Talk:Romanichal

This article was nominated for deletion on 22/2/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Romani people High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romani people, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romani people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Romani peopleWikipedia:WikiProject Romani peopleTemplate:WikiProject Romani peopleRomani people articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{ Ethnic groups }} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Two facts caught my attention and made me remove a misleading and unproven information on this article (regarding Elvis Presley supposed Romanichal background):

- The provided reference concerns to Michael Caine ancestry and not Elvis ancestry.
- There was no valid and well-accepted reference supporting the claim of Elvis Romanichal ancestry in the article.

Since the citation failed to meet validity criteria to be taken into account, I removed Elvis Presley name from the section that mentions people with Romanichal ancestry.

Please, don't undo the modification unless clear and valid references surfaces. --Δ Mr. Nighttime Δ (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are Romnichal ethnic Gypsies or simply considered Gypsies because of their way of life. I have seen images of Romnichal, never met one in person, and they do not look of Indian origin as do the Gypsies of Spain and the Balkans.--Burgas00 11:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, british-born Rom are genetically Rom, altho typically, visually leaning heavily towards fair-skinned. It may be worth pointing out that Romnichal (Romani Chal - Romany fellow) is Masculine, and Romnichel (Romani Chi/Chel - Romany girl) is feminine. Along which thread, I'm curious as to the source of the term 'Romnichal'? I've only ever heard/used the name Rom, or Sons & Daughters of Rome (Romany Chals and Romany Chies). As far as my (very limited) grasp of romanes, rom'ni chel is phonetic rather than a title. --Shaun 01:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Good reference for the family names (ancesterally 'tribes', current-day 'families' - please, not 'clan') is Romano Lavo-Lil, by George Borrow, 1844 (the 1905 edition of which is freely available from project gutenberg). It gives Hearne (lit. 'hairy fellow'), Stanley (from Stony Lea, geographical), Lovel (lit. 'amiable'), Boswell, Lee (lit. 'leek' or 'onion'), and Carter/Cartwright/Cooper - literally a Cart Fixer. The later, along with Miller (flour-fellow) and Smith (horseshoe-fellow) aren't anecdotal as the English also adopted professions as surnames at a similar stage. However; Stanley, Smith, Boswell, Cooper and Lee were very prominent families within the history of English Rom (and all outlined within same said source).

This page is full of half truths. Many Rroms do not "look" like they came from India, we have been gone for 1,000 years. Elvis Presley was not Rominichal, he was Sinti, he was Rromani. I know some of his cousins who are also Sinti. Just because you don't know you have met a Rromani doesn't mean you haven't. Many of us don't discuss our ancestory or wear a sign around our necks announcing our presence. Rromani's are the "original" gypsy, however, there are many nomadic groups, all over the world, who are called gypsy, who are often denied basic human rights because of their life style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.102.242 (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many true Romanichal from the families such as Lee, Cooper and Boswell are very dark in appearance but nowadays what tends to happen is many other British travelling groups try and go under the Romani banner and give a false impression. The other problem is with the title 'Gypsy' as every travelling people gets branded as gypsy and it disguises the distinction betweens the different groups. The proper word should be "travellers" such as Irish traveller or showground traveller or Romani traveller. Not all Romanichal travel and Romani is a racial type and not a word to be associated to all travelling people.

True Roms know who is Romani by their Nav (pronounced Nahv which is Romani for name). The real truth it seems is that most travellers in the UK are actually of a European origin such as Irish and Scottish travellers, Show people, circus people and a large number come from the east end of London who took to living in caravans and tents during the summer to supply the much needed work force required for the farms of Kent and Sussex that fed London. The many different origins can be seen in the differences in appearance to some of the families.

At the turn of the 1900's it becoming very much harder to travel and the British councils forced all travelling groups to stay on council sites putting the many different groups together. There is now a majorly mixed breed travelling people who speak a mixed language.

