Jump to content

Talk:Irish Travellers

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.153.161.212 (talk) at 13:06, 25 August 2022 (→Anti-Romanyism in the article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2018 and 31 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DaniMcGonigal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derogatory terms in lede

Thread retitled from "Overview".

Do you really want to start an article about a certain people with a list of derogatory names? That might better be placed in a less prominent part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.178.79 (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed these derogatory comments, which are totally inappropriate and irrelevant for an overview. Would anyone consider using similar racist terms in articles on (say) African-Americans? There is adequate discussion in the "Cultural suspicion and conflict" section of the article.Simonc1 (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove the names associated with Irish travellers. The names are a fact and why pretend they don't exist?

To the people above, please stop trying to repress people and control what they can and can't say. It is not your place to take offence about an article that is written for informative value only. Therefore it is ridiculous that you decide to take a negative personal view. Lunawik (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a few years since someone has raised the topic, but perhaps the passage of a few years would have more people, like me, who are offended by the organization of information in this article. It broke my concentration to wonder about the motives of the writer(s) of this section. I disagree that one of the most important features of these people is the derogatory names by which they have been burdened with. Although pertinent to a subset of the people curious about this topic, it should not be featured so prominently. Hence, I edit.Ststeve11 (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Pavee" etymology

Does someone round here know a probable — if not proven — etymology for the name Pavee? It seems quite hard to find a reliable source. I would very like get this info as I'm trying to launch a big cleanup in the French article about the Rromané Chavé, which has more to do with a fair (may I say a mess…?) where everything can be found but few reliable and genuine points. Many thanks forward to you all. — Іван Коренюк ψ Ivan Korenyuk 19:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a film titled Pavee Lackeen (means: Irish traveller girl - Pavee = Irish Traveler & Lackeen = girl). Surely this in itself is sufficient evidence if not the many books written by or about real Irish travelers.
The other word many also use is Nidi (pronounced as Needi or as Neddi). This word I believe just means traveler in their language but I am unsure of this. I am from a Romani family and we often have to live alongside them and have much interaction with them so I can assure you that I am experience by first hand information and not just relying on other sources I know nothing about. 77.96.252.34 (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could have something to do with the paving scams they commit. That is a widespread impression anyway.2A00:C1A0:489E:9600:4811:2FA:E7A8:9701 (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Likely a false etymology. The earliest reference I could find online was to Pavee Point that was founded in 1983 although initially it was called "Dublin Travellers' Education and Development Group". They published "Pavee Pictures" by Derek Speirs in 1991. A book review from 1992 of said book is here and mentions that "Pavee" is a Traveller term for themselves. The review cites that information from DTEDG Euro-focus published in 1990. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Section

The Reference section of this page needs to be cleaned up from reference number 7 on. AJseagull1 (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic group?

Would'nt they be better classified as a cultural group? After all, they are geneticly indistingusible from the rest of the Irish population. Fergananim (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you wouldnt say indistinguisible if you seen them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.135.111 (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Genetics != ethnicity. Although yes, the Irish Travellers are a marginal case when classifying as an "ethnicity", but not because of genetics. --86.135.81.174 (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no races, then cultural ethnicity is a matter of personal behaviour(s) and therefore of personal choice. If I always eat my ice-cream cone from the side, and not from the top, does that make me culturally unique (yes, sort of)? ..and therefore a unique ethnic group (er, no). Ethnicity is a make-work scheme for academics to categorise us all into.86.46.207.32 (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Race and ethnicity are not the same thing - attend any 101 Anthropology course at a university and its one of the first things you will be taught. Neither does it follow that ethnicity if purely a matter of personal choice, although elective ethnicity is a common question (are you Welsh/Scottish/English or British/European) to take an example where there is useful material available. I don't see any argument or reference above and without that there is no case to make any change to the article. --Snowded TALK 11:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnicity is not race, it is your culture. The Tinkers, although Irish, have their own distinct culture and even their own separate language within Ireland, and so are certainly a distinct ethnic group.
The way I am describing ethnicity is the same definition used in the fields of sociology and anthropology.
98.245.150.162 (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK definition of gypsy

Thread retitled from "Gypsies".

This sentence: "Irish Travellers are sometimes referred to as Gypsies in Ireland and in Britain (the term more accurately refers to the Roma people, represented in Britain by the Romanichal and Kale). " is false.

Depending on the legal definition used in the UK, gypsy is the correct term for all itinerant people who do not live in a group of travelling entertainers. It is complicated because there are several laws involved and in some legal situations gypsy can mean Romani, this source (Richard Jones, Gnanapala Welhengama, Ethnic minorities in English law, Trentham Books, 2000 ISBN 1858561388, 9781858561387. pp. 44-50,57) has a detailed summary of the position under English Law which explains this clearly. On page 57 there is a footnote which explains one of the main legal definitions: "... Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 ... s.80(2)(b) which states that '...gypsies means persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen, or persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling together as such'" --PBS (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell a Romani Gypsy that, is all I'm saying, and definitely don't ever call an Irish traveller a gyspy to his face. PBS talk 18:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Barrister Ying Hui Tan, in 1994 Lord Justice Brian Neill, a Court of Appeal judge, "said that it was clear that the statutory definition of 'gypsies' was wider and looser than the meaning of 'gypsies' in its traditional sense."[1] The law discussed was section 16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Tan wrote in June 1994.
Section 16 was repealed months later, in November, by section 80 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which inserted text into section 24(8) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. The spelling of the term in these laws is ⟨gipsies⟩.
Tan wrote that the concept "nomadic habit of life" in section 16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (also used in section 80 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) was about movement with "some recognisable connection" to "purposive activities including work." She wrote that individuals "without any connection between the movement and their means of livelihood fell outside the statutory definitions."
This seems to classify individuals in the UK as ⟨gipsies⟩ by what they do and not who they are. Section 80 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is current law in May 2016.

