Talk:Romani Holocaust

Map is not public domain

I hope someone can help me figure out the right thing to do here. The map on the Porajmos page is actually not in the public domain. It was created by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and can be found here: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/index.php?ModuleId=10005149 The Museum's policies are found here: http://www.ushmm.org/priv_acc/index.php?content=disclaimer/ I believe that the Museum would be very happy to make the map available for use on Wikipedia but would want a credit to the Museum placed by the map image. Would that be acceptable to Wikipedia, or can only photos that are really in the public domain be presented? but genocide is and that is what the genocide against Coquettes, French Kok Turks of Europe, Huns and Mongols of the European Union settled in the 1200s and now the Romas across the European Union including the Santarém district of Portugal should be the public domain and charged as genocide in a court of law — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.137.244.8 (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

the 2nd part of your post is bizarre and not sure what you were trying to say — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.45.222 (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

not true

It is not true that Nedic goverment of occupied Serbia organized extermination of Gypsies - the situation there cannot be compared to the Ustashe regime who had organized extermination program and extermination camps. The situation is Serbia can be compared to the one in Norwegia, Denmark, Greece, Chech republic, even Bulgaria and Romania. Gypsies find one of the friendliest home in Serbia today all over Eastern Europe, and there is nothing like the racism incidents of Czech republic or even Romania. While on margins of society, any Gypsy from Serbia can tell you that.

During WWII shootings have been done by the Nazis in Serbia, most notoriously in massacre in Kragujevac where 7000 people have been killed, some of them were gypsies. While itis possible that Nedic serbian guards have cooperated in rouding up civilians and arresting them, there was no extermination of gypsies organized by the goverment of occupied Serbia. Serbs, victims of genocide together with Gypsies in WWII, would consider such randomly thrown lies (I have never seen such a claim before) as a grave lie and shameless insult!!!

serbian government

"Meanwhile, the Serbian government also killed thousands of Gypsies. "

This statement is wrong. Are there any proofs for it? Goya 04:48, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

serbs are slavs, and i've long heard that some slavs, particularly many czechs, are anti-gypsy. but that doesn't automatically make the statement in quotes above true. however, i haven't studied this subject enough to know if the statement in quotes ISN'T true. Gringo300 00:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree - inaccurate - 212.139.99.7 (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)twl212.139.99.7 (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

aryan, more or less

the Gypsies were no less Aryan, and perhaps even more Aryan, than the Germans themselves.

I removed the statement "and perhaps even more Aryan" because it assumes correct the Nazi theory of genetical purity. There's no such thing as "more Aryan", all Indo-European tribes assimilated the local populations where they settled (Germans in N.Europe, Gypsies in India). Gypsies were no less Aryan than the Germans and Germans were no less Aryan than the Gypsies. Bogdan | Talk 13:42, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's not quite true. I think the original editor probably meant to point out that the Gypsies derived from the people who actually called themselves "Aryans" – the people we now call Indo-Iranians. There is no evidence that ancient Germans ever called themselves "Aryans". In that sense it is true to say that Gypsies were "more Aryan" than Germans. It does not involve accepting "the Nazi theory of genetic purity" at all. It merely points to some of the contradictions in the Nazis' own ideology. Whether it's worth mentioning this in the article, I don't know, but I've partly indicated it with changes to the section on Gypsy/Aryan identity. Paul B 17:05 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Their language was derived from the language of the "Aryans", but genetically, most of the population of India (Gypsies including) is formed from non-IE people assimilated by the IE invasion. (In Europe, while higher, the percentage of "IE genes" is still somewhere around 20-30%) bogdan | ^Talk 16:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

My point was that it is not about "racial purity" at all, which presupposes the existence of some sort of original "race" that then gets "mixed".