Some families such as some Lees, Coopers and Boswells have been stricter with their laws of marrying out the Romani group and are still dark in appearance where as some others have not been so strict and can be quite fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romnichals are considered gypsies because they are of gypsy descent that emigrated to The British Isles expecially England , Ireland, & some in Scotland and do use the gypsy language Romnes ok just telling you

chav

Since Wikipedia itself states that Romanichals and what you must call "regular gypsies" are the same (see romanichal), there's no need to redeclare it. And yes, Romanichals and "gypsies" are the same people and they call themselves Roma people and not "gypsies". --Δ Mr. Nighttime Δ (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a History section with info from here. For the first part, I used the word Romani(es), as in the acception of Ian Hancock, that is politically correct for naming any Romani groups (since all use this as adjective when describing the personal culture, be they Roma, Romnichals, Kale, Sinte) and after the crystalization of the Romnichal group I used this name.Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff... I thought this entry could do with a bit of work, particularly when I saw that it had been recommended for deletion as a potential hoax(!), but I've been pretty busy in real life. Dinlo juk 12:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says so here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.245.218 (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she was a member of the Romanichal Smiths. In fact, Charlie Chaplin himself tried to spend time with Romanichals, and his affinity towards them influenced his acting career, too. For example, it was out of sympathy for the Romani people that he mocked Hitler in The Great Dictator. --Kuaichik (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I love Charlie very much! The mad dictator Adenoid Hynkel and Jewish barber...

• https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/feb/17/charlie-chaplin-gypsy-heritage
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117714/Was-Charlie-Chaplin-born-gypsy-caravan-West-Midlands-Letter-locked-away-decades-hold-answer-mystery-MI5-CIA-solve.html, 21 March 2012:

"A letter Charlie Chaplin kept hidden in a locked draw for decades could finally solve the mystery of where the iconic film pioneer was born. The letter, written to Chaplin in the Seventies, claims he was born on the 'Black Patch' near Birmingham rather than in London as he had publicly claimed. ... The faded document was sent by Jack Hill, who lived in Tamworth, Staffordshire, and was only discovered in 1991 after the star's daughter inherited the desk it was concealed in. In the letter, Mr Hill told Chaplin that he had been born in a caravan, in a gypsy community in Smethwick, West Midlands, which was ruled by a gypsy queen. Now researcher Edward Ellis, from Manchester, is attempting to track down the history of Mr Hill to determine whether or not his claims have any basis. ... The film pioneer’s son, Michael, first revealed the existence of the letter in a BBC radio documentary broadcast last year [2011]. ... He has since researched the Black Patch and discovered that it was indeed home to a gypsy community led by a gypsy queen, Sentenia 'Henty' Smith, who died in 1907. In the letter, Mr Hill told Chaplin that his own father, whom he called 'Captain' J J Hill, had been a lion tamer in the Pat Collins circus which toured West Midlands towns. He wrote that he remembered seeing his father in cages with lions and tigers on the Serpentine grounds, near where Premiership football ground Villa Park now stands, just a few miles from the Black Patch. In the letter he told Chaplin that he was 'the only man alive' who knew the secret of his birth. Chaplin’s father, he explained, had worked alongside his own father in the Pat Collins troupe. ... Mr Ellis added: 'If we can find out anything about the Hills, or his father, the lion tamer, it would add to the weight of evidence." --87.156.238.111 (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is used throughout to distinguish a contrast from a life on the move. Surely static or settled would be better as I believe sedentary to mean sitting rather than standing? Jatrius (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the legislation section as it could do with a bit more on the government's POV of legislation - right now it seems very anti-gov. Paulbrock (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article about English Romanies or not? It can't make up its mind on this matter as it occasionally mentions Scotland and Wales too.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it should be! The Romanichals are exclusively English, as far as I know. "Scottish Romanichal" and "Welsh Romanichal" sound like oxymorons, at least to me :) In Scotland the Roma are not called Travellers or Gypsies. They are known colloquially as Tinkers.