References

  1. ^ Tan, Ying Hui (1994-06-14). "Law report: local authorities applied right definition that gypsies travel to find work as 'habit of life': Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Neill, Lord Justice Leggatt and Lord Justice Millett), 27 May 1994". independent.co.uk. London: Independent Digital News & Media. Archived from the original on 2016-05-19. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buffer

Great slang word. Needs ref here. Defined in Hare-um Scare-um article without ref. Needs its own article? Books google had a couple good refs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we're having trouble getting references as things stand, the likelihood of getting it beyond 'dictionary definition' status is pretty slim. From personal experience though, it is a term that's widely applied by Travellers. RashersTierney (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure if this is a acceptable source for wiki but here is a Irish Traveller/Pavee bloggers post on the word: http://barefootpavee.blogspot.com/2011/02/cantshelta-word-buffer.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.166.104 (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Buffer is gammon/cant, equal to the N word used as an insult for settled communities. Shades = police.[reply]

ethnicicy all aload of rubbish!

on the front line, someone brought up that a group of settled ppeople and a group of traveller people had there blood tested and the dna was the same! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.11.164 (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be Human DNA then... --HighKing (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the reference source The traveller-gypsies By Judith Okely that reliable?

I just changed a quote from the source The traveller-gypsies By Judith Okely and to be fair what I’ve read is a jumbled mess. The book uses the term “Irish Traveller” or twice as an example on page 66 but is referenced in this wiki article. It uses the Romani term for a non-gypsy multiple times and is a confusing read even to people like myself as it confuses different groups both Romani and non-Romani. Most importantly it uses the term “Traveller” without distinguishing between the various types of Traveller. For instance Scottish Travellers/Gypsies, Irish Travellers and Showmen Travellers are all lumped together yes they call themselves Travellers per se but they don’t all have the same customs, language or culture. This leads to confusion especially as the term in p66 for a non Gypsy or Traveller. Showmen use the term “flattie”, “Scottish Travellers use the Romani term” if they are romaine’s and the Irish Traveller term in shielta is “buffer” for a non-Irish Traveller. To say that all Travellers use the term “Flattie” would be wrong, it’s a Showman word that originated in the 19th century for people who lived on a flat bottomed boats or barges who were not part of the later Showman’s Guild. This reference is not one of the best and would confuse those who try to build this article by confusing terms, peoples, dialects, languages and cultures of the different Travelling ethnic minorities.Uthican (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too have been a bit concerned about terminology since this source appeared in the article. Will take a closer look when time permits, hopefully later today. Would welcome others' comments. RashersTierney (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having at this stage read quite a portion of Okely's book, I have to admit to finding it interesting (though I have a sociologists natural scepticism of anthropology). There is a difficulty however in the way terminology has been plucked from that source and introduced into this article, giving rise to ambiguous attribution regarding terms and their general use, or not, by the 'groups' in question. This is not a criticism on my part of Okely's underlying thesis (which is very much open to debate) that these groups may not be as distinct socially, linguistically or 'racially' as often presented. The problem is not I believe with Okely as a source per se, but in the loss of context with some paraphrasing recently introduced by an inexperienced editor. Having said that, I imagine there are several academic critiques of Okely's proposition if that is what you wish to examine. Here is one reference to the underlying division. RashersTierney (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree the Oakley book is riddled with inconsistencies and confuses the whole subject of gypsies and Traveller groups from the British Isles. I have to disagree with your comment “these groups may not be as distinct socially, linguistically or 'racially' as often presented” I am actually an English Romani and can say we are different and do not consider ourselves as Irish or having a shared race, or culture with Irish Travellers. Irish Travellers speak a dialect of English/Irish/gammon Creole I have no idea what they say, yes I have heard their language but its not romanies or related to our dialect. Culturally they don’t even have the purity codes romanies as I have (called merhime by the Roma) and my family/group have this in common with other European groups like the Roma as well as the language (although it’s now sadly a creole). We are not the same, as Irish Travellers, I don’t mean that in a discriminatory fashion but will say they have taken on similar aspects as British gypsies using the gypsy vardo, but that does not make them the same group. I also have family that have married into the Showman again another ethic group that although does speak some romanies they are not culturally, socially or linguistically the same group as us gypsies or the Irish Travellers. If there is any similarity between English/British gypsies and Irish Travellers it’s been adopted by the Irish Travellers I cant think of any aspect of Irish Traveller culture in my ethnic group. We don’t speak Gammon or have Irish words Just look at the uproar My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding opened when it portrayed Irish Travellers as being gypsies and having a shared one "ethnic label fits all" thrust on us by the media. Many British gypsies were offended by that because it creates confusion in the general public and is inaccurate. Back to the Oakley book it is confusing and isn’t really an effective consistent tool to show you or other people what the various groups are it even doesn’t distinguish between Scottish gypsy/Travellers and or Irish Travellers and Showmen. Also to think showmen use the term gorgio in any way is also inacurate and the Irish Gammon for a non Traveller is a "buffer" which again is also different.Uthican (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over-emphasis on language.