Isolated populations did develop some traits that made them different from the other human populations. But, of course, the "purity" (read "homogenity") of those populations was lost as soon as they joined other populations. And 200 generations later it's absurd to talk about "purity": you won't find one person in the whole Europe that has genes from only one of those ancient groups. bogdan | ^Talk 20:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Aryans were Indo-Iranians. As far as we know PIEs never called themselves that. Paul B 20:15 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, there was a PIE root, which also gave Greek "aristocrat". bogdan | ^Talk 20:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The "aristos" connection is not widely accepted anymore, at least not in the sense that it refers back to an ancient ethnic-identifier. Paul B 21:103 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

"More Aryan" is indeed a silly expression. Perhaps the writer meant to say: "Even if we foolishly were to accept, for the sake of argument, the Nazi racial theories, the Romani would qualify as 'Aryan'. This fact provides us with a reductio ad absurdum showing how silly these theroeis are." Tom129.93.17.135 23:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not quite what the writer means here. What he meant to say was that "Aryan" generally refers to the Indo-European peoples. Not only are the Romani people of "Aryan" origin (as opposed to Dravidian, Munda, etc.), but also they clearly have origins in North India (as opposed to e.g. the Germans and other Nordic peoples, whose "Indic origin" was not, and apparently is not, as well confirmed).

I hope I'm making at least some sense here! :) BTW, I may be wrong in using the term "Indo-European" (should it be Indo-Aryan? Indo-Iranian? I'm afraid I haven't yet looked into the "Aryan"-related debates). --Kuaichik 00:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indoiranian Gypsies:

First of all: true arians are Persians and people related to them such as Scythians, Greeks and old Sanskrit Hindus. Germans fit more into the nordic barbarian tribes and the vikings. Aryans were the first white race, yet not all white races have blue eyes, blond hair and 1.9 m (6'3") tall on the contrary those where divergences into barbarian tribes (whom also had aryan blood but distant for centuries in living in Icy Regions).

The true aryans where white skinned or copper almond like, green or dark profound eyes, thick beards, hair on chest, high long postured, thick chested-back, well built and warrior like nomadic horse riders that established themselves in Iran; and came from the Cacaus mountains.

Gypsies or Roma People are of total Indoaryan or Indopersian descent. Their language is not only pure Indopersian or Indoaryan but it closely resembles the actual Punjabi, Sindi, Kashmiri, Pothohari and Dardic Mountain Languages of Pakistan, aswell as old Rajasthani (close to classical sanskrit) and even Farsi.

Gypsy tradition as aryans (old persians) is nomadic and guided by the stars. The branch of Indopersian (aryan) or Indoafghan peoples that invaded actual India and established themselves in India is in fact very close to the Rajputs and Jatts of aryan-scythian origin. They are the true Rajasthans Indosthans and defenders of the old territories of Pakistan and North India against Monguls and Arabs for years mamy years ago. When defeated they pledged alliance to Rama God and prefered to maintain their spirit of nomadic warriors.

Today in Rajasthan many people still see them as the original inhabitants and as outo ostrichized warrior hight cast people that ruled in tiems of the Old Hindosthan Era.

Many articales talk about how many of the Lohars and gypsies of North India still have green eyes, long beards, clearer hair and moustashes. This tradition is seen even today by gypsies wearing long hair, moustashes and beards as Old Aryans dide thousands of years ago.

Its good to know that true asians be it dravidians, nepalis etc have no facial hair; no thick beards, non thin noses and never clear eyes or green eyes. This shows total Aryan descent of Romamy People as origin, atleast for most of them in the warrior or priest class. Skin for many of them is almond for desert living the hot deserts for thousands of years or mountain reddish tone skin like Punjabis and Kashmiris and sometimes even more pale. Most gypsies look like Bollywood Stars most of them come from actual Rajasthan, Kashmir, Mewar, etc

You can also find resembleness of the true Gypsies in tribes of half aryan and mongolian blood in the frontiers of the Himalayas; they have white sking and many times more middleastern (scythian) or persian look. They show many resembleance to Pakistani Gypsies or Afghan Nomads that came from Sind as in their silk clothes, have traditional long moustashes and beards, are still great daggar and knife makers, carpet makers and great musicians.

1)Europe: via Kashmir-Afghanistan and the establisehd themselves in the Silk Road whre they reached Iran, then spit into sub groups leaving for Turkey and Greece and others into Egypt. They brought the famous "Cockfights" to Europe and ofcourse their soulful music.

