Talk:Romani people in Croatia

SEVEN percent?

anyone who keeps writing this, STOP, there are no more than 40.000 acording to Roma people in Croatia, let's add x2 but not x8! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.155.84 (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"advocacy groups estimate that there are 250,000 to 300,000 because many Roma simply don't bother to register. Also, there are a considerable number of Roma refugees in Croatia from the ethnic conflict in Bosnia." See here.--Olahus (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

EVEN ROMA PEOPLE IN CROATIA tells there are 40.000 people. estimalations are oversized! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.68.200 (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

STOP with "seven" PERCENT!

that is huge percentage BASED only by some link with no significance! I live in Croatia, there are very few Roma in Istria, some in Zagreb, few thousands in Zagorje, almost none in Slavonia and Dalmatia!

so SEVEN percent would mean that in some regions there are 40% Roma. please don't "correct" it anymore, here are some good links, with correct number:

> http://www.geografija.hr/clanci/523/od-cigana-do-roma-primjer-problema-nacionalnih-manjina-u-hrvatskoj

> http://www.voanews.com/croatian/news/Hrvatska-Romi-90290722.html

note this: "U vladinom Uredu za nacionalne manjine procjenjuju da u Hrvatskoj živi između 30.000 i 40.000 Roma. Saborski zastupnik romske manjine Nazif Memedi procjenjuje, međutim, da Roma u Hrvatskoj ima i više od 40.000. Mnogi Romi u Hrvatskoj deklariraju se kao Makedonci ili Albanci, ovisno o državi iz koje su doselili."

translate: "In Government's Offices for National minorities there is estimation there are between 30 000 and 40 000 Roma people. Roma's MP Nazif Memedi estimates, however, there are more than 40 000 Roma people. Many Roma declare themselves as Macedonian or Albanian, depends where they come from."

__________

To conclude, for small country as Croatia is, 300 000 is VERY big number, and it would be significant even in Italy or UK. Here, its near 7% or every 14th Croatian. So, that is, trust me, oversized estimation, very incorrect and may give someone wrong image of Croatia.

I don't dislike Roma people, but I like Croatians more. When you tell there are 300 000 of them, you automaticlly decrese number of Croats. I am Croat, not Roma, not Serb, not German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.61.13 (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The information you removed was referenced to a 2003 RefWorld UNHCR source, usually considered reliable in matters of such statistics. However, they appear to have revised their estimate stating "Unofficial estimates place the Roma population at 30,000-40,000, with some up to 60,000" at this 2008 source. I'll amend the statistical estimates and ref accordingly unless anyone objects. RashersTierney (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

300.000? and there are only 10 000 declared. --Sokac121 (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

According to this document (in Croatian) by UNDP Croatia, the 30-40 thousand estimate is accepted by the Government of Croatia, Croatian Roma NGOs, and international organizations. Given this statement, the 300 thousand estimate appears to be grossly inaccurate. Therefore, I'm being bold and removing it from the article. GregorB (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

More or less the same applies to Sinte Romani estimate (131 thousand?!), so I've removed it too. GregorB (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

30-40 thousand of real number. Well you did GregorB.--Sokac121 (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Gregoir, the original text was: "The highest estimation is 300,000. Also, they are 131,000 Sinte living in the country. A considerable number of Roma refugees in Croatia from the ethnic conflict in Bosnia." So, they are also other sources for the number of 300,000. Besides, you deleted the data from Ethnologue. --Olahus (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What are refugees? In Croatia there are no refugees. (unhcr December 2003) --Sokac121 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Romani of Croatia → Romani people in Croatia – All of the articles about Romani people by country are formatted "Romani people in country" except for this one. There is no reason for this article title to diverge from all of the others. Even the main article is called Romani people and not simply "Romani". In addition, our naming conventions for ethnicities recommends the title format "Ethnic group in country" by providing the example of Aboriginal peoples in Canada as a good article title; replacing the word "in" with the word "of" is inconsistent with standard practice. For the sake of consistency, this article should be moved to Romani people in Croatia. Neelix (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