I think this article has far too much emphasis on the Travellers' use of a separate language. It's mentioned in the lead, and may give the wrong impression that large numbers of Travellers go around speaking a totally different language. This is not the case. The section on Language states - Irish Travellers speak Shelta - again giving the wrong impression that it is widespread. The Shelta article states usage at c6000 in Ireland, but that is out of a population of 22,000 Travellers.

It should be rewritten to show that usage is not widespread, and that the Shelta is a creole and not a completely different language..--Dmol (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the bit about language in the intro (before seeing your comment). Gronky (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The intro said that Travellers speak a separate language, but that's patently false.
In documentaries and reality shows about them, they speak English. In videos that they make on youtube, with other Traveller families as the target audience (as part of feuds), they speak nothing but English.
They also go to school, like everyone else, and there are no Shelta or Cant speaking schools. They go to English speaking schools. Gronky (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to source those sort of statements. Without a reference it doesn't count in wikipedia. I referenced the policies in your comment on my talk page. ----Snowded TALK 02:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. You're adding nonsense to the article. Instead of digging up policies to support your harmful actions, please help Wikipedia - either by adding a source or by just abstaining to add nonsense. Thanks for making Wikipedia an obnoxious place. This is why Wikipedia is losing contributors. Gronky (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the wording that states the travellers speak a different language to the rest of the population as it is clearly inaccurate and gives undue weight to a minority language of a minority people.--Dmol (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I have replaced the original wording prior to this edit war. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Thank you Dmol, for your posting on my Talk page.
What you say here is fine, but I think the statement that they do maintain a sep. lang. cannot be disputed and should be included in what is, after all, a pathetically short Lead.
Sincerely,
-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the intro, and it seems like a good compromise. It accepts the existance of their language difference, but points out that they don't all speak it nor is it commonly used.--Dmol (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Cant is not derived from Romanies

I reverted an edit claiming that Irish cant is derived from Romanies. I am a speaker of Scottish cant and English Romanies and I cant understand a word of the Irish cant its just not the same. On further investigation Romani publications state the same.

Das Dumas Romanies by Ronald lee p268/9 states; "Irish Traveller cant is not a Para-Romani register the speakers call it Cammon or Cant I have heard it spoken and find it totally incomprehensible.]. . .[[There are sounds in Irish Cant not found in English or Romani."

While Irish Traveller's do understand some Romanies or Scottish Cant they are so different to Irish Cant, to say it derives from Romanies is 100% misleading. I can see how the editor mixed up Scottish cant and the word "Cant" in an Irish context. If anything Irish Cant shares its origins from a Gaelic based language like the Indigenous Highland Traveller Beurla Reagaird but then again these two languages are incomprehensible with each other as well. Uthican (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Gammoon is C12th Irish spoken badly.[reply]

Irish Travellers more than just one group?

Looking at the Irish Traveller page I realized that there is no inclusion of Irish Showmen. This may lead the reader to think all people who identify themselves as Irish and or Travellers as Pavee. On the Scottish Traveller page there is a breakdown of the various groups who partially live or historically live within Scotland, including newer arrivals like Irish Pavee and continental Roma. The Irish Traveller page just seems to focus on the wider Pavee community and says very little about the Irish Showmen (Occupational Travellers). Irish Showmen identify with the "Traveller" label but are not Pavee or speak Sheilta/Gammon in the sense that British Showmen (English, Scottish, Welsh) Showmen call themselves Travellers. But are as distinct as British Romanies are from other British and Irish Travelling groups. For balance would a short paragraph on the Traveller page (including non Pavee groups in Ireland like the Irish Showmen) would be appropriate as with the Scottish Travellers page? It would cause less confusion to what different groups call themselves within the wider Travelling peoples of Ireland.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uthican (talk • contribs) 05:56, 29 May 2012