2)Rajasthan: and Thar Deserts; Others that were not captured by mongols and arabs fled in to the "Rajasthan Deserts" as u see them today; arrogant attitide and warlike passionete spirits that refuse to be part of modern Indians and want to maintain their old Aryan-Scythian mark as nomadic horse riders of Rajput and Jatt descent.

Although many have have mixed with dravidian peoples they still show some aryan traits like their attitude towards life: agressive battle like attitude, long mustashes, beards, long hairs for nomadic Priests, beutiful scarfs, some have green eyes (Rajasthan is famous for green eye Gypsies), knife and metal weopon making, acrobatic skills as old warriors did, great horse riders and modern musicians: whom after the wars refuse to loose their Hindosthani culture.

Im not saying that Roma People are pure aryans or persians but they are rooted in Indopersian and Indoscythian Cultures: "Rajputs and Jatts", some did asimilate a little dravidian blood (especially Romany Low in the Chain usually women) but most of them that reached Europre belong to the true Blacksmith, Warrior and great Hordesmen of totall "Rajputic" partly scythian and persian blood, all famous in North India and Pakistan during the copper era as the Old Hindosthans of Sind.

You can see Gypsies as old nomadic aryans of Persia by their facial traits (red almond skin: not black dravidian, green or dark eyes, thick beards and long mustashes),language (Rajasthan, Pakisthan, Iran, Terhan = Aryan old Persian: not Bombay =asiatic or dravidian terminolgy) Culture-Values (Virginity for Women is not an asian since Kamasutra is asiatic-dravidian; yet Romany people have middleaster or old persian values), their Dress (Silk and powerful colours command to traders and nomads of Afganistan, Iran and Pakistan) anf ofcourse Romany Music; which is closer to Norther Paqkistani, Old Indian and old Iranian Music (wich is based on Sanskrit Aryan Music)than dravidian southern music.

Hence that back 1000 years ago (around when they left into the mountains and deserts it was 1000 AD) then North Indian territories had alot more persian, scythian % of people, that looked more like peoples of Iran,Afghanistan and Bollywood North Indian Actors......

Well Gypsies are not 100% Aryan, I have to say there is much Dravidian blood in Gypsies-look at the photos,

Gypsies from the Greek Islands

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dimitri/31383451/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/dimitri/39222130/in/set-1148683/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/dimitri/39222128/in/set-1148683/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/51116994@N00/125665681/

The farther into Europe the Gypsies went, more and more European blood has been introduced into Gypsies, to say Gypsies are 100% Aryan is false. And I am sure the Aryans in Iran have much Dravidian blood too.

According to this website Elamite is a Dravidian language in Western Iran, almost in Iraq!!!!

http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_dravidian.html

This was taken from http://www.iranologie.com/history/history1.html

Quote:

"Elam, the most powerful and longest lasting civilisation of the Iranian plateau prior to the Aryan arrival, has a complex history. Most of the history of Elam has been recorded by their fierce enemies Babylonians and Assyrians, or by their successors, the Persians, who had a strong incentive to undermine the late Elamite kingdom. As a result, Elamite representation has not been very fair or accurate, and only due to the recent scholarship and reading of Elamite inscriptions we can have a good idea of their culture.

As with the Kassites, we do not have a reliable knowledge of Elamite origin. As far back as 4th millennium BCE, evidence of Elamite settlement in the plains of Khuz (northern Persian Gulf) exist. Researches done on the Elamite skeletons show their racial closeness to the Sumerians and Dravidians of Indus Valley, while their language, at least in its latest form, shows very little connections with these cultures."

Quote from http://www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/history-article3.htm

23. The Turkish People are a result of the mixture of the early Iranians, and the Chinese; Semites and Egyptians, Palestinians and Arabs, are the mixtures of Iranians and Africans; while the Indians are a mixture of Iranians (Brahman) and the native blacks of India, Dravidians. (Gardeshgari, March 2000 p. 47).

"Elamite is a Dravidian language" - no, it most certainly is not - sign your posts with four tildas and stay away from non-specialist, nationalist blogs 50.111.45.222 (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Prof. Ian Hancock's Coinage?

A certain user "Timault," who currently has neither a user page nor a discussion page, had claimed that the word Porrajmos was coined by Prof. Ian Hancock. Does Timault or anyone else have any evidence of this?

