QUOTE(Gruntled @ Wed 24th November 2010, 6:39am)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 20th November 2010, 7:55pm)
Except that in this case I can give you a dozen sources to the contrary about Jimbo's role, all just as reliable. Besides, some of this is semantic, as credit for being THE "founder" of wikipedia is sort of like deciding who should be THE "father" of the atom bomb. This doesn't compare with the gypsy thing, where absolutely NOBODY in the media contravened the many reports that this 10 year-old mom was a Roma from Romania. Nor has anybody since, that I know of. Enlighten me if they have.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I hadn't intended to, but I seem to have provided a beautiful textbook demo of why it's so often impossible to correct errors on Wikipedia. Does anyone think that any newspaper is going to bother to publish an explicit statement that the girl isn't a gypsy/Roma? Basically, I've been defeated by WP:Anythingsaidinanewspapermustbetrue and WP:AnyonewhodisagreeswithMiltonisaworthlesstroll. The fact that the girl doesn't have a Roma name, doesn't lead a traditional Roma lifestyle and has behaved in a way that would horrify most Romas (with the alleged approval of her grandmother), evidence that in a serious academic environment would be given great weight, is of course irrelevant under WP:OR. So is the very plausible suggestion that most journalists can't tell a Romanian from a Roma.
And as for "I can give you a dozen sources to the contrary about Jimbo's role, all just as reliable", surely Milton knows WP:Thelatestsourcetrumpsearlierones; clearly the BBC, as a very reliable source, is well aware of earlier arguments about Jimbo's status, and come to a conclusion that must be better than earlier ones, because it uses the latest evidence. And if that isn't a real WP policy, we can soon fix that!
I rest my case.
Okay, my turn to speak to the jury, then.
You want a textbook: Here instead is a longish academic article on Roma marriage and sexual traditions, in The Journal of Transnational Law and Policy
. It's not a news article or something from the BBC. It's a peer reviewed journal, as good as it gets:WHEN HER FEET TOUCH THE GROUND: CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ROMA FAMILISTIC CUSTOM OF ARRANGED JUVENILE MARRIAGE AND ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES The Journal of Transnational Law and Policy
. Vol. 13:2, (Spring, 2004)http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/transnatio...2/timmerman.pdf
The first part of the article title comes from a Romani proverb: “Sit your daughter in a chair and if her feet touch the ground, she’s ready for marriage.”
And being an academic study, it even has an academic cite for the proverb itself: Romany Information Service, Roma in the Czech Republic, Adolescence (June 4, 2000), at http://www.romove.cz/en/article/18091
The article itself is about Roma underage marriage traditions, and how they conflict with international law, something you should have guessed, when I first gave you the cite for the stink about the EU ambassidor at the Romani wedding, some years ago. But no, you did not pick up on the clue that this might not be a good topic to go into. Instead, you simply go on repeating yourself like a broken record, crying lack of evidence. But yet, you go on to say:
The fact that the girl doesn't have a Roma name, doesn't lead a traditional Roma lifestyle and has behaved in a way that would horrify most Romas (with the alleged approval of her grandmother), evidence that in a serious academic environment would be given great weight, is of course irrelevant under WP:OR. So is the very plausible suggestion that most journalists can't tell a Romanian from a Roma.
First, she does have a Roma name. Roma who live in Romania (which is where most of them do live, as a minority there) very often have Romanian names.
Second, if a Romani girl and boy "elope," the community considers them married WITHOUT a ceremony, and after chastisment, they are allowed back into the community. Afterall, not every family can come up with a bride price. There are elaborate marriage ceremonies among the Roma, but the ceremony doesn't constitute the marriage. Living together as man and wife constitute the marriage. Just as in days of old in every culture (marriage ceremonies, particularly church and civil ceremonies, are a somewhat modern invention, you know. Common law marriage came earlier).
QUOTE(law journal article)
It is important to note early in this article that, although Roma tradition still relies heavily on archaic marital bartering mechanisms like bride prices and dowries, not all Romani marriages are arranged — especially intercultural marriages between Roma and gadjo. Indeed, even within the framework of ritualistic arranged marriage, elopement is still recognized, albeit skeptically, as a viable alternative to dynastic marriage in the eyes of the Roma community.27 Largely due to the fact that Roma place such a high value on sexual purity and virginity, elopement serves as a sort of marital euphemism “tantamount to marriage.”28 Elopement simply entails the couple escaping together, often only a short distance from home for a single evening, subsequently returning to the community renouncing virginity.29 Successful elopement leaves Romani parents with no alternative but to allow marriage. The couple, while initially chastised, is not banished and eventually achieves community acceptance.30
QUOTE(Law journal article)
The abaiv — or wedding — has little legal or religious significance to the Roma community aside from sheer symbolic value.36 Participation in a formal civil ceremony is often nothingmore than a method of conforming to and appeasing local host country laws and customs since Gypsies “simply do not believe in the importance of a formal wedding ceremony under the jurisdiction of a church or state.”37 Traditionally, the civil or religious ceremony, or bijav, would not take place until the couple had been together for a few years and had produced a child.38 [
The non-symbolic qualities of Gypsy marriage create an initial enforcement barrier for host countries. Devaluation of civil and religious recognition means Romani are less likely to officially register marriages in civil records.39 It is difficult to prove that a couple is legally married, as opposed to some legally bewildering type of common law cohabitation40 popular amongst Gypsies, and without this proof it is even more difficult to charge “spouses” with violating national or international rights laws. Moreover, attempts by host countries to require registration could face challenges under European Human Rights Convention standards.41
Read the above again, and you'll find you've been pwned in this argument. The "grandmother" quoted in the newspapers is quite right about Roma customs. The numbers in the above are to cites in other literature, and are available within the legal article which is fully online, at the http address above.
Basically, I've been defeated by WP:Anythingsaidinanewspapermustbetrue and WP:AnyonewhodisagreeswithMiltonisaworthlesstroll.
Now, now. The first policy is technically SlimVirgin's. We don't hold to it at WR, if a better source can be found. As for the second rule, I like it! But people who disagree with Milton Roe on WR are subject to a different set of rules than on WP. They have to come up with academic evidence. They can't just get their friends together and ban or block or revert me. They must either continue to play, giving better and better sources (hey, sometimes I'm wrong!), or else, at some point, quit and slink off with tail between their legs. Ottava Rima has added a new variation previously invented by Nixon before Ottava was born (declare victory and leave, after use of some profanity), but it hasn't worked for him very well on WR. You wanna try that one?