As I already wrote in the edit summary after your earlier move, all of the articles about autochthonous ethnicities in Croatia are formatted "<People> of Croatia", the use of "of" signifies that. Why is the word "people" necessary? What else could the readers think of when you say "Romani of Croatia"? There is no such language variant or anything like that. Besides, what was really wrong with the earlier title of the article, "Roma of Croatia"? The whole thing with Romani vs. Roma seems to be a case of you going around violating WP:NOTBROKEN, because Names of the Romani people says the group in Croatia is indeed called "Roma". The word "Roma" precisely and concisely identifies the group, and it matches the word used in the official translation of the Constitution of Croatia, so it's unclear why we should use the more generic term instead. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The format "<People> of Croatia" is less consistent with standard naming practice than "<People> in Croatia", as I indicate above; it would be better if "of" was switched to "in" for the titles of all of the articles about autochthonous ethnicities in Croatia. There is no reason to omit the word "people", and there are two good reasons to include it: 1) Wikipedia naming conventions on ethnicities states that including the word "people" is preferred, and 2) including the word "people" is consistent with all of the other articles about Romani people by country. WP:NOTBROKEN is a guideline about redirects, not article titles. Furthermore, "Romani" is not the more generic term; the fact that Roma is often erroneously believed to be a subgroup of Romani is a good reason to use the more reliably understood term in this article title. "Romani" and "Roma" are synonyms, and there is no reason for this article title to differ from all of the others. Neelix (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Almost all the other ethnicities in this area don't use the word "people". Croats, Serbs, Hungarian people, Czechs, Slovaks, Italians, Bulgarians etc etc. The reference to the redirect guideline is what you've been doing in the article texts - substituting one synonym for another for no obvious reason. Here you're doing the same in the title. The article Names_of_the_Romani_people#English_usage says fairly clearly: Although Romá is used as a designation for the branch of the Romani people with historic concentrations in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, it is increasingly encountered during recent decades[3][4] as a generic term for the Romani people as a whole.[5] Is this somehow wrong, and if so, why aren't you fixing that there first? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place to have a discussion about article body text formatting; this is a move discussion. If you take exception to my edits, you may initiate a discussion on the relevant article talk page. Thank you for pointing out the misinformation at Names of the Romani people; I have located the sources and changed the information in the article to be consistent with those sources. If you believe that "people" should not be included in this article title, you are free to request that Romani people be moved to Romani, but either way, this article title should be consistent with the main article title; if the main article is called Romani people, this article should be called Romani people in Croatia because a difference could be mistaken as being substantive. Neelix (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this still doesn't make sense. You've changed the text there, but that modification doesn't alter the rationale for the topic at hand. The Romani people in Croatia do call themselves Roma, and are called so by our sources. Article titles should not be glaringly inconsistent with articles themselves. I still don't see an explanation for your preference for consistency between the different Romani article titles as opposed to preferring consistency of this article title with the reliable sources in this Romani article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The title "Romani people in Croatia" is consistent with this article; there are plenty of sources that refer to the Romani people of Croatia as such, as a Google Books search quickly demonstrates. Neelix (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Of the English-language sources in the article right now, only one doesn't use the form "Roma", and that one uses "Romanies". To be able to claim that the reality is wholly different than that, you really need to demonstrate some reliable sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Neelix (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of the books you referenced actually also use the term Roma, often interchangeably, or using "Romani" for the language and "Roma" for the people, so it's hard to make conclusions about the topic based on this sample.

Indeed, this prompted me to do a few Google Books searches:

• "Romani people" Croatia -wikipedia -"Books, LLC": "About 87 results"
• "Roma people" Croatia -wikipedia -"Books, LLC": "About 381 results"
• "Romani people" Croatia Roma -Roman -wikipedia -"Books, LLC": "About 43 results"
• "Roma people" Croatia Romani -Roman -wikipedia -"Books, LLC": "About 47 results"
• "Romani people" Croatia -Roma -Roman -wikipedia -"Books, LLC": "About 35 results"
• "Roma people" Croatia -Romani -Roman -wikipedia -"Books, LLC": "About 299 results"
• Romani people Croatia -Roma -Roman -wikipedia -"Books, LLC": "About 645 results"
• Roma people Croatia -Romani -Roman -wikipedia -"Books, LLC": "About 406 results"

Based on this, which may or may not be a perfectly appropriate metric, but still, it just doesn't seem like there's a noticeable preference to use the term "Romani" over "Roma" in the relevant literature. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What the results above demonstrate is that the literature demonstrates that "Romani people in Croatia" is a valid title to use for this article. We are not debating whether "Roma" or "Romani" should be used in the article title; "Romani" appears both in the current article title and the proposed one. The current title is inconsistent with all of the other articles about Romani people by country, and is more importantly inconsistent with the main Romani people article, so "Romani people in Croatia" should be adopted instead. Neelix (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Err, sorry, but that's a rather inappropriate reading of article title policy. When there's a change proposed and a lack of consensus, the starting point in the discussion isn't any intermediate state (such as the one that I created here while trying to be accomodating to your idea [7]), but is instead the old consensus: "Roma of Croatia" since 2011, and before then both older titles used "Roma" since 2009, [8] [9]. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I had not realized that you were arguing that the title should be moved back to Roma of Croatia. Nonetheless, I have already presented a variety of reasons why Romani people in Croatia is a better title to employ in this instance. Neelix (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support per nom; the article on this group is at Romani people, and subtopics should conform to that. bd2412 T 16:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

But you don't care for the in vs of? And what about the other inconsistencies? Should we move Hungarians in Croatia just because its 'parent' is at Hungarian people? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I would support that move. Neelix (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime I started a discussion about the latter inconsistency at the talk page over there - it doesn't appear that it's the result of a well thought out process. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support per the naming conventions for ethnic groups. BD2412 also makes a good point. Neljack (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

But you also don't care for the in vs of? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 12 January 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Romani people in Croatia → Romani people of Croatia – I realize this comes very soon after the previous discussion, and very soon after I committed what was judged as a procedural blunder by at least two other editors. I'm sorry for causing all this wasted time. I talked to the previous RM closer, and they instructed me to do this nevertheless, so please hear me out.