In his book We Are the Romani People, the Professor himself seems to be of the opinion that it is a general term used by some Romanies. (Yes, I said "Romani," not "Roma"! There's a perfectly good reason for that, too, but I think I'll discuss that later.) He also notes that "(s)ome hesitate to say the word out loud," so I am extremely skeptical of the claim that he coined this word.

If anybody has any evidence, please discuss it in this section! Until then, though, I am reverting to the original claim, i.e. that it was coined by Romanies themselves.--Kuaichik 22:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an interesting article at Prof. Hancock's website covering the history of the term. He denies actually coining the term (which he attributes to an unknown Romani he talked with in 1993), but apparently is the person responsible for popularizing it. His memory may be slightly off in terms of the year, though, as the journal Nationalities Papers 19 (3) apparently mentioned the "Porajmos" in 1991.--Pharos 07:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to Kuaichik) Now I'm curious: why do you prefer Romani/Romany to Roma? Not disputing you, just interested. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that! According to Prof. Hancock, many Romanies actually do not call themselves "Rroma" (especially since "Rrom" specifically means a married Romani man, and "Rroma" is the plural form of "Rrom"). Some Romanies (e.g. in Britain) believe that "Rroma" refers to Romanies from other areas (e.g. Hungarian Romanies). However, though they don't consider themselves Rroma, they would consider themselves Romani. --Kuaichik 04:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The earliest scholarly use of the term in this context that I can find is The Romani Porajmos: the Nazi genocide of Gypsies in Germany and Eastern Europe by Henry R. Huttenbach in The Gypsies of Eastern Europe, 1991. Its possible that Hancock or someone else had previously coined the term. RashersTierney (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Samudaripen ?

Porrajmos certainly is a word coined by the Romani people, but *Samudaripen is not. *Samudaripen is not a possible or grammatical word in Romani.

See the first link in the article: according to Prof. Hancock, this word violates the rules of Romani morphology and was coined by a linguist (obviously a gadžo). --Kuaichik 06:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

But Samudaripen is really used as a "common Romani word", that means not belonging to any dialects but made on Romani bases. Several words like this appeared in the end of the XX century when different Roma began to discuss common problems. RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Vlax Romni. Do you know what does Porrajmos mean in Vlax Romani chib? Do you know why many Romani activists tried to argue with Hancock? RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, of course. And don't worry, Prof. Hancock knows that, too. In fact, he mentions in We Are the Romani People that Porrajmos is a taboo word among many Romanies. --Kuaichik (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So why, for all fried hedgehogs, why do we use in Wikipedia the taboo word?! RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not censored, perhaps? Just a thought, however lacking it may be in insight :-/ --Kuaichik (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The G word

This has been mentioned in other topic discussion pages. The term 'gypsies' is apparently pejorative. It has been suggested that the term Romani be substituted. I await feedback before making any changes.Doktor Waterhouse 13:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree, except, of course, in cases where it's a direct quote or part of a phrase like "Gypsy Question." - TheMightyQuill 16:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Same here. I agree with TheMightyQuill. --Kuaichik 04:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The word Gypsy is derives from Egyptian. People at one point thought erroneously that Romani people derived from Egypt.

Yeah, thanks, but I think we know ;) --Kuaichik 00:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Martin Gilbert's Holocaust Atlas uses it, but I don't need to quote his use of it if I use Romani. Noted also that there are Scottish Travellers and Irish Travellers but no English Travellers?? Hugo999 (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"The word Gypsy is [sic] derives from Egyptian. People at one point thought erroneously that Romani people derived from Egypt." And where do you think they got that idea? 2604:2000:1580:425C:1920:48F:A553:49A1 (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Stereotype + Use of antiziganist source?

The first sentence of the section "Aryan racial purity" reads:

"In the thousand years that nomadic Romani tribes wandered through Europe, they were subject to persecution and humiliation[citation needed]; they were stigmatized as habitual criminals, social misfits, and vagabonds[citation needed]."

