Jump to content

Talk:Romani people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No Citation For English and Welsh Romani People Being Preferred to be Called "Gypsies"

[edit]

When reading the article, I noticed that one of the lines says "However, this is not always the case; for example, the term is actually preferred by most English and Welsh Romanies, and is used to refer to them in government documentation." It then shows 3 citations however none of them prove that the English and Welsh Romanies prefer being called that. I never used Wikipedia before so I have no idea how to but I think that it should get deleted as it is making an anecdotal statement with no proof. Bluntilda (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked yet, but if the claim is unsupported by its citations, you are free (and in this cause I will say encouraged) to remove it, with the policy being that it shouldn't be readded unless an inline citation to a reliable source is provided. Remsense 08:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they should add this statement to the study on Wikipedia

[edit]

(25) Within the H-M82 haplogroup, an identical 8-microsatellite Y chromo-some haplotype is shared by nearly 30% of Gypsy men, an astonishing degree of preservation of a highly differentiated lineage, previously described only in Jewish priests. https://med.stanford.edu PDF A newly discovered founder population: the Roma/Gypsies - Stanford Medicine 95.90.255.134 (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poor citation on unanimous agreement at the 1st Romani Congress

[edit]

The citation used is a student paper which has an unsourced quote from Ian Hancock - a real professor of Romani studies, but the quote is not available when searching for it otherwise. If anyone has access to this journal https://catalogue.georgepadmoreinstitute.org/records/JOU/1/1/26 it should have a transcript of the actual meeting. 2A01:4B00:8293:4400:7D1C:A7EC:7D0E:1905 (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Detail

[edit]

Article is completely wrong and full of propaganda. 86.98.59.241 (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it's completely wrong. The assertion is not useful without specifics. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Twenty-four links and six subsections. All of the links were moved here for any possible discussion and consensus on any inclusion per policies and guidelines
This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.
Second paragraph: Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
  • This is indicative that there should be an actual reason for link inclusion and not just to add sites, ending up in the middle of What Wikipedia is not -- Otr500 (talk)

Rationale for moving

[edit]
The "External links" section is one of the optional appendices. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a forth.
The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
    • Please note:
  • WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
  • ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. -- Otr500 (talk)

External links from article

[edit]

European countries Roma links

General information

  • "RomArchive" (in English, German, and Romany). — education on the arts and civil rights movements
  • "Romani Atlantic". — transcontinental perspective

International organisations

Non-governmental organisations

Museums and libraries

Internet Visual Media

  • Inaugural Romani Studies Conference at UC Berkeley: YouTube
  • Florian: YouTube TikTok - Romani YouTuber & TikToker whose material covers Roma culture, history, and civil rights

-- Otr500 (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Gypsies has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16 § Gypsy until a consensus is reached. Bug Ghost🦗👻 12:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]