I'm not sure what's up with the references to Scotland and Wales... --Kuaichik (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the subject, but I've hear the term romanichal used alonside manouche in France... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrcolyer (talk • contribs) 16:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am from a Romani family and I was shocked to come on Wikipedia and notice Gaje / Gorja (non-Romani) writers presenting incorrect facts about our heritage.

Under the title 'diddkoi' it says that this is a word we use for non-Romani travellers which all true Romanichals will know is wrong.

Didikai (as we now usually spell it) is a word meaning mix bloods and Pikey is a word we use for either non-Romani travellers or Romanis that have been expelled from the tribe.

• • My family always used the word diddikoi to mean a friend who wasn't gypsy. But word meanings get changed up depending on region and generation. Pikey is just what we call non romani travelers, but Pikey is its own subgroup of non roma travelers. 63.133.134.18 (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Zach[reply]

I think this page should be moved to Romanichal, which is more popular and probably more accurate.

it turns out that, as by the article's own admission, "Romanichal" is a neologism, and per

dab (𒁳) 09:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think that is that new. It completely replaced "Kale", which was the designation that they historical used.

talk) 10:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The claims that famous celebrities are English Romanies (in the strict sense of the term) have already been criticized by professional journalists (the next best thing to academics) and especially by David Altheer (researcher on gypsy culture) as misleading: see Spiked-Online & Dailymail. Ignoring this serious criticism in the article is blatantly POV. In my opinion, encyclopedias must be purely descriptive and should not be related to any kind of ethnic pride or role-model promotion. But even in the case that one is to seek those goals via WP, the propagation of anecdotes is not a legitimate way to do it. Here is a suitable quote by Altheer: "There are plenty of potential role models for gipsies who are quite happy to put themselves up as such. I object to these myths being propagated among schoolchildren when the idea is to be educating them about gipsies." --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't had the time to pay much attention to this article, but as far as I know only Elvis Presley's ancestry is anecdotally. You can remove him if you want. Kenshin (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opre Rom, I dont think the article is bias and actually most of the famous people listed are in a cited source from the book We are the Romany people [[1]] ok it says unless a person comes out with their descent its not 100% but it also says most famous people with Romany heritage are reluctant to say such things as they are scared what the non Romany people might do. Also Dr. Ian Hancock who wrote the book is himself a Romany, has done some reserch on the genaeology of Elvis and does conclude that he was of Romany descent. On the point made above in the articles by the Daily Mail. Really when has this paper with its middle English conservative views had anything good to say about my people? The answer is never! I take anything they say with a pinch of salt. Also when the gypsyologist David Altheer says comments like talking about those people ie Michael Caine's family with no traditional gypsy trades. Well my familly 100 years ago were full blooded English Romany who were fishmongers so your trade doesnt mean your ethnic background. Thank youSunset through the clouds (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People, to being labeled Roma, must reach certain conditions such as mother and father or a serious and well-proven ancestry. Elvis Presley "ancestry" simply is not factual, there's no proof of it, so it must be removed until someone bring something solid to here. --Δ Mr. Nighttime Δ (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly choked when I read this intro to an article from

Poorly written, self-publicising, patronising, populist drivel! (lest there be a misunderstanding I am referring to the journalist concerned; I wouldn't take it as seriously as she would like) RashersTierney (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do people with no qualifications or permanent residence make an honest living? Can someone find out where they get money from? The odds seem to be stacked against them functioning in society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatcud (talk • contribs) 23:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually by small trading and by providing various services for the people besides they live. Kenshin (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a good theory Kenshin, however I notice your from Romania - I was thinking about how gypsies made a living in first world countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatcud (talk • contribs) 09:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By chance you're suggesting that "wandering" is the same as "stealing"? Of course Roma people earns a living in the same honest way other peoples do! What do you think, that wandering Roma can't do anything to score honest money? The subject is a little off limits to the article proposal, also, since this isn't a forum.