We Are the Romani People, among many many other sources, could be cited as a source for the above statement - if not for the words "(i)n the thousand years that nomadic Romani tribes wandered through Europe." These words reinforce the stereotype of the "gypsy wanderer" and are not accurate in any case (or at least they're misleading). Eastern European Romanies have been settled for hundreds of years. Western European Romanies have a longer nomadic tradition, but they, too, are mostly (or largely) settled nowadays.

I'm also skeptical of the use of a rather racist quote by Emanuel Ringelblum. Is it really necessary or relevant? It may give the wrong impression to readers who do not know much about the Romani people. There is plenty of information otherwise describing the Nazis' motives, so I see no reason why it should be included here. The cost is seemingly greater than the benefit. --Kuaichik 23:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I was under the apparently false impression that the settlement of most Central & Eastern European Roma was forced upon them by 19th & 20th century governments, particularly communists. When & why did this settlement occur? Our History of the Romani people article doesn't even mention it. Can you offer some good sources on this? Thanks. - TheMightyQuill 06:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, for now, I can cite We Are the Romani People for that as well. It says, "In eastern Europe...the [Romani] population has been sedentary for centuries..." I have reproduced the full quote below; it is from a chapter on Romani cuisine and describes the effect of such settlement on this cuisine.

"In eastern Europe, where the population has been sedentary for centuries, the dishes are very much like those eaten by the surrounding non-Romanies; 'Romani tea', for example, is the same as Russian tea, and sarmi, cabbage rolls, are also found in plenty of European ethnic cultures under different names. In western Europe, where Romani groups have been more mobile, choice of diet has for centuries depended upon what was available directly from the land."

Another book by Prof. Hancock called The Pariah Syndrome (available on this page on Patrin) and another page featured on Patrin, suggest that Romanies were enslaved soon after their arrival in eastern Europe. In Western Europe, however, they were generally considered dangerous (they were sometimes mistaken to be Turks, since Western Europeans, unlike Eastern Europeans, usually did not know what Turks looked like). For this reason, they were then ordered to move on. (For the last two sentences, I have once again used We Are the Romani People as a source.) --Kuaichik 02:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Vulgar talk about Romani is widely accepted in our society

People who consider themselves far too cultured to speak vulgarly of "jewing [someone] down" think nothing of talk about "gypping [someone]."

I remember from my childhood watching a Bob Newhart comedy routine on TV, in which Newhart portrays an enterprising bigot looking for a new ethnic group to stigmatize. Someone suggests "gypsies", and Newhart says, "That's no good. They'll just steal your picket signs." Tom129.93.17.135 00:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's because of the huge lack of information. Very few people (including Indians themselves!) know that the Romanies are an ethnic group, just like the Jews, Afro-Americans, etc. Other ethnic groups (such as Jews and Afro-Americans!) have won the strong support of some government(s); Romanies have no such administrative support at all. And so the stereotype remains uninhibited, even among educated non-Romanies. --Kuaichik 02:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, it's probably not so much the lack of information or education, as it is the much higher crime rates among Roma. Especially when it comes to crimes against vulnerable people: Stealing/robbing from elderly, pickpocketing, human trafficking are all crimes with a comparatively huge number of Roma perpetrators, out of proportion with their share of the population.

The Roma propensity/tradition for pulling pre-teen children out of school, and make them beg/pickpocket instead, a phenomenon that anybody who has visited a European (especially Eastern European) city probably have seen first hand, surely also doesn't help.213.83.153.57 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, some groups are still relatively safe targets for slurs and "jokes" that would be unacceptable if directed at Jewish-Americans. Romani are certainly one of them. Judging by the content of American movies and television shows, Germans and Arabs are two of the others. In contrast, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League has a long-established policy of zero tolerance regarding such material when directed at Jews and sets an outstanding example for the organizations that represent other racial, national, ethnic and religious groups. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

The above conversation does not increase the merits of the article, but are pure WP:FORUM.104.169.35.251 (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Timing

I seems a bit strange to put The vast majority of Roma were to suffer the same indignities as the Jews, when the time line in the reference puts the persecution of the Roma as starting earlier than the Jewish persecution.

so I've put it into the correct chronological order as "The vast majority of Jews were to suffer the same indignities as the Roma".

