There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
I found a number of resources that could be use to flesh out the article more. They are compiled into a tumblr post (don't laugh) but they are released by the Council of Europe. Dunno how good they are, haven't sat through all of them yet. Thoughts ? Wykked Wytch (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Forced sterilisation in communist countries?
Judging by what I could find elsewhere (see, e.g., Wikipedia articles “Compulsory sterilization” and “Roma in the Czech Republic” and references therein), saying that “Roma were targeted for forced sterilisation” is at least a gross overstatement, and at most completely wrong. Apparently the strongest claims Romani make is that women were not “properly informed of what the ‘sterilisation’