You wrote "honest living" instead of simply "living", so you're indirectly suggesting "dishonest living" in opposition to simply "do nothing" as result of Roma having no fixed residence or "qualifications". What you mean with "qualifications"? I smell prejudice here too. Read about dr. Ian Hancock and other gypsies with schooling and about the various arts mastered by the Roma people. --Δ Mr. Nighttime Δ (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I just came across this convo now while researching Charlie Chaplin. I noticed Fatcud's comment: "Thats a good theory Kenshin, however I notice your from Romania - I was thinking about how gypsies made a living in first world countries."---Romania during the communist era was apparently included by the U.S. and others in the Second World along with Russia/The U.S.S.R, Hungary, etc.. That was the fault of the communist Russians. Anyway, this convo about "how do gypsies make a living in bla bla countries like cheesy England"---well I don't know how many gypsies in England or wherever are still living in a more traditional gypsy fashion, or how many are working in an office building. 76.208.184.200 (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• They make it the same way illegal immigrants do. Most in the US do blacktop paving, roofing, construction, tow truck driving, painting, they work for the carnival, etc. These are not hard conclusions to reach and if you're claiming to be Rumneychal, I don't know why this was so hard to answer. 63.133.134.18 (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Zach[reply]

I can tell how I make my living - I'm Romanichal, from the Smiths, and can tell you my Romany ancestry back through a couple of hundred years. Raised as a traveller too. Anyway, I'm a University Professor, I have a PhD. I write books and articles, I teach nearly a thousand people every academic year. I give research lectures at Universities around the world. My brother is a builder. My sister teaches horse riding (she's qualified up to the eyeballs). My Dad worked in a garage. My Grandad was a scrap metal merchant. My great grandad was a basket weaver and made the collection baskets for his local church amongst other things. I guess what I'm saying is, we make our living the same way gadjes do. All kinds of ways. We are Drs and teachers and lawyers and manual workers and public servants. Your question is loaded with assumptions, but the answer, if you care to look, might just confound your expectations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.189.89 (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Jumping the broom" was practiced among English Romanichal Gypsies and the Welsh Kale Gypsies until the 1900s. However, the Jumping the broom article neglects the Romani origins of this custom, and deals with it as an African American and/or USA topic. I felt that this is inaccurate and misleading. Drawing from the original article, I created an independent article entitled Jumping the broom (Romani people. There is now a discussion about this Romanichal and Welsh Kale practice at the discussion page on the Jumping the broom article. Please go there, and participate in the discussion to help ensure that the article will be fair, accurate and true to historical reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Peterson (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How come there is no mention of the Romanisæl of Scandinavia or the Erromintxela of the Basque lands (Erromintxela is spelt with Basque grammar and is therefore misleading as when it is spoken its sounds as "Eromanishala")

It is obvious by name and also language that these two are originally of the same group as the Romanishal / Romanichal. Romanisæl Erromintxela (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erromintxela_language)

Tsigano (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A series of new edits appears to amount to