Plus how do you correctly reference an article? Ian Hancock's should be put in http://www.geocities.com/~Patrin/pariah-ch9.htm after all he is one of the foremost Roma spokespersons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Ashley! About the referencing of that article - you did it almost exactly right. It's just that there should only be one space between a URL and its title, no returns. I've fixed the ref for you on the Ian Hancock article :) --Kuaichik (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops. You're talking about adding the reference to this article! LOL, sorry about that!! --Kuaichik (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the reference correction in,Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Porrajmos

My God, are here any Roma? Porrajmos means rape, violation, that's a bad word for genocide of Roma. I can't look at this page. Ian Hancock should learn Romani better! I wonder if he is a real Rom. RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk)

Could it be that it means devouring in some Romani dialects and not others? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I learnt the problem and found out that this word exists only in dialects of Vlax Romani group and have too meanings: "opening" and "rape/violation". Ian Hancock insists (we communicated by email) that he was told this word means "an evil deed" - I just think when he asked for the first time, the man who answered was confused. In Romani press in countries where this word is really used by Roma you can't find this word as a term for genocide, we usually use other words, such as "Gipsy holocaust", "Samudaripen" and "Kali Tras". RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does mean what you say it means. And yes, of course Prof. Ian Hancock is Romani!! And finally, yes, of course he knows that many Romanies would not dare to say that word! Nevertheless, samudaripen is (technically) inconsistent with how words are generally formed in Romani. Kali Traš makes sense, though. --Kuaichik (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"And finally, yes, of course he knows that many Romanies would not dare to say that word" - I know, I have asked him. He doesn't think that's important. But he is not the main representative of Romanies, only one of thousands. The term is not commonly used in a Romani community, so why in Wikipedia we can't use any word that's not an object of discussions or that's not perojative? RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You're free to add other words with references, and if you find references to other words being used in English texts, you can propose a move. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Themightyquill, I'm pretty sure other words are already in the article with references, and RomanyChaj, I think you raise a good question. In fact, now that you mention it, I also think that first sentence should be changed. But first, I think this should be discussed with someone who (I think) would know much more about this than I do. --Kuaichik (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

RomanyChaj, IH is not the only Romani scholar, but he is the most respected worldwide. What you must understand is that whatever word will be used there'll always be people not contented with it. For example you use the word "Gypsy" that most educated Romanies avoid. AKoan (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And that's the reason why this word is used in Wikipedia only in historical or folklore context. Why there is no the same relation to another word that's not good for half of Roma, for "Porajmos"? What's the logic? RomanyChaj-रोमानीछाय (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Roma are as Aryan as the German Nazis

The Roma are descended from Northern Indian whom most share a common ancestor to the Germanic people, The Nazi took pride with there Aryan Ancestors, Most North Indians are Descendents of Aryans and most Roma are North Indian, so the Roma are as Aryan as their Germans cousins. La convivencia (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Which partly explains their 'special interest' in them. RashersTierney (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't take the Nazi classifications too seriously. Unless you need it for a novel or something. 76.118.180.76 (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Title

Since the term is not accepted by everybody (and it has not been proved that it is even accepted by the majority), I think the article should simply be called neutrally "Roma/Romani genocide", as on the Russian wiki, with specific terms being relegated to a separate section. Otherwise, Wikipedia appears to endorse one side in a debate that is not over. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

New category : Depiction in films

I have added a new category covering the subject's depiction in films. _morelMW^illiam 07:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Death rates

Hancock's numbers are wrong for several countries. For instance for France, all historical works (since the 1980's) indicate 250 victims (Denis Peschansk, Les tsiganes en France, 1939-1946, CNRS, 1994 and Emmanuel Filhol, Marie-Christine Hubert, Les Tsiganes en France. Un sort à part, 1939-1946, Perrin, 2009)

i don't get the numbers either. it's hardly credible there would have been only 500 roma in netherlands for example. and populations of roma these days are in the millions. over europe. simon levy guesses the nrs killed are way higher then the article suggests and will never be retrieved. personally i am familiar with the reasoning that goes, h. killed 10 percent of every populace, so on average. what is special? he did not do worse relatively then the average ruler had done, better rather. roma also tended to resist arrest, perhaps that is why the nr's are so vague, i assume resistance was quite lethal if it failed. simon levy at least suggests that quite often roma communities got exterminated in situ.80.57.108.118 (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Belzec Pictures

The various pictures showing Gypsies in Belzec are from 1940. They were gathered in a so-called labor camp. See the credits at USHMM http://digitalassets.ushmm.org/photoarchives/detail.aspx?id=6223&search=belzec&index=20

Spelling

This article uses the spelling with one R rather than two. I've noticed that Ian Hancock uses two Rs. I know that many scholars use one, but these seem to be mostly those who do not speak the Romani language.

