. Also Roma_people article have very few information with very little activity but linked in other articles for Romani people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
fáraónépe = people of the pharaoh. As a well educated Hungarian I can tell you, there isn't and never have been such a term. Not even in general meaning let alone applied to any ethnic group. We don't form words like that. It might have been published in some communist propaganda for there was a major push to force the country to accept them as equals. It failed.
The Egyptians are held in high regard. That does not apply to the 'cigans'. The country thinks about them as thieves, robbers, cheats and generally a group to be avoided at any cost. They would NEVER be associated with Egyptians.
Besides, we knew they came from India, well before genetics was discovered and their origin was proven by it.
That much about Wikipedia and it's trustworthiness.
The 'pharaoh' possibly comes from the (intentional?) misunderstanding of their Indian cast: pariah. Pariah is used in the meaning of 'a person with continued bad luck, feel sorry for him/her'. Gypsies are quietly but actively hated.
Analysing the reason(s) for this hatred is way beyond the scope of this entry or even the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
As it's mentioned, "to not be confused with Romanians". It would be much better if the title was changed to Roma people and not Romani, because the 2 are interchangeble anyways. L'grand Anonim (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
"The Roma people have a number of distinct populations, the largest being the Roma and the, who reached Anatolia and the Balkans about the early 12th century...." --2607:FEA8:FF01:7D8D:5D89:DED3:F753:5C81 (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The inclusion of exonyms, especially so early in the Wiki article seems odd to me. Are there other articles that start by listing what a given group is called by other groups (e.g. the Germans or the Dutch)? It seems even stranger since many of these terms are considered derogatory by Romani people. Imagine an article on black people starting with a list of racial slurs used by other people to describe black people. I suggest simply deleting the list since there is already a link to "Names of the Romani people" which includes said list. At the very least, the section should move further down. The first thing you read about Romani people on Wikipedia should not be offensive slurs in twenty different languages.--Kaiser Nero (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
This article could do with some non-American perspectives on this matter. In the UK "gypsy" is generally not considered a slur by the community and is very commonly used for self-description by members of the community and by community organisations such as the Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group. 95.145.172.0 (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The first example I noticed is the claim that "Argentina in 1880 prohibited immigration by Roma, as did the United States in 1885." There was no concept of "Roma" in the law of either country at the time, and in fact per a much better source here: https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2464/2020/11/Romani-realities-report-final-11.30.2020.pdf "A large number of Romani people arrived in the United States during the wave of immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (1880s-1924)" and many of them came through Argentina.
The U.S. did have discrimination against "gypsies" but this was the concept of "gypsy" that white Americans had at the time, which is only partially related to the ethnic group now denoted by the term "Roma." The idea that the group was totally excluded from immigration on an ethnic basis is not true, but it's easy to see how one could think it was if one examines historical documents using the modern reading in which "gypsy" is just the impolite word for "Roma." This is not a good way to do history and the article needs to be examined for other examples of this error. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a bit of a mess. I am a bit doubtful at how much it treats the Council of Europe as the best source, and it really needs to be noted that "gypsy" is a completely acceptable term in the UK, and many Romani there self-identify as "gypsies". Blanket statements on "gypsy" being a derogatory term are therefore inaccurate, and even in places like the US where opinion is much more against the term there are still some Romani who identify as "gypsies". --Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The Czech Republic appears twice in the table about total population. --2001:16B8:31F3:D400:501B:874E:6ED8:9EA5 (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect International Roma Conference and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#International Roma Conference until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kelmysh and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Kelmysh until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The infobox lists ~20k-30k Roma people in Ireland. But the source states this includes "related" groups like Irish Travellers. Travellers have some cultural similarities, but are not at all related. As described in the Travellers article, they originate from a purely Irish population, with no Indo-Aryan input. More to the point, 30k is the entire population of Travellers in Ireland, which suggests that the Roma population is basically zero! In the absence of a good estimate for the purely Roma population, I propose to delete the Ireland entry in the infobox. Shayno (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
The article seems confused as to whether gypsy is cognate with tzigane. At first it asserts this (also pointing out that tzigane and variants are not considered derogatory) but later claims that tzigane comes from Greek athigonoi, a sect. 74.72.136.132 (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
there should be a change in the way the low caste are described it should be described as 'oppressed caste' rather than 'low caste'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.25.135.69 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The Albanian high estimate is extremely exaggerated as evident when comparing current sources featured on article (one of which is a dead link) to contemporary and updated sources. It is unreliable. Interestingly, the high estimate of 300,000 on the article is not reflected in the sources, where 150,000 is the highest estimate. 122.60.13.45 (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I understand that both terms are in common use, but the article would read better if it was consistent.