I've got a two pence worth to say about this please if you will bear with me. I am romanichal, and I've got the book this article talks about but I thought it was actually called 'We are the Romani people' but I suppose it could be writ either way?. Either way I just went got the book to check, on page 19 it does have picture of two children side by side, one Hungarian and one Romanichal, with the writing underneath "These two young Romani children, one from Hungary and one from Britain, reflect the wide range of physical type among our population". The English child is clearly more, I suppose you would say fairer and English features even though he does have dark brown hair. I think he looks like one of the Brazil family myself maybe he is a relation. It reads on later in chapters to say about fair romanies and dark romanies, particularly in England. I'm sure the same book also has a bit what talks about romanichals being accused of being fake romanies in favour of what gorgers call true romanies, as an example of antigipsyism. I know that is true because I have put many a gorger straight about this meself. But my memory could be mistaken as I have also read the same Patrin article before which says very much same thing. As far as what the section bit has to say for itself, I will admit I agree with most of it and I have known plenty of travellers and Welsh and English romanies, in my lifetime, but I wouldn't like to say either way because I wouldn't know how to write a proper article myself. The problem is you can't prove nothing like what is writ because many travellers didn't register births, especially we romanies as years ago we all had our own children and there was a very strict way about it, no men around no doctors and plenty was burnt afterwards, and child was named after the woman what helped the mother have the child or her husband. so it hard to say for sure who is mixed with who, there are no official papers to prove it. I know plenty families is definitely partly Irish, very few of them are not and them what is not we call kalo rarte, black families, because they are so dark, but even they look like English people, not like Indian people. I mean their faces shapes, all can be very dark people but always have English shape faces do you know? If my opinion is worth anything, I think if to do anything at all you should email them what writ this and then re do it properly yourself or someone else. I've got blonde grandchildren meself and they are definitely Romanichal, both parents Romanichal as well we are Mitchells, Saunders and Smiths and Coopers, so it does have very good points here that would be good to keep - Mrs. Saunders 9:19pm 05/08/20012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latchoroma (talk • contribs) 21:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found the photographs you are referring to. They are in the introduction at xix, not page 19, so I suppose we have at least made a start at resolving this. The point that Hancock is making, as I see it, is that the stereotypical image of what a Gypsy should look like is false. 'Our population' is diverse, and belonging to the group is not dependant on appearances. I think that is the essence of the point that you are also trying to make. Let me spend a bit more time on the book to see if we can find a way to summarise Hancock's ideas on this. RashersTierney (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think you have got the best idea of it, you seem very well spoken that is I think how it should be done if it’s to be done at all. I’m sorry I asked someone to read the page number to me because it was in letters, and they said 19 I must have not properly understood. Yes either way it’s very important that young people know who they are, and even more so the people what read about Romanichals is properly educated to who we are and all different things you can be, why some are more fair skinned, and not be mislead by like you say a stereotype. I have been to Wikipedia many times to read and never really thought about it, but for something so important to not be on the proper Romanichal page seems very silly as different skin colours is a very important issue our community these days and should that should be reflected. When I was young they were saying the same thing about us, but most of us were dark then even if it was just all the hours we spent out in the sun, so back then it was that we had moved into trailers from vardos, and then people said the same thing that we are not real Romanichals and we was only dark because it was dirt. History repeats itself doesn’t it! Please do let me know what you come up with as I would very much like to hear your ideas - Mrs Saunders 3:14 06/08/2012

I made a series of edits today after reading the article and hadn't seen the talk page as of yet to see your discussion here. I'm a Romani gypsy too and can say Mrs Saunders I have had to put a few people straight on this matter as well. I've read the Hancock book and will say he's 100% correct we are a diverse lot and people who only focus on colour as an indication miss the point. There are also members of the Roma population going back to 1776 in Moldavia that are light skinned and dont look as some would say like an authentic Gypsy. I also found multiple references on light skinned Roma and a picture of a Roma boy on wikipedia that clearly shows him as having white skin. I have fair skin myself and my English gypsy heritage is darker skinned in fact my g. grandmother was so dark skinned she was mistaken for an Indian servant at the turn of the century. For people to assume all Romanichels are fair and all Roma are dark would be innacurate. Its also deeply offensive as right-wing groups, and people who have an axe to grind in our rights and equality state we are British and not Romanies just on skin colour. Some people assume we're just Irish Pavee pretending to be Romani but that isnt the case. Also some families in recent times have married into Pavee, Showmen and Scottish Travellers (some who are Romanies as well), but it doesnt mean to say all white heritage we have comes from Ireland. Shows like My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding paints the picture we are either Irish or not authentic Romanies. That isn't the case whether the light tones came in recent times or a couple of centuries ago some publications state the Roma have light skinned Roma as well. Off hand I remember reading the Slovakian gypsies have the highest Romani DNA in Europe at 80% but some of them still look white. So all groups regardless of how dark they look will have some white heritage. Obama looks black but his mother and the majority of his DNA is white. It borders on bigotry for people to think we are no less Romani. We are a diverse group and always have been.