Irish Travellers are considered a distinct group, whether a social group or ethnic group is a matter of opinion/dispute. Your statement "Irish Showmen identify with the "Traveller" label" would require references to reliable sources; it is not a claim I've ever heard before. The travelling 'fit-up' companies (see also From fitups to Hollywood, and RTÉ radio documentary on the era of travelling theatres) of former times likewise did not identify with the Travellers/Tinkers afaik. Circus families such as Fossett's and Duffy's likewise have no close connections. The 'lumping together' of these traditionally mobile groups and the conflation of 'Gypsies' and 'Showmen' seems to fit more with American culture, but I am not aware of an equivalent in Ireland. Also, Romani people is linked at 'See also'. RashersTierney (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Irish Showmen usually are members of both Showman's Guild of Great Britain, Showman's Guild of Ireland as seen in the Cullens[[1]] and are part of the wider Showman community. They are interlinked have the same Parliee argot and group ties. An Irish showman can readily come to the UK and set up a fair and vice-versa if they are members of the relevant Showman’s Guilds. Showmen for the most part prefer to use the term Traveller in private to describe themselves and to the outsiders as Showmen, Fairground Travellers or Occupational Travellers here.[[2]] I also recall that Irish Pavee were given the label Traveller in the 1950s to distinguish them from British Gypsy/Travellers. So with the Showmans guild pre-dating the partition the Showmen would have referred to themselves as Travellers well before the Pavee had the label thrust on them.
I am a Romani but have an aunt who married a Showman and lives in that Travelling community they use the term frequently in the Scottish, English, Northern Irish and Welsh sections of the Showman’s Guild. [[3]] In fact the children growing up would actually go as far as to say I wasn’t a Traveller (i.e. a Showman Traveller), they pretty much claimed the word as a marker for their own group and called all other Travelling/Gypsy groups a different name. They even call Showmen who have settled down Flattie-Travellers (settled-Showman) the following book quotes this usage of Traveller [[4]] So it wouldn’t be a stretch of the imagination to for Irish Showmen to identify as a “Traveller” just as other non-Romani groups like the Pavee do.
I never suggested or would say Irish Showmen have close connections to the Pavee Travellers, more they will identify with the “Traveller” label just as Showmen in other parts of these islands do. After all the title Traveller can indicate a wide variety of unrelated groups so why not Showmen? When they are members of the same Showman organizations in Britain and Ireland and culturally are very similar they dont say a lot to the outside community they are Travellers but they do identify with that label at least in private. Uthican (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with Showman (which I notice as yet doesn't have an entry on Irish showmen), being linked at the 'See also' section, . New Age travellers could similarly be linked there. RashersTierney (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've tentatively started an Ireland section at Showman. RashersTierney (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distinct ethnic identity

What is the evidence for the "distinct ethnic identity" of Irish Travellers? This should be supplied or else the statement that Irish travellers are a distinct ethnic identity should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.176.160 (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think those behind this idea are confusing 'ethnicity' with 'culture'. I have yet to come across a single surname within the community that is not also found in the settled community (unless someone can cite some?). Not all of them are Gaelic Irish either (Barrett, Joyce, Barry, etc). Fergananim (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not to be confused with gypsies (romanies)

The following statement 'but not to be confused with the Romani people' has been part of the article and was a part of the leading statement with no objection and was only changed a few days ago. Why the change now not only once but twice? If you use the term Gypsy as an identifying term for the Pavee then a distinction must be made between the various groups that go by that nomenclature. The term gypsy by definition is incorrect because by and large it is an ethnic term for the Romani people of Europe. If the term Gypsy is used then it must state its a mistaken term. Otherwise people will assume Gypsy means sic part of the Romani people. I suggest other Irish users like Rashers have their opinion before this is set in stone. Thats why I have undid the edit.Uthican (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:LEDE
"If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist"
And
"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview".
Introducing the Romani in the lead, and in particular the first sentence is incorrect, it forks the reader.
BTW Uthican, nothing on wikipedia is set in stone. Murry1975 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Tynker reference

Removed the Tynker sentence because; the use of the word ‘Tinker’ or ‘Tynker’ is odd within an Irish setting during the 12th century to refer to a specific ethnic group . As of yet I haven’t been able to find any reference to state it was specifically used in Ireland or anywhere else to a specific ethnic group with its own language and culture as stated in the text. That certainly isn’t the case. It’s was a term used to describe English tradesmen or peddlers in England. [[5]] Or tradesmen in Scotland as the only other reference so far is in ‘Scottish Gypsies under the Stewarts’ p 4, 9, Ch1 states Scottish pedlars or ‘Tynklers’ in Perth using the term as early as 1165. It would be misleading to assume it describes a specific ethnic group. Moreover, it was a general moniker or alias for a tradesman usually in fixed dwellings sometimes for a travelling tradesman. It’s unclear how the term was used for developing travelling groups like the Scottish Highland Travellers or Irish Travellers in the 12th century even if at all. It certainly wasn’t used as a specific term for an ethnic group with its own language and culture. Uthican (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Romanyism in the article

I had to remove some biased statements in the article. They may be of Romani origin.[6] We should not try to hide this theory. Fakirbakir (talk)

I really don't understand what the problem is with this issue. I added the Keane reference in the following context: "They may be of Romani extraction, although this theory is disputed by some, and theories of pre-Celt origin also exist.[1]". As a legal research journal, Keane doesn't appear to be a biased or unreliable source so, as User:Fakirbakir says, what is the problem with documenting the conjecture?