(I won't do it - I'm no expert in this topic. I only came here when I noticed Cher's track Gypsys,_Tramps_&_Thieves - Gypsys reads wrong to me, but seems to be what it is called)
No Idea how to do this, but this article needs serious work by someone with more time than me. It should absolutely not be called Romani.
This is exactly like, say, Ivory Coast slaves having a certain term ascribed to them, and now deciding all black people in the US are to be called whatever that was because the previous term has negative connotations. Do you not see how that is absurd to me? Not just that, but also REMOVING the wikipedia article on the actual subject, going through the work of replacing gypsy and then releasing it as truth. There's still a goddamn article on N*****, as there should be. This is just utterly insane to me as an actual living gypsy. One using the term proudly, and NOT belonging to the Romani exodus group..
Romani are a section of gypsies, yes, but just using it as an umbrella term is absolutely irresponsible by something supposed to be an encyclopedia. I'm a gypsy and whatever negative connotation exist you can't just replace the word and pretend it didn't happen/isn't so because some individual is uncomfortable. It is a real term. It was used. Also by us ourselves for hundreds of goddamn years. You're removing my history with this article. It's history regardless of its current acceptance or vilification. History, actual history, has a place in an encyclopedia, under the common term, and common usage, and everything else, with no censorship due to some modern standard, or otherwise.
Sorry for being riled up. But this is going way to far with the silly political stuff. This is an encyclopedia. Travellers/gypsies/umherzieir are used and traditional common/umbrella terms for all the groups of people hailing from India and who emigrated to Europe. Romani is not.
Call it travelling people if you must, but I'd much prefer using gypsy. That's what we've been for 500 years, and just because you decide that's hurtful and want to make up a new term that really is not my problem.. I'm still a gypsy and always will be. I'll never magically be Romani. Bararav- 89.162.79.69 (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
The world population by country map, which is there twice! is obviously wrong and incomplete already as proven by the written list in the first right column (which is indeed much much more like the reality). And so why even put the map in the article? If there isn't a good one better put none than crap... 46.135.65.38 (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
the section about Romani religion makes no sense and is full of contradictions as well as weird claims, such as the claim that Romani people, except Pentecostals, don't have bibles. this is nonsensical & can't possibly be true. would love to see this cleaned up using reliable sources, as religion is an important aspect of culture & ethnicity. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
It seems like a strage thing when it comes to data on population, the page seem to prefere higher estimates and in the case of the US it gives the number of people with Roma Heritage. Shouldn't the data present the number of the censuses and asimilation and people of Roma decent be a section of its own on the page? DiGrande (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok, but this numbers are used at the section "Population." Where for some country here are used some numbers that do not corespond with the census numbers of those countries. There might be underreporting of Roma ancestory, but if those people when asked if they considere themself Roma or not, ar they actually Roma?
In the case of most if not groups on this website, the aswear is not. DiGrande (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The only source given for there being about 1 million Romani in the US are this - a PhD dissertation from Purdue https://www.proquest.com/docview/288181234 - and an article from Times Magazine - http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2025316,00.html. Neither of these sources can be dismissed immediately as being non-credible (PhDs are well researched, Time is a reputable mag), but concerningly neither source explains how they came to the figure. They just declare it to be around 1 million. Can we find a more reliable source, such as a US Census figure, to justify how many Romani people there are in the US? Even if it's a wide ranging estimate or a very big underestimate (because of self-reporting etc.) but the point is there should be a source that is more reliable than these articles, which both seem to have pulled the number out of thin air. Happy to discuss and hear from others on this, perhaps this is sufficient. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
In the chart for Romani population by country the Czech Republic is listed twice. Once claiming a population of 250,000 and a second time with a population of 5,199- 40,370 (Romani speaking 250,000) Furthermore the article titled Romani people in the Czech Republic claims that the Romani people makes up 2-3% of the population. According to the most recent census of 10.7 million as a total population, 2-3% would be 321,000. Do we know which of these (if any) is the correct? 2601:1C1:8280:35A0:89D8:6A2C:1E4F:3868 (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
As believed, and accepted, the Roma first came to the Arabia on Arab merchant ships between (Oman and Yeman ) and India since two centuries before the advent of Islam. They were known then as the A'raab (means not Arab, but dwelt in the desert as nomadic people). They had a tradition of stealing and stealing children and robbing, particularly the travelers, marauding. In Qur'an, there are five verses warning us that they (the A'raab) cannot be trusted, they are never truthful. Their population multiplied in great numbers as they had many children, and also pandemics rarely infected them for they were scattered in the desert. Eventually as they became to rule in the desert in the beginning of the last century, they started to marry Arab women to improve their progeny. Now the A'raab are rulers in the Arab oil producing countries.
TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT CAME IN THE FIRST ARTICLE THE LAST PARAGRAPH, (Mahmud Ghazani became a ruler in the second half of the thirteenth century not as you implied,1000 years ago, means in the eleventh century). 185.239.178.146 (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
ANOTHER WAVE OF EMIGRATION TO THE MID-EAST OCCURRED DURING THE MONGOL INVASION TO THE MID-EAST IN THE 13TH CENTURY.
We Turkmān Kıptîleri (Turkoman Gypsy) from Turkey have our own History, and we have nothing in common with other Roma Groups from Europe. We Turkoman Gypsy, convert to islam at the time of the seljuk empire in anatolia. Since the 1990's the offical name Romanlar is taken. Other Groups of Horahane from Balkans take Islam at the Ottoman Empire, and have there romani dialects but some also adopted only turkish language.
But Turkish speaking Turkoman Gypsys was settled by the ottomans with turkish people at the balkans, especially in bulgaria, romania (Dobrudja) in Greece (West Thrace) some in North Macedonia (Veles, Kumanovo, Vardar) and in Kosovo. we speak turkish only with some few romani words only. our leader was Mansur bin Yakup Han the so called Chingene Han,in 1224 he built his Kervansaray, we are divided in 4 clans: The Coban clan, the Tarhaneci clan, the Pastirmaci clan, the Misirli clan. We have no problem to call us Gypsy or Cingene. Once we come from North India via Iran-Central Asia to Anatolia with the seljuks. We mingled with Turks and Egyptians too. This is why we have the Belly dance, when egyptian woman came to Istanbul in Ottoman time, they mingled with us Turkoman Gypys Man. We are mostly brown colored and black haired. Only this who are mixed with Gacolar became light skinned. Rom baro (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
The Genetic topic must be included also the Y-DNA Haplogroups in Romani people:
The main Y-DNA in Roma are:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51043486_Genetic_Structure_of_the_Paternal_Lineage_of_the_Roma_People Rom baro (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
We are Roma not Romani, Romani is the language. Romani chib. Roma is the People. Why in english wikipedia is taken romani as the name for us? english all changend strange the names Rom baro (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
And why the sources in english mostly wrote gypsy, not romani is much used in english sources at I-Net. So why then its a problem to be used Roma people in english wikipedia instead Romani ?? anyway romani, romanian, roma, etc, all confused by the majority of non- roma people. As i see some admins used via google translaters the romanian language and wrote something in romani chib wikipedia. But romanian language and romani is not the same...nore any resemblance. Also mostly people thought roma came from romania also false. In Turkey the roma call themself Romanlar (Roman) when they used to be describe them.
Ashkali, are listed here in the article. Ashkali are not part of the Roma. totally wrong. They have their own flag, their own associations. They are not part of any Roma associations. Request to delete Ashkali. Ashkali speak only Albanian and no Romani, distancing themselves from the Roma. Likewise, the Balkan Egyptians are not Ashkai or Roma. Balkan Egyptians also have their own associations and flag, speak only Albanian and no Romani. Ashkali and Balkan Egyptians are distinct Albanian speaking muslim minorities in Kosovo and not part of any roma associations. Ashkali-Balkan Egypt
(talk) 13:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I will send a message to the political organizations to stop this false claims here in wikipedia. Maybe this will helps.
Ethnically, Roma or Romani people are not 100% ethnic Indians. They are partly Indians. The Roma/Romani/Gypsy people intermixed/assimilated with the European Pagans who also faced discrimination. Thus, much of these people often have European DNA as well. Hence, the given statement that these people solely emerged from India is incorrect. This discriminated community has tons of European pagans too whom European Christians hate. Please stop this narrative of describing Roma/Romani/Gypsies as 100% Indian. Thank you. I hope you have a good day. 103.253.203.123 (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
The 1,000,000 estimated Roma living in the USA feels very speculative and maybe should be better substantiated-- the main source of the claim is a gentle journalistic piece from 15 years ago with limited/few sources. 2604:3D09:8879:9600:6865:49DB:D521:784 (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
What is the source of this claim? As far as I know, it is considered a racist term almost everywhere. --2A02:810A:14BF:ED48:1144:AE3C:2C11:9A14 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ninhursag3 Hello, this is the Wikipedia talk page for Romani people, here we discuss additions and changes to the article so that we can make it the best that we can. Your recent additions are not an improvement and some of the original research added actually hurts the integrity of the article. In addition, the lead was formatted correctly before, the long overly linked first paragraph now is not correct, please refer to the manual of style for the lead section for more information on how a lead should be properly formatted. Thank you, TagaworShah (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@Roman Reigns Fanboy: Your new additions contradict decades of scholarly consensus on the date when Roma left India. The vast majority of scholarly sources state that Roma left India around the eleventh century, some state earlier and some later but that is the date most scholars agree upon. Even encyclopedias state that most scholars agree upon the eleventh century. The field of Romani studies is heavily understudied and the few expert sources we do have should be prioritized. Experts such as the doctors Yaron Matras, Ian Hancock, Viorel Achim, Donald Kendrick, Thomas Acton and so on, all confirm a date-range way later than 500 AD, with the oldest of the estimates presented by Achim being the 9th century and the general consensus lying around the 11th century. These genetic studies are unencyclopedic, we do not base encyclopedias on genetic studies unless doing a specific section for genetic origins. The people doing these studies are not experts on Romani people and don’t have credibility in the field of historiography, speciality historian sources are always prioritized on Wikipedia. TagaworShah (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I re-read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). It clearly says this essay is for "history-related articles". This is a project to work towards guidelines for History-related articles equivalent to those about reliable sources for medical articles.
