Talk:Kale (Welsh Roma)

Pronounciation

How is Kale pronounced? The obvious way is kayl, like the vegetable. However, I suspect it should be something like kar-lay or kar-lə. This is would be consistent by alternative form Kalá, with the Finnish Kale (Romani: Kàlo; Finnish: Kaale; Swedish: Kalé) and with the Caló language. It's probably in the OED: please look it up if you have access, and update the article (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation). Verbcatcher (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not in the OED. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kale (Welsh Romanies). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080621144356/http://www.valleystream.co.uk/romany-welsh%20.htm to http://www.valleystream.co.uk/romany-welsh%20.htm

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) 09:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Population of 3,000?

The source for this just says there are 3,000 "gypsies" in Wales, and since this article seems to treat Kale as separate from "romani who happen to live in Wales" this number is likely too high. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Further research has dug up an estimate that there were 700 to 1,000 Kale in Wales in 2000 from the PhD thesis "'INVISIBLE LIVES': THE GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS OF BRITAIN" by Colin Clark - it seems doubtful that the population could have tripled in two decades. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

A population can change from migration as well as having babies and members of the community may have moved in and out of Wales. The thesis you mention is available here.. The figure is on page 109 and is sourced to 'Jarman, A. and Jarman, E. (1991)', so this figure is from 1991, not 2000. The original source appears to be an earlier edition of the 2011 book cited in our 'References' section, so there may be an updated figure in the latest edition. PhD theses from reputable universities are usually accepted as reliable sources, so this could be cited. But we should indicate 'as of 1991' and cite the indirect source, see WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"A population can change from migration as well as having babies and members of the community may have moved in and out of Wales." I still do not see how a tripling in two decades could have occured (the current source cited for population is from 2011). --Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not defending the 3,000 figure which is misrepresenting the source. We should change it to "700 to 1,000 (in 1991)", but please try to get a more modern reliable estimate. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Y Done. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The definition in the lead sentence looks wrong. This is currently: "The Kale [...] are a group of Romani people in Wales." The article should be about the community, and members of the community may be living outside Wales. I suggest "...originating in Wales". Also, perhaps we should describe them as an 'ethnic group' in the main text. I think they meet the definition in that article. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"originating" would perhaps be misleading considering we are discussing a group that migrated to Wales and then diverged via from the larger group it came from via separation. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the the Kale only became a distinctive group when they were in Wales, so it is accurate to say that the Kale originated in Wales. If you go back far enough every population group in Europe originated somewhere else. But I agree that 'originating' may not be ideal. I now propose "The Kale [...] are a group of Welsh Romani people." Verbcatcher (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Page Title Change

@Opala300

Well done for changing the Welsh Romani page to Romnimus to reflect proper terminology. What's your opinion about changing the name of this page to Kā̊lē (Welsh Kalé) or Kā̊lē (Welsh Gypsies)? As you know, the current Kale (Welsh Roma) does not reflect the academic orthography (it's missing the accent) nor their proper ethnonym. I suggest that Kā̊lē (Welsh Romani) should not be used either as this may cause confusion with the language. Ideas? RomaniResearcher (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose for now, their move has since been reverted. Do you have evidence "Kā̊lē" is used in English-language sources per WP:COMMONNAME? All sources I can access here use "Kalé", "Kale" or "Kalo". Wikipedia follows use in independent secondary sources in general not specifcally academia, nor do we use WP:OFFICIALNAMES (or "correct") which you may imply with "proper ethnonym". Ngrams does not have Kā̊lē being recorded at all (Note: Kalo may have other uses, Kale obviously does).

Furthermore, Kā̊lē is unlikely to be confused with Kale due to the multiple diacritics, so "(Welsh Roma)" etc may not be needed. DankJae 18:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Most of the secondary sources are incorrect, including both academic and websites. They either use incorrect ethnonyms (Kalo) or don't reproduce the proper sounds correctly (Kalé). Romani secondary and tertiary source material is abysmal when it comes to proper ethnography. If you use "secondary sources in general" (except academia), you will be creating a very misinformed article. This is why I've written the article in table format, rather simple writing. It's easy for readers and later editors to see the evolution of terminology. The various variants of the ethnonym can be seen on the article itself, in the tables. Page numbers are given. Again, I wrote it in a table format so other editors don't come sweeping in with generalisations and subsequently change it without consultation. I knew someone such as yourself would come along and change it without discussion.