Would anyone be able to confirm how the word is spelt by native speakers of Romani? Epa101 (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The orthography we should use is the most current in English, even if it'd be, for example, Pawrhyemos.

Seemingly 'rr' vs 'r' is phonemic in some dialects but merged into /r/ for most of Romani due to its Central/Western/Northern European adstratum. I find it better to use the larger phoneme set for phonemic transcriptions (it seems to have originated in the retroflex set of South Asian languages, so the symbol for a retroflex tap – as we do for the lateral-non-lateral tap-trill[-stop?][-approximant?] alveolar-postalveolar continuum of Japanese – or retroflex approximant is my bet), so this would easily clear up any confusion to those into this subject.

Also, is there a particular reason to the use of Pharrajmos? Is it a word with a floating vowel phoneme, or does it mean a marginal phoneme present in some dialects but not in others? Lguipontes (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Vlax Romani Wikipedia uses "Poraimos", which is how I assume porajmos is pronounced. I've seen the camel-case spelling "rRomanes", maybe as a compromise over the single vs double ar? — kwami (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I'd assume both to be the case, too. Romani reflects the orthographies of neighboring languages and I've never heard/read that Balkanic languages had really complex orthographies (their alphabets seem simpler than, say, Portuguese) or excessive relics of old morphologies complicating it and pronunciation (like, say, French). Also, do you think that solely retroflex tap to describe the rhotic is the more appropriate one? By Romani people (that I checked again after fixing the IPA of the article) seems to indicate that uvular trill is dominant. Perhaps we should use two transcriptions, the first with a retroflex symbol and the other with a trill (a uvular or long alveolar one), idk.

I'd also want to know where we are supposed to put a stress mark, either the explanation on the article or the source on Romani language were read by my brain shortly as "unpredictable; too complex", anyone you know has knowledge in Romani for this? Lguipontes (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Neologism

As the article is perfeclty aware that the term was coined in the 1990s and is rejected by some Romani, why on earth was it chosen as article title? WP:NAME is clear enough, use the most commonly used term, which would presumably be "Roma holocaust". Don't try to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to push your preferred terminology. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The term may be relatively new, but it has gained rapid academic acceptance. See Google scholar Porajmos 202 hits, Google scholar "Roma holocaust" 194 hits, Google books Porajmos 796 hits, Google books "Roma holocaust" 688 hits. RashersTierney (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I know I'm getting in late on this discussion, but what I see is that there are several different terms to refer to the Nazi genocide of the Roma. We've got something descriptive like "Roma holocaust" or "Roma genocide", there is "Samudaripen" which is the word commonly used by Romani groups that were the primary targets of the genocide, and we've got "Porajmos" which is in fact offensive to many Roma who were the victims of the genocide. The google scholar search shows Porajmos is slightly more commonly used than the other terms, but since all the terms are relatively new, and infrequently used (218 hits is the highest), any one is really a valid word for the genocide. So why do we use the term that is offensive to some of its victims? One professor comes up with a term using a Romani word with a definition he thinks fits, doesn't realize it is offensive to some, and goes with it. Later hen says that the word actually used by Roma to describe the genocide isn't a good word because it doesn't follow the proper structure of the language. Since Samudaripen is actually being used, it is irrelevant whether it was 'properly formed'.