The Croatian constitution relatively recently recognized most minorities' autochthonous status. I've used the phrase "<People> of Croatia" in the article titles for these minorities to explicate that - they're not just a group of people that happen to be located in Croatia, they're a characteristic of the country in a way. (I thought this would be reasonably obvious, but it appears that it is not. Perhaps it's too subtle - suggestions welcome.)

Right now, after the last move, the Roma article is the exception, and it looks like the Roma have been demoted back to the lower status. In a way, this would actually mimic the real-world marginalized status of Roma. Yet, it would be supremely depressing for Wikipedia of all places to perpetuate that. And virtually by accident - because a fairly small group of editors had a meandering discussion that happened to be interpreted in some way (does people's silence on a topic constitute a lack of interest, a lack of willingness to reconsider, or a lack of reason to disagree, or something else entirely?).

So I'm pleading for us to compromise: to keep the first noun phrase consistent among the group of Romani people articles, while keeping the preposition consistent among the group of Croatian autochthonous minority articles. Joy [shallot] (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose - Using the prepostition "in" rather than "of" does not indicate a lower status or marginalization. It is standard practice to use the preposition "in" for article titles discussing ethnic groups in particular countries. The title for this article is now consistent with those of articles about ethnic groups other countries; it is not this article that should be moved, but rather the rest of the articles about ethnic groups in Croatia. Neelix (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There is far less title consistency on ethnic group articles than you are relying on in your argument here. Different groups have different migration histories and different relations both to the rest of their country's society and to members of the same/related ethnic groups in other countries. Unsurprisingly, even for the same ethnic group across different countries, or for different groups within the same country, there is a wide variety of name patterns used in the literature, and Wikipedia titles reflect that: Chinese American vs British Chinese vs Sino-Mauritian vs Hoa people, Koreans in the Philippines vs. Sakhalin Koreans vs. Koryo-saram vs. Korean American, British Nigerian vs Black British vs. Ugandan migration to the United Kingdom, Albanians of Romania vs. Albanians in Montenegro, etc. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - I am rather indifferent about the preposition "in" vs. "of" here. While it is true that some minorities have a somewhat different legally regulated status and rights than others within their domicile countries (e.g. Croatia explicitly recognizes 22 non-Croat groups in its Constitution, while Bosnia's legislation effectively only recognizes its three "constitutional nations" basically barring all others from holding public office) this does not necessarily need to be reflected in article titles. One reason is that we can't really expect our readers to understand the logic behind our choice of prepositions in titles, and the other is that such legislation is subject to change (in fact it is very likely that in this particular case it would change some time in the foreseeable future since this kind of explicit legal distinction between ethnic Croats and all others - albeit almost meaningless in practice - is a very 19th-century definition of what a nation state is). One could debate this to death, but the fact of the matter is that this article, and others like it, simply talk about ethnic group X which is defined by their members living in country Y. The group's legal status can and should be mentioned in article body, but I don't think it needs to be reflected in article titles per se. Timbouctou (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

So would you move all other Croatian minority articles to "in"? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I would not oppose such a move but to be honest the adjective+noun form (like for example German Jews or Croatian Australian or hypothetically "Croatian Romani people" sounds much more natural to me in English than both of the alternative forms which use prepositions (e.g. "Jews of/in Germany" or "Croats of/in Australia" or "Romani (people) of/in Croatia". This was already debated at length at Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the failed move proposal to move it to Bosnian Croats. Timbouctou (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reluctant oppose I see the nominator's point about the difference "in" vs "of". Others here do not. But all that is irrelevant WP:OR anyway: we are a bunch of random internet users and our opinions on the semantics of different prepositions, not to mention what titles some other random internet users chose to give to other Wikipedia articles, hold no weight.

What matters here is WP:COMMONNAME: how published scholars choose to refer to this topic. Wikipedia reflects the real world rather than advocating to change it. And in this topic area, we see that published scholars are insensitive to the nominator's and my concerns, and nearly universally use "in" rather than "of": e.g. "Roma of Croatia" gets 3 GBooks hits vs. "Roma in Croatia" which gets several dozen, for example. (Incidentally, against all those dozens GBooks hits for the exact phrase "Roma in Croatia", there are quite few either for "Romani in Croatia" or "Romani people in Croatia" [10][11]). 61.10.165.33 (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

So would you move all other Croatian minority articles to "in"? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose all mass-move requests aimed at standardising titles across large numbers of different ethnic group articles. Whether each article uses "in" or "of" or some other format entirely should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Romani people in Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120405110953/http://www.vlada.hr/nacionalniprogramromi/content/view/13/26/lang,english/ to http://www.vlada.hr/nacionalniprogramromi/content/view/13/26/lang,english/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120405111018/http://www.vlada.hr/nacionalniprogramromi/content/view/14/27/lang,english/ to http://www.vlada.hr/nacionalniprogramromi/content/view/14/27/lang,english/

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} 00:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)