This article is about the ethnic group as a whole, not history-related. The advice you're using doesn't even apply here. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.My sources are reliable. Revert and you yourself will be reverted again. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
The Romani diaspora originated in north/northwest India around 1.5 kya,
The date of the out-of-India founder event was estimated at ∼1.5 thousand years ago (kya).That is 500 CE. At no point it mentions that they left between 5th-10 century CE. In fact it doesn't even use the "century CE" notations. You are now resorting to lying. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
To weight different views and structure an article so as to avoid original research and synthesis the common views of scholars should be consulted.Per WP:HISTRW Also the sources cited are individual views, they don't state they are a consensus.
A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event.So what primary source they are relying on? There isn't even an original/primary source or document stating Roma left around 1000 CE. So what exactly they are basing it on? That one genetic study you talk of is cited by multiple secondary sources and actually analyzed samples of Romani.
Our analyses based on genome-wide data from 13 Romani groups collected across Europe suggest that the Romani diaspora constitutes a single initial founder population that originated in north/northwestern India ∼1.5 thousand years ago (kya).
The Romani diaspora originated in north/northwest India around 1.5 kya.
The date of the out-of-India founder event was estimated at ∼1.5 thousand years ago (kya).
The present study constitutes the most comprehensive survey available thus far on the genome-wide characterization and demographic history of the European Romani. Our data suggest that European Romani share a common genetic origin, which can be broadly ascribed to north/northwestern India around 1.5 kya.
Hello there, I request the change of the title from Romani people to Roma people - Most of Europe uses Roma, not Romani. Romani comes from Romni which is the feminine form of Rom. Romani is the feminine adjective of the word Roma (that itself comes from Doma, a Dalit caste of drummers/dancers/musicians).
Since the word Dom (caste) is rarely used nowadays, even if it's the most historically correct and an endonym the Roma used to describe themselves, the word Roma is the most used formally. Even if the name "Gypsy" used to be the most used and it wasn't an insult. Only later on it became something negatve. Medieval Europeans thought the Doma/Roma came from Egypt because of their dark skin color. The English term Gypsy (or Gipsy) originates from the Middle English gypcian, short for Egipcien (Egyptian). In Britain, many Doma/Roma proudly identify as "Gypsies", and, as part of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller grouping, this is the name used to describe all para-Roma groups in official contexts (taken from wikipedia): https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/summaries/gypsy-roma-irish-traveller#the-gypsy-roma-traveller-group
The most used formal plural form in most countries is Roma, not Romani. Here is the word Roma used in formal contexts: European Roma Rights Centre, Decade of Roma Inclusion, Contact Point for Roma and Sinti Issues, Roma Special School.
At the first World Romani Congress in 1971, usage of the word "Roma" (rather than variants of "Gypsy") was also accepted by a majority of attendees. The "Roma" name is the most formal use that the World Roma Congress decided back in 1971 by the Roma leaders themselves.
Hope you will take into consideration my argument and change the title of the article from Romani people to Roma people. Thank you in advance. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I use the old turkish word Çingene for myself as many other Roma people did in Turkey. https://cingeneyizenglish.blogspot.com/p/i-am-gypsy.html., https://www.medyayazar.com/aslina-bakarsaniz-biz-cingeneyiz In Turkish the word Roman or Romanlar is also a new thing, started in the 1990's before the word Çingene was in use. yet if you said Roman they thought you are from romania or you are romanian, because in turkish Romen or Romenler is Romanian people, Romanya is Romania, Romence is romanian language, while Romanca, Roman and Romanlar is used for the roma people. This words are too similar. This confused sooo much in turkish language. Compare:
so its more easy, to use Çingene, Çingeneler and Çingenece like the turkish wikipedia did. https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çingenece https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çingeneler https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çingene_(anlam_ ayrımı) Horahane (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.