References

  1. ^ Keane, David. "International Law and the Ethnicity of Irish Travellers." Wash. & Lee Race & Ethnic Anc. LJ 11 (2005): 43.
jxm (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great Jxm you were more balanced than his edits I have no problem with balance. The concern here is he claims bias statements anti-Irish Traveller and anti-Romanyism. As an editor on this page I am a member of the Gypsy community and from the UK so anything on wikipedia that is clearly anti-Gypsy-Traveller is of a concern. His quote discusses percentage of population within the wider label of Gypsy-Traveller in the UK. All these groups (including mine) are under under a one size fits all label. Like calling Vietnamese, Pakistani, Indians South Asian. This does not mean all Travelling-Gypsy groups are Romani and vice versa. The ‘Romani origin’ quote is an assumption on behalf of the author. DNA evidence [[7]] points to an Irish origin. In fact the settled communities use of the term 'Gypsy' as a label for Irish Travellers is problematic as it creates confusion hence for the distinction. He also removed edits that stated Irish Travellers are a native group to Ireland. He should refrain from further reverts till other wikipedians discuss this.Uthican (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do not you want to mention the "Romani origin" theory? I think you approach is biased. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds? With all due respect Fakirbakir I don't think you're very well read up on the subject. Its accepted the Pavee are of native Irish origin thats well accepted in both British Gypsy/Traveller and Irish Traveller groups. In fact Pavee Point in its web page describes the group as an Irish ethnic group here [[8]]. Irish law states the Pavee as thus :- "Traveller community” means the community of people who are commonly called Travellers and who are identified (both by themselves and others) as people with a shared history, culture and traditions including, historically, a nomadic way of life on the island of Ireland." They are not recognised as a group of other origins as Romani/Roma groups are. So where is the bias? Discuss Pavee origins with other users like Rashers Tearney he is very well read on the subject and also disagrees with the Romani origin hypotheisis and of course the TV documentary In the Blood on Irelands own national broadcaster RTE discussed the Pavee as a group indiginous to IrelandUthican (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about scholarly theories... You don't have to prove me that Irish travellers are ethnic Irish.... Is their origin disputed? Yes. Is there any study that states Irish Travellers may be of Romani descent? Yes. Your approach is still biased. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Their origin is only disputed by a fringe group of scholars and activists who want to assert that Irish Travelers are really "people of colour", because the go-to rhetoric for discrimination in the west is that you have to be non-white or non gender confirming to be oppressed in any manner.--82.153.161.212 (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

The article appears to presume Travelers to be a distinct ethnic group. I'm not claiming to be knowledgeable about this, but it does appear to be a non-universally accepted question. So, I wonder does that presumption fall short of NPOV.

The basis appears to be based on (one?) DNA studies. Is that correct? Or what other literature/views are there? --Tóraí (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mortality

The figure quoted for infant mortality is extremely high and is likely inaccurate. http://www.stsg.ie/travellerhealth/ is a page that summerises a Traveler health report. I have not changed the article as I can not find the actual report. This figure should be checked as 10% on the Wikipedia page is very different to 14 per 1000 given in the Link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamluketaylor (talk • contribs) 09:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source you are discussing covers "infant mortality". As they do not define the term as they are using it, we haven't much to go on. (The U.S. CDC generally uses death before first birthday.) The two sources we have in the article are apparently discussing death before age two. Both are dead links. One of them, however, is archived: "Infants are 10 times more likely to die before reaching the age of two, while a third of travellers die before the age of 25. In addition, 80 per cent of travellers die before the age of 65."[9]
The source you added you said gave a pre-second birthday rate of 0.3% for the general population. I couldn't find that in the source. On page 9, though, I did find a 0.7% rate for the general population before age one.
We apparently do need to verify the first source we're citing and, if possible, find a working link. However, we know the general population's death rate is 0.7% before age one and the traveler death rate before age two is "10 times" that of the general population's rat by age two. Given this data, it is not at all unreasonable to expect the general populations death by age two rate to be in the neighborhood of 1%. While we cannot Frankenstein the two sources we have working links for together to support the claim, but the new link you've provided does not cast doubt on the figure.
If anyone would care to verify the first of the two cites we have, that would be helpful. That said, I cannot see much reason to doubt it. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meyer 1909

Thread retitled from "Dated info tag".

A tag was placed in April, asking for up to date information an source for

Celtic language expert [[Kuno Meyer]] and [[Romani language|Romani]] expert [[John Sampson (linguist)|John Sampson]] both asserted that Shelta existed as far back as the 13th century, 300 years before the first Romani populations arrived in the British Isles.<ref>Meyer, Kuno. 1909. The secret languages of Ireland. Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, New Series, 2: 241–6.</ref>

This inforamation is not out of date. It was published in 1909 dealing with events from the 13th century. Murry1975 (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A source from !1909! is definitely not a reliable source. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And how not? Publishing date has nothing to do with reliability. If you have concerns about it being a RS take it up at the notice board. Also if you had a problem with RS you should tag with RS not a dated issue. Everything we source with is a source from the past in essence. Murry1975 (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took your advice. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Irish_Travellers. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The language origin in Meyer is comparable to Jean-Pierre Liégeois [fr], who wrote in 2007 that the Irish Traveller vocabulary uses pre-13th-century Celtic idioms supplemented with 10% Indian origin Romani vocabulary.[10] Celtic origin is the model for at least a century. Liégeois was added in this 2014 edit. See past Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 200 § Irish Travellers discussion.
@Murry1975 and Fakirbakir: what facts were being disputed about the Meyer article that it is tagged with {{unreliable source?}} ? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kuno's more than 100 years old study has to be replaced by a modern secondary source. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is definitely a very old source. There is much debate about the origins of Shelta, which appears to have started off as a dialect of Gaelic and evolved into a language of its own, undoubtedly about the same time that the Travelers emerged as a group whenever that was. I would suggest as a compromise merely tracing the origins of this debate and it is a debate-there is no consensus about when exactly the Travelers, Shelta and "the Cant" emerged. One can start with the 1909 article and bring the debate up to the present.--A.S. Brown (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)  [reply]

Engagement of 11-year-old girls

According to Plymouth City Council, Irish Traveller "marriage customs, allow for 11 year old girls to be engaged to be married to 20+ year old men."[1]

I parked this here because I think it needs a better source since the source is WP:TERTIARY and does not identify its source about something that looks controversial.