I don't think wikipedia should censor itself, but when you have several equally valid titles for an article, I think it is a poor choice to pick the term offensive to some of the victims. It seems like the best title for this article should be "Roma genocide" or "Roma holocaust" with "Samudaripen" being a good second choice if we feel like we need a specific term rather than a descriptive title, but "Porajmos" should be relegated to mention as a term coined by one professor to describe the event.Dworjan (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be extremely wary of claims on things "rapidly gaining acceptance" and the like. Wikipedia is very often used as a tool by people who desire some term to "gain acceptance". Ian Hancock an d his views, theories, terminology and so on is all over Wikipedia. You would think that nobody else has anything to say about the Romani. I don't know if Hancock himself is pushing this, or if he just has devout followers, but the thing is that Hancock speaks neither for the Romani nor for academia, he is just one author and he doesn't get to decide what things are called. If his term becomes standard without our help, fine, we can say as much after it has become standard, based on authors other than Hancock, because, let's face it, if something is "standard" you will not need to keep harping on a single scholar's publications and opinions.

It also doesn't help putting Hancock in WP:RS territory that the man is trying to fill the double role of Romani scholar and Romani political activist. Half of the time it isn't clear whether he is (a) stating an objective fact, (b) trying to push some political agenda or (c) just letting the public participate in his personal meditations on his ethnic background. It is up to him to decide to mix up research and political activism, but for our purposes this means that he cannot be treated as a regular academic source, he is to be treated as a primary source with an specific agenda. --dab (𒁳) 07:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how to propose to rename a wikipedia page? Because I would wholeheartedly support a rename to "Romani genocide". Porajmos isn't a widely used term, and it is considered offensive by some of the victims. I think your rewrite of the lede is spot on. It organizes the descriptors for the genocide in descending order of use. Now all that needs to be done is change the article title to match. Dworjan (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

previous attempts at ethnic cleansing?

I was wondering if the fact that their have been previous attempts at ethnic cleansing of the Romani had takin place in Germany, specificaly with Charles VI and Joseph I both ordering all Gypsy males killed and Charles VI going further, "Charles VI amended the decree to include the execution of adult female Romani, while children were "to be put in hospitals for education"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.158.249.116 (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

deleted images

Before in this article there was images like [1],[2],[3], so ehat happened,why they are not exist now? --78.189.170.134 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandals

The page has been vandalized. Please take action. Carlotm (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandals 2

A vandalism, similar to the preceding, is taking place. Act please. Carlotm (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Porajmos. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/~Patrin/lewy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Porajmos be considered part of the Holocaust?

It's the same bunch of offenders (the Nazis) killing the Romani at the same time as the Jews. Thus, since it's really the same group of people killing both groups of people at one time, the two are really parts of the same genocide. 2601:84:8A01:35D9:A80D:7A4A:24FD:1D82 (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No. While your logic seems fine on the surface, please see the article on The Holocaust for the reasoning. 104.169.35.251 (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Porajmos. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://dosta.org/?q=node%2F37
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/~Patrin/lewy.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716212852/http://www.geschichtswerkstatt-europa.org/expired-project-details/items/porajmos.html to http://www.geschichtswerkstatt-europa.org/expired-project-details/items/porajmos.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. 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).

• 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) 06:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Rename

As an uninformed reader, the word "Porajmos" means nothing to me, while alternatives proposed in previous threads are descriptive. Although by itself "Porajmos" may have more hits than some of the alternatives, searching "(Roma |Romani) (genocide |Holocaust)" got more results because the descriptive alternatives are split over exact wording. I think that "Romani genocide" is the best alternative because it sidesteps the controversy over what is included in the Holocaust. If it is indeed true as prior commentators suggested that some Romani people object to the term "Porajmos" that is an additional reason to change. While it's true that Wikipedia is not censored, we should avoid offensive terms where possible. Catrìona (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

1.5 million, seriously?

Can the death toll of 1.5 milliondescribed by Ian Hancock be trusted? The United States Holocaust museum say there were less than 1 million gypsies in Europe by the time WW2 started, and they give themselves figures that to me look highly inflated, like the figure saying that 90% of the Yugoslav Roma population got killed (meaning 10k left), knowing that there were at least 53k Romas living in Serbia alone according to the 1948 SFRJ population census.

What I'm trying to say is: Is that figure credible enough to be even mentioned? Because it seems statistically innacurate and highly overinflating the amount of victims. --Spafky (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

About the "citation needed"

Just to clarify, the section with the "citation needed" tag on it was translated from the German Wikipedia. Pink Saffron (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)