I even left the following edit in talk:WikiProject Romani people on the 5 November 2010

Not all Romanies are of a stereotypical dark appearance should this be addressed? here -[[2]]

If we are to keep the article on the diverse skin tones it should go on the main page as well as light skin just isn't a romanichal colouring.Uthican (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged this section as unfocussed, as it talks more about Romani outside the UK than the British Romanichal - who this article is about. Fences&Windows 19:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least in common speech, "English Gypsies" seems to be a relatively well understood concept, but typing that into the search box doesn't lead anywhere. This article seems to be talking about the same people - is that right? Or, if it's a different concept, where should it go? I can't believe that there is no article about the concept, so surely there should be a redirect somewhere? Also, is "Romanichal" a Britishism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.73.197 (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Romanichal are not just English Gypsies they are a tribe / vista of Romany. They live mainly in the UK, Northern Europe, Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelsPartner (talk • contribs) 07:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"...by Constantine, Prince of Moldavia in 1776: "In some parts Gypsies have married Moravian women, and also Moravian men have taken in marriage Gypsy girls..." Are you speaking about Moldavia or about Moravia (from Czechia)? 84.250.158.224 (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed after checking the sources. Thanks. Unfortunately wikipedia managed to spread this blunder over the internets.

talk) 23:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

According to the infobox, there are 620,000 Romanichals in Romania. On the other hand, the article says that Romanichals live in UK and the English speaking world. Umm .... something is obviously wrong there, having visited Romania, I know all too well that this is not a part of the English speaking world at all :P Lebatsnok (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was an inept edit of 73.95.137.50. Reverted. Thanks for noticing. In the future, if you see something really suspicious, you may want to check the article history whether this was vandalism.

talk) 02:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I have just modified 3 external links on Romanichal. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20070218153756/http://www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/Research/Projects/romani/files/21_angloromani.shtml to http://www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/Research/Projects/romani/files/21_angloromani.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118212743/http://www.irishtraveller.org.uk/images/providing_traveller_sites.pdf to http://www.irishtraveller.org.uk/images/providing_traveller_sites.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011112335/http://cre.gov.uk/gdpract/g_and_t_facts.html to http://www.cre.gov.uk/gdpract/g_and_t_facts.html

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.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reported that an unusually high percentage of English Travelers are incarcerated, yet there is no discussion of this or of crime (or injustice). Why not? Nicmart (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The crime varies, though I've seen from various sources that it means that there is institutional racism against the Romani, which I think is what is implied by this Mr anonymous username (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This community self-designates as "Gypsies", their political representation and campaigns for rights is under the banner of GRT > Gypsy, Roma and Travellers. Gypsy represents the Anglo-Romani-speaking population of English and Welsh origin, and the para-Romani Scottish traveller groups, Roma represents the new migrants from outside of Britain and Travellers represents the traditionally Shelta-speaking Pavee people (Travellers).

The British government also designates these people "Gypsies" and the best modern history of the group, which I am looking at right now, is Cressy's "Gypsies: An English history" published by Oxford University press.

Calling this article "Romanichals" not only violates

Do you have any sources to support your claims? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah hundreds. First of all we have "Gypsies" by Cressy, (mentioned above) described in its Guardian review as a "magnificent book" (the review uses "Gypsies" throughout. [3]

Then there is the British government's website [4], stating:

"The term Gypsy, Roma and Traveller has been used to describe a range of ethnic groups or people with nomadic ways of life who are not from a specific ethnicity. In the UK, it is common in data collections to differentiate between:

• Gypsies (including English Gypsies, Scottish Gypsies or Travellers, Welsh Gypsies and other Romany people)
• Irish Travellers (who have specific Irish roots)
• Roma, understood to be more recent migrants from Central and Eastern Europe"

Here is a list of hundreds of scholarly articles using Gypsy in this sense [5]

There is loads there, but we find a nice summary in the Journal of European Public Health: For instance, the term ‘Gypsy’ carries pejorative connotations and is offensive to many Roma in Europe, while some Romany Gypsies in the UK are proud of being so identified. Across Europe large numbers of Roma are officially invisible because they lack citizenship and/or official documentation.5 In this article, we use terminology acceptable to most groups in the UK (i.e. Gypsy, Roma and Traveller). [6]

I have actually changed my mind, given the article's title something like "British Gypsies" might be better. Still, Romanichal is actually an exonym at this point, and one only used by a minority of academics. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that is interesting; thank you for providing a rich trove of sources. I think what might be the biggest obstacle to changing the name to anything that includes the word "Gypsy" is the word's perception by many as a racial slur. What are your thoughts on that? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will probably be ok given the weight and quality of sources? If the UK officially uses the term, we are almost obliged to use it too, I would have said.