References

  1. ^ Plymouth City Council. Social Inclusion Unit (n.d.). "Gypsy and Traveller culture" (PDF). plymouth.gov.uk. Briefing note. Plymouth City Council. p. 4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-10-15. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forced marriages

According to Jonathan Brown, Chief Crown Prosecutor of the Crown Prosecution Service for North West England, Nazir Afzal "cites the Traveller community, where children are still married off against their will," as an example of a social group that is "allowed to offer refuge to men who commit crimes against women." Afzal said he is "aware of massive issues of forced marriage in the Traveller community." Afzal assisted "representatives of the [Traveller] community who are working to raise awareness of forced marriage and women's rights, advising them on government strategy."[1] According to Anthony Bond, Afzal "wants travellers to be confronted over forced marriages in their communities."[2]

I parked this here because I think forced marriage needs better sources for WP:WEIGHT before adding into the article.

References

  1. ^ Brown, Jonathan (2012-05-20). "Nazir Afzal: 'We tackled grooming gangs. Now we have to confront forced marriage among Travellers' ". independent.co.uk. London: The Independent. Archived from the original on 2012-05-21. There are some communities where we have feared to tread, and by 'we' I mean every agency. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Bond, Anthony (2012-05-21). " 'We must confront travellers over children being forced into marriage', says prosecutor who stopped Rochdale sex gang". dailymail.co.uk. London: Associated Newspapers. Archived from the original on 2012-05-24. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Pikey" term missing in the article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:1A12:9558:351A:AE1A:D16E:5977 (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the term is in Irish Travellers § Etymology (this revision), just not in the lede. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Pikey" is a very rude word to Travelers 72.24.34.56 (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is in common use, as are knacker, and formerly tinker. Being offensive doesn't mean it shouldn't be documented. It seems these derogatory terms were previously documented on the page, why have they been removed? I suspect vandalism. Hehpillt28 (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Irish Travellers. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind

@Matt14451: never mind, I agree with you about removing the link, I did not see |ref=harv in the shuffled citation. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andereck in Encyclopedia of World Cultures

@HighKing: Why did you replace the reference to Andereck as author in this edit with a generic list, she did her doctoral dissertation on Irish Travellers. She is the author of that article (see online version). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BoBoMisiu, there was no link to the reference so I put one in for the book. Please feel free to change my link or to add another to the link you have provided above. I'm not sure what you mean by it being replaced with a "generic list" - it is a link to a Google Books version of the encylopedia and I've also put in the relevant page number. I used http://reftag.appspot.com/ to generate the link. -- HighKing++ 09:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: that reftag.appspot.com page is giving a result for the book but not for the specific author of the signed article – that page probably works good for titles written by a single author. I improved your edit. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: Andereck is the article's author, the Google Books page provides information about the book and not the signed article in the book. The actual author, Andereck, should have the attribution and not the editors like you edited. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BoBoMisiu: The original purpose of the inclusion of the link to the Book was to show a publication date of at least 1994 as the link to the online edition led to the article using a date of 1996. Since then I have been chasing down Andereck's research and I believe that the original data and information comes from a 1992 publication by Andereck entitled "Ethnic Awareness and the School: An Ethnographic Study Sage Series on Race and Ethnic Relations Volume Five. Newbury Park: Sage. 1992". I am satisfied that this is the original research but am awaiting a copy and if it should prove to be the original research publication, we might remove our links to Encyclopedia of World Cultures. But in the meantime, it is the norm to credit the "book" edition as I have done, regardless of who might have provided the data for inclusion, and nowhere in the book edition I have referenced does Andereck's name get mentioned as an author. -- HighKing++ 10:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: the encyclopedia.com edition is the same book title as the Google Books edition. Anyone can read the encyclopedia.com edition and verify each reference to it in the Wikipedia article. A publisher's page shows 1996 and a WorldCat page for the series shows a range 1991–1996. A different WorldCat page for the volume shows 1994. There is no reason not to use 1996 and Andereck is the signed author of the encyclopedia.com edition. I included a link to her doctoral dissertation in the first post to this discussion – that is not the work that was cited by previous Wikipedia contributors. Nevertheless, the encyclopedia volume was published mid-1990s. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BoBoMisiu: The research is over 20 years old at this stage and I believe it is important to be accurate as we can be on the date. I have a hard copy of the Encyclopedia dated 1994 which is why I used that date originally. Andereck's doctural dissertation from 1988 does not include the same assertions or factual data as those in encyclopedia - as such, I am unsure as to its relevence to this article. I can also now confirm that the publication "Ethnic Awareness and the School: An Ethnographic Study Sage Series on Race and Ethnic Relations Volume Five. Newbury Park: Sage. 1992" is essentially the source for the content in the encyclopedia and should be used to establish the date. There is a searchable edition on Google Books with snippet view here (ISBN:978-0803938861) and may prove useful for those that are unable to obtain a full copy. I've amended the article to include a reference to the original publication on Google Books and removed the 1994 encyclopedia article and removed some of the unnecessary links to the references. -- HighKing++ 16:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: I think it is an improvement. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Irish Travellers. 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:

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) 21:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Irish Travellers. 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:

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) 15:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Irish Travellers. 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:

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) 16:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Irish Travellers. 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:

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) 04:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History section rewrite