Quick overview (not that it isn't written in the article itself):

Kā̊lē is Sampson's own orthography. It is cognate to the Anglo-Romani ("black") (Crofton:1875). The proper 'a' sound is rounded in British Romani dialects, as in law, which is why I wrote it Kā̊lē, as it's the only orthography which produces the proper sound. Members of the Journal of the Gypsy Law Society in the early 20th century also used the same word but orthographised it with the IPA "ɔ".

Academia commonly uses Kalé. Independent publishers and websites from the late 1990s onwards use both Kalé and Kale. Saying this, Yaron Matras uses the proper ethnonym in his Romani - A Linguistic Introduction: "... Sampson’s (1926) monumental grammar of Welsh Romani or the Kåålē dialect, ...."

Kalé is somewhat correct but still erroneous. You can use it if you wish but it may create use confusion. We have to be very careful where we use certain words. For instance, you've changed the first sentence in the general section to "Kale (Wales), Calé (Spain), Kaale (Finland) and similar, plural cognate...". This is half-correct now and can cause confusion with readers. Calé and Kaale are both the proper ethnonyms in Romani and are faithfully reflected in English-speaking academia and publications, but Kalé is solely an English speaking academic term because it doesn't reflect the proper ethnonym in Welsh Romani itself which is Kā̊lē. So you have one academic terminology (Kale) unfaithfully reproduced juxtaposed against two proper ethnonyms (Cale, Kaale) which are faithfully reproduced by academics. However the Romani, not the academic term, is being given in this sentence. Calé, Kaale and Kā̊lē are the respective ethnonyms in each Romani dialect, that's why it's speaking on cognates. This is why Kale (without an accent?) is incorrect in this sentence as it's an academic term. Be careful to read the context.

The unfaithful reproduction isn't for Wikipedia to sort out, it's really the problem with academics and authors being sloppy with citing sources correctly, but in other contexts we can tweak the writing style to nudge others in the correct direction while staying neutral. Only the Jarmans (1991) use Kalo as a plural (Kalo is actually the singular). Saying this, this isn't the correct plural ethnonym. Again, this isn't for Wikipedia to correct, but being aware of it, we can tweak our writing style to reflect a fuller understanding of the ethnonyms and their evolution. Omniglot lists Kåålē as the term for the language but this isn't correct.

From the secondary and tertiary sources, you can clearly see the terminology has evolved and much of it isn't correct. Unfortunately for us editors, no academic or professor has actually sorted out this huge mess, which means we on Wikipedia have to word things in a very specific way to reflect all of the source material until some academic does so. The reason why I joined Wikipedia is that on other areas on the Internet, people are using Wikipedia as a source. Something needed to be done as it's being used by AI systems. Also, primary sources (which is a relative term) have to be used somewhat on Wikipedia for the Romani articles. For instance, Sampson (1926) is the only reliable informant on the Welsh Romani language. Sampson is definitely not an "outdated source," linguistics still use him today. Welsh Romani went extinct in the 1950s or 60s and you will not find any newer material except in Matras or Hancock, which only touch on the language and don't give a full overview. For that, they themselves use Sampson. What other sources would Wikipedia have us use? There isn't any more which are comprehensive enough to even begin to write an article.

Finally, there is no one "official" term for this ethnicity and you will not find the truth by searching that such as Ngram.

**Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria. However, in many other cases, it will not be. <-- If so, the most consistent usage in secondary sources is Kalé (with an accent). Kale, Kalé and Kaule are all used variously on ValleyStream.co.uk and Kalo is used once in Jarman in 1991. They have never been commonly known as Welsh Roma, only one author uses this term (Matras 2002) presently and in passing reference. I would also like to add that the term "Roma" is actually very political within the Romani world and definitely not neutral. The (Welsh Roma) part of the title should be erased. It's incredibly incorrect and very politically motivated. The term Roma is being used randomly by Wikipedia authors who don't understand its use. The last time Welsh Gypsies called themselves Roma was before their ethnogenesis, appox. 600-700 years in 15th century Germany, before they even made their way into Britain in the 16th.