There are two separate problems in terms of the perception it is a slur. The first is people in whose native language the most common translation of "Gypsy" has become a slur, or at least, come close to one (might that be the case in Slovak?). In that case, contributions from people like you would be invaluable. As someone who translates, you will be totally aware that there is rarely a one-to-one correspondence of a word in two languages, so Gypsy does not "mean", Zingaro or Cigany or gitane, but is an English word with its own meaning.

The second is well-meaning gadjos (especially Americans), who probably have never met a Gypsy, but have kind of heard somewhere the word is racist. I think that linking to websites of groups in the UK who self-define as "Gypsies" or "GRT" would convince them. Liberal types do tend to prioritise naming preference of individuals and groups as a principle, and they would be very open to this. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under the impression that the word "gypsy" is considered pejorative in the West, but I haven't done extensive research into this. This isn't related to the way the word "cigani" is also seen as pejorative, by the way.

I'll have to look into this some more when I have a bit more time. In the meantime, it wouldn't hurt to get additional opinions on the topic. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that the people who say it is a slur are not English Gypsies, and in most cases are Americans. If we look at these GRT organisations, the term Gypsies is more or less universal here. We should surely use the name used by the people themselves? [7] [8] [9] [10]. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy is to use native names for ethnic groups, the native name is Romanichal not “gypsies” that is an exonym and was officially denounced by the International Romani Union in the 1970s who said that the native name of Romani people should be used. Romanichal is the correct name and the endonym of this Romani subgroup. Also extremely important to note is that the Romanichal are not the only gypsies in England, this article is specifically about Romani people, other traveller groups in England use the name gypsy as well. TagaworShah (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, not all Romanichal live in England, there are sizeable Romanichal populations in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Calling the American Romanichal “English gypsies” is just wrong as they have been in America for generations but they are still part of the same Romani subgroup and speak the Anglo-Romani language. And the assertion that the Romanichal did not choose the name and that it is somehow erasing their identity is ridiculous, prominent Romanichal scholars like Dr. Ian Hancock and Dr. Ethel Brooks have denounced the word Gypsy as a racial slur and Hancock especially is considered one of the top experts on Romanichal people in the academic field, this is an encyclopedia after all, not a collection of political organizations. The name Romanichal is the name of the specific Romani subgroup in the Anglo-Romani language, it is a name used by the Romanichal every single day and a key part of their identity. TagaworShah (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name Gypsy is used precisely to differentiate Romany Gypsies from other traveller groups who are NEVER called gypsies. Travellers and Roma are not Gypsies, Angloromani people are. The native name used by British gypsies is "Gypsies", as shown by the sources above your post, Romanichal is a scholarly invention. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely and utterly wrong. Romanichal is NOT a scholarly invention, it is an endonym used by the Romanichal subgroup and comes directly from the Anglo-Romani language, every single scholarly source confirms this from as far back as the 1800s or even earlier. If you don’t want to listen to scholars and experts on the matter, then maybe a blog post is more suitable, because on Wikipedia we use academic sources. And as someone who works with the Romanichal daily, I can tell you that they proudly identify as Rumenychal, you can’t speak about erasing their identity then say their endonym is a scholarly invention. TagaworShah (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yaron Matras states clearly that Romanichal is a “self-appellation” and that it even has cognates with other endonyms in Romani languages are Europe on page 60.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Romani_in_Britain/gcRvAAAAQBAJ?hl=en TagaworShah (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided copious evidence that Gypsies in England prefer that term, whatever the details of its coinage, you have so far provided nothing to the contrary. Also, the source you are using for population numbers isn't reliable. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romanichal are not just in England, you’re missing that point entirely. Just like the

Welsh Kale are a different subgroup of Romani people, so are the Romanichal. Wikipedia is built upon reliable sources from reliable historiography, not politics. My sources come from the top contributors to Romani studies, Dr Ian Hancock and Yaron Matras. If you have sources from subject-matter historians, than that would be much appreciated. TagaworShah (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Having said that, if this article is meant to talk about all para-Romani groups of English descent, then the links "Gypsies in England" and "English Gypsies" should not redirect here, and there should probably be a separate article to talk about them.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Romanichal subgroup of the Romani people. There is already another article for Romani people in the United Kingdom. Romanichal are their own subgroup with their own language and traditions. TagaworShah (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Hancock also makes it clear in his article about Romani Americans that the Romanichal in America are considered Romani Americans. The Romanichal do not just live in England, there are people of this same subgroup that now identify primarily as Americans and they still call themselves Romanichal but they don’t identify as English anymore because they’re Americans. As with all Romani subgroups, our subgroups are based on family ties, language and tradition, not national borders, this is not an article only about Romani people in the United Kingdom.

https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/roma-gypsies TagaworShah (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

England is not the UK, and that article's section on English Gypsies links back here. Therefore there needs to be an article on the English ethnic group, using their own endonym. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy is an exonym, point blank, the endonym of this Romani subgroup is Romanichal, every single scholarly source confirms this. The International Romani Union in England even declared the word Gypsy an exonym and it was primarily formed of Romanichal leaders like Ian Hancock. There is no sources to support the absurd idea that Gypsy is an endonym, it is well documented that it is an exonym. TagaworShah (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots, which I will link tonight. But an "endonym" is the name used by a group, whatever its etymology. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word “Gypsy” does not exist in the native language of the Romanichal which is anglo-Romani making it an exonym. Romanichal is how they refer to themselves in Anglo-Romani, I provided a very authoritative source for that. Just like how many Armenians in English will identify as Armenian, but because Armenian is not a word in the Armenian language, it is still an exonym. TagaworShah (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes), it clearly states “ If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided.” Romanichal is the autonym and is commonly used in English, while some Romanichal may like or prefer Gypsy, others consider it a racial slur, it is considered derogatory by many Romani people, including Romanichal scholars like Ian Hancock and Ethel Brooks, thus making it unsuitable to be the article title. TagaworShah (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've learnt something today by reading this conversation. I'd never heard of the term 'Romanichal' and have previously used plain Romani or Roma so this debate on whether to use Romanichal has taught me something I didn't know. However I don't agree that the word gypsy or diddikai is intrinsically racist although I respect that some people choose to think otherwise. They are merely words to describe groups of people who have a wandering lifestyle (or previously had so). Amongst my own ancestors are 'water gypsies' families who lived on barges and boats and transported coal and minerals along the canals to the ports until the 1930s. As far as I know they were ethnically English with a smattering of Irish. I don't think the fact they were called gypsies worried them. In fact they were proud of their identity. Dorkinglad (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment this article deals with several ethnic groups who have no contact with each other, although they share common ethnic origins. At the moment it definitely covers American Romanichals and English Gypsies, as well as other Pararomani groups in the English-speaking world. There needs to be some kind of a split here, as each of these ethnic groups merit their own article.

I'll bring sources re the English Gypsies to illustrate what I mean later on. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This number is way out of line. It might refer to people of Romany descent in England, but in that case I would say that the real number there would be in the tens of millions, but there is no way there are half a million Romany Gypsies in the UK, they are a tiny minority even in places like Leeds where Angloromani is widely known.

The figure quoted is cited to this website, which itself casts doubt on the number, giving a figure of 57,000 for all GRT groups combined. The 500k figure is attributed to the council of Europe and is for all GRT not just English Gypsies.

I will delete and add context. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]