I have begun and propose a rewrite of the history and genetics sections of this article over the next while as the information contradicts itself and needs to be clarified in the light odf new studies in genetics. Input is welcome. Kodai (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fakirbakir: just to clarify with the edits on this page, there is no doubt now that the genetic origins of Travellers is in Ireland, what is still debated is the origin of the way of life and the origin of this group as a separate from the general population. We might be able to phrase this so the distinction is clear rather than editing over each other. I have altered and added a considerable amount and had an edit conflict due to your edits. i did not delete them on purpose but had to paste over them or lose a good few hours work. If you want to edit for NPOV again be my guest. Thanks Kodai}} (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Present "genetic evidence" proves nothing. It can only SUGGEST that the Irish Traveller population have no connection with Romani groups. Unfortunately my sourced sentences have been deleted or altered. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fakirbakir: present genetic evidence proves they are no more related to Romani than are any Irish people. It is misleading in this article to suggest they “might” be related to Romani groups as that is just not true. It is also not true to assert that their origin is unknown, that is not true either, they are of Irish descent. The only thing up for debate is how they came to be separate from the main Irish population or more likely, how the rest of the Irish population came to be different. Your reference is out of date and no longer relevant to this debate. I expect you to engage with the facts here before i edit this again for accuracy. I would appreciate also if you would stop using NPOV, i disagree that this is a POV issue. This is about facts, not POV. It is not good enough to say that genetic evidence proves nothing.

Kodai (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slang term "Knackers"

It is more common in Ireland than Pikeys, which seems to be mainly a Briticism. It derives from the occupational term knacker for 'renderer', i.e. one who takes apart livestock bodies for further processing into by-products. These low-paying, smelly, and often dangerous jobs were historically hard to fill in Ireland by anyone but Travellers. As an ethnic label, it's considered at least as offensive an epithet as Pikey. I don't have a source handy for this stuff; I learned the term and how it is used in Ireland when I was there, and of its origin from one or another dictionaries of slang, but all mine are packed in boxes for now (I'm moving). Anyone else got more on this? The article never mentioning it seems rather strange, as if the article was written entirely from a British perspective but about a primarily Irish topic (modern migration notwithstanding). I doubt many people outside certain parts of the UK had ever heard the term Pikey before the movie Snatch came out, and I certain never heard it the entire time I lived in Ireland (a several-month stretch).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regions with significant populations

The summary section and the infobox don't seem to match well. US is mentioned in the infobox but not in the summary. Since Northern Ireland is specified in the infobox, perhaps it would be more appropriate to specify in the summary that the part of UK where travellers are found is Northern Ireland. Or a general restructuring of the sentence to reflect that travellers mainly found on the Island might add clarity.

Iamgvj (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intro and origin

The intro text is incompatible with the later text on their origin, it includes one theory on their origin when the text covers a range of different possible origins. The travelling community themselves say they have stories going back to the Romans.

Violence and crime

I feel that listing specific cases of violence and crime attributed to Irish Travellers is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. I don't see that it serves any purpose to list offences committed by particular people who happen to belong to this group.

Does it even make sense to have a Violence and crime section at all?

It seems to me that it's just pandering to the prejudicial idea that Irish Travellers are often considered to be violent or criminal just because they happen to belong to that group of human beings. It's always possible to find examples of violent and criminal individuals in any sizeable group of human beings - so why bother listing particular incidents involving members of this group?

Unless someone can come up with a good, referenced justification for singling this group out for special attention in this matter, I suggest that removing the section entirely would be best.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael F 1967, I agree with you on this. Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally agreed, at least as far as the listing of specific instances. These certainly aren't directly pertinent to the population group, and are indeed inherently prejudicial. If a salient point needs to be about Irish Travellers (or indeed, any such group) and a possible historical connection to crime, it should be made by academic sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And should include the research on the prejudice faced by such minorities. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree, Bastun. Though we shouldn't discount that there isn't some correlative connection between travelling groups and pretty crime, of course. That being said, I think the general view is that such a connection would be more likely due to general class issues, and their place in society (that is, being constantly on the periphery of it by virtue of their lifestyle). A result of circumstance, as opposed to any appreciable cultural trait. Anthropological research into this general topic is pretty new, so far as I'm aware; much of the "evidence" for such a connection is anecdotal, and predates any academic inquiry. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum, most of the scholarly literature I've found concerns the policing of Irish Travellers, scholarly commentary on general statistics and their effects on their reception, and views in popular culture. Which is all predicated on, well, the perception of them as being a social/ethnic group which is more likely to commit crimes. Some of it is 'kosher' enough to add to the article as relevant information, but it ultimately doesn't get to the crux of what prompted the discussion. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any links between Irish Travellers as a group and anything at all needs to be backed up by a reliable source. Even just raising the idea—without citing a reliable source—that there might well be a correlative connection between travelling groups and petty crime whiffs a little of potential prejudice. After all, there is a correlative connection between every group of human beings and petty crime (not to mention serious crime). So why raise the issue in the case of this group? I can see no good reason.
We must of course also bear in mind that correlation does not prove causation.
Provide information on the perception of the group, for sure; provided it's referenced. And any other referenced information.
What prompted me to open this particular discussion point was that there was no source provided to justify the inclusion of a Violence and crime section in this article: that is the crux of the matter. Is there a reliable source which can justify such a section in this article? If none can be provided, I feel the section should be removed.
Michael F 1967 (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the content of that section as it stands, move it into Discrimination and prejudice and do away with this heading? Smirkybec (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That idea, I like.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential issues with some references

I think the use of the citation from Seán Ó Riain for the sentence "Research has been complicated by the fact that the group appears to have no written records of its own" is quite problematic. First of all, there is an implicit negative connotation of not having a written record, secondly surely this research is only an issue if you ignore or discount oral history, so seems to imply that only those from outside the community or those with no access to this oral history are the ones with this complication? My main issue is the reference itself, it is a self-published autobiographical work of someone not of the Traveller community, seems like a dubious citation for such a strong statement. In a B class article, I don't think we can stand over the use of this reference.

I'm also going to add that the reinsertion of "it was reported that Traveller children often grow up outside educational systems" (I'm not entirely sure what is meant by this sentence) and using the DOI that points to the contents of an entire book with no page number is less than ideal. I'm suggesting that for some of these sentences that feel very othering in tone, we need to strive for much better, more rigorous references. Smirkybec (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Up to 300,000

We need to find some actual estimates on the size of the Irish Traveller population in England, because the 300,000 figure includes Romani etc. and therefore the actual number of Irish Travellers will obviously be significantly lower. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get better sources on the 1963 report than the ITM's "review"?

It's very poorly written and at times is so blatantly quoting the report out of context that you can tell even without access to the original report. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yenish people

Hi Arctic Circle System, you recently introduced some text about the Yenish people to this article. Do you have any reliable sources available that would back up the additions? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We were just going by what the article said about Irish Travellers being related to the Yenish people. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no sourced material in either this article or the Yenish people article regarding this claim that they are related. It appears to me that we have circular logic, which I why I removed the claims fairly swiftly. It's an extraordinary claim that should not be in the encyclopedia without supporting sources. As it stands, if you search on google on these matters now, the top results for the claim that the Yenish and Irish travelers are related is....this article. This is not a good thing.
I stand by my previous removal of these unsourced claims. I think they should be removed asap, but that's just my opinion.Anastrophe (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - it can't be included without sourcing. WP:V. Cheers, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bastun. I actually think however that it's okay for the link to Yenish People remain in the 'similar groups' section of the article. For clarity, Arctic Circle System's edits were all legitimate, it was the inclusion of unsourced material by user Traveler121 that wasn't. Kind of a small mess. There may yet be evidence of a DNA link, but I have yet to find a reliable source for that contention. The closest material I could find was this - https://www.travellersvoice.ie/2017/07/25/ethnic-minorities-in-europe-the-yenish-yeniche-people/ - but it only suggests that genetic research _may_ find a connection, not that there is a connection. Personally, I feel this focus on identifying 'ethnicities' is interesting but ultimately immaterial. We're all derived from the same DNA, just with small differences that have arisen over the millenia - and those differences have yet to be shown to have any relevance to individual character.
That said, my soapbox is feeling a bit wobbly now, so I'll shut up. Anastrophe (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct - I've restored that link to Yenish people now, and alphabetised the links. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of pre-Gaelic origin.

Ciration given for 'theory' of pre-Gaelic origin of travellers contains no such claims. Will delete. 92.28.21.73 (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources For "Regions with significant populations"

Posting this in regards to the portion of the page stating the, "Regions with significant population" section. There is no source for the number for Canada and the source for the number in the U.S. is: "Shelta". Ethnologue. 2009. Retrieved 9 March 2010. which is not only very out of date, but also doesn't in any way support the given number for the population of Irish Travellers in the U.S.

Additionally, the estimation for the population of Irish Travellers in the U.K. is equally dubious. Neither of the cited sources for the estimated number of Irish Travellers put the number anywhere close to 100,000 to 200,000. In fact, one of the articles is simply about Irish Travellers being a recogonized ethnic group. The other, which is a download of 2011 census information in specifically Northern Ireland, puts the number of Irish Travellers at 1,284, far bellow the 19,000 number given in the article. In what is perhaps the only actually supported number in the article, it is true that in 2016 the number of Irish Travellers according to the cited government source in Ireland was 30,987.

Given these numbers seem to be pulled out of thin air and are in no way supported by the cited sources I am going to remove those for:

Canada/U.S.A./U.K.

as well as put in parentheses that the numbers for Ireland are from 2016 to clarify that the information is several years old. If you would like to add back these numbers for other areas please cite some sources that actually accurately reflect the information you are putting in.

One last note, the numbers in the aformentioned "Regions with significant populations" section directly contradict and conflict with numbers in the "population" section of the article. This inconsistency is a further reason that these edits are being made, alon with the lack of sources for given numbers.

ApacheFahmy (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add a touch more info, I saw in the article where the 300,000 number comes from. This is a clear misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the source. The source refers to an undercount of potentially 100,000 to 300,000 Gypsy/Traveller people, not differentiating between the two.
Additionally one of the in-article sources for the population of Travellers in the U.S. is a link to an archive of a website that itself cites the number from another source, namely, "Dan and Conor Casey, Irish America Magazine, Sept/October1994". Which not only makes the numbers for America which were given incorrect based on that source, but also entirely outdated and unfortunately seemingly unverifiable unless there is a way to obtain a copy of the magazine, which there does not appear to be unless you can back-order them which the website for Irish America Magazine seems to indicate is possible, but that I am unable to complete.
Honestly the sources for this article are messy at best, but at this point I believe I should have addressed these numbers and will be comitting my edit. If I have missed something please respond here to let me know. ApacheFahmy (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irish_Travellers&oldid=1106607048"