In good faith,

RomaniResearcher RomaniResearcher (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Quite a lot of text there. Most of the secondary sources are incorrect, who is making that claim? WP:TRUTH If it is only Sampson's creation, why is he prioritised if other sources do not follow it?

I knew someone such as yourself would come along and change it without discussion, that's a bit direct. I had a reason to revert, MOS:DIACRITICS which states to Spell a name consistently in the title and the text of an article.

I did not say "except academia", but "not specifically academia", all sources considered with due weight not only academic sources, especially on something as general as the name used for the group. Academia commonly uses Kalé, proves my opposition to your proposed further, We follow the WP:COMMONNAME, not a group's preferred name (which is the argument of "official" using the name preferred by those closest to a subject). As per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, it indeed states consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources, you haven't provided such, do you have links for it? All entries in this article on that are in Welsh Romani.

If Kalé can be proven to be the more common name over the current, happy for this article to be moved to Kalé then. Kaale technically isn't the widely accepted term for their people per its article's title, nor is Calé which uses "Gitanos". Makes sense for each article to be consistent with each other rather than this article use only endonyms while other articles use different names entirely, readers may not know they were the same group. In terms of "(Welsh Roma)" it is being used as a disambiguation tag, not an alternative name (i.e. Roma in Wales), so is there another general class that can describe the group? "(Welsh Romani people)"?

we can tweak the writing style to nudge others in the correct direction while staying neutral, this is not allowed, (WP:ADVOCACY). We should not promote one name over the other in order to influence others, they influence us by whatever name they use most. We follow, not lead. Note that under MOS:NO-TABLES, prose text is preferred over tables as it can provide more context, and the quotes could surely be moved into citations?

Appreciate any effort you have done, I do understand that these niche topics may not get enough academic attention. Once again, if proven, happy for Kalé (and some disambiguation tag), but I haven't seen Kā̊lē used in English, and you have not provided any evidence of such. If sources start using Kā̊lē first, then Wikipedia follows, it does not lead, even if it is, yes, influential. DankJae 19:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Kale photographed in Bryncrug, 1958

The photograph captioned as above, and showing "Bryncrug gypsies at Dolgellau Folk Festival", does not, in fact, show actual Romanies. The photograph was published in the Welsh language newspaper Y Cymro, July 3, 1958, No. 2,236, p.1, cols A-B, under the heading ‘Nid Y Bol Oedd Popeth’ about the "Gŵyl Werin Geltaidd" (Celtic Folk Festival) in Dolgellau that year. The caption under the photo in the newspaper says "Gwnaeth “Sipswn Bryncrug” argraff fawr ar y dorf yn Nolgellau – a dyma ddwy ohonynt yn eu holl ogoniant." (The “Bryncrug Gypsies” made a big impression on the crowd in Dolgellau - and here are two of them in all their glory), whereas the relevant part about them in the article itself says:

"O Fryncrug y daeth y gynrychiolaeth helaethaf o ddigon i’r wyl, yn ddiau. Nid poblogaeth y lle ddim mwy na thri chant ac yr oedd deg a thrigain ohonynt, yn wyr, merched, a phlant yn perfformio “Priodas y Sipsiwn.” Ymlwybrent hyd y maes drwy’r dydd, ac edrychent, yn wir, yn union fel sipswin. Ar ôl bod yn y gwisgoedd cyhyd fe deimlent hefyd, meddant, yn union fel sipsiwn." (the largest representation, without doubt, came to the festival from Bryncrug. The population of the place is no more than three hundred and seventy of them, men, women, and children performed a “Gypsy Wedding.” They trudged across the field all day, and they looked, indeed, just like gypsies. After being in the outfits for so long they also felt, they said, just like gypsies.)

This clearly shows that these were Welsh people dressing up as Romanies for their performance of show about a “Gypsy Wedding” as part of this particular Celtic folk festival. Therefore, as the photograph does not show real Romanies please remove it, as its presence, at the least, is misleading, and may, at the worst, be offensive to true Welsh Romanies. Thank you.

As no-one else has removed the image in question, I have now done so saying "Removed image as per the reasons given on talk page, because it shows Welsh women dressed up as Romanies and NOT actual Romanies". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-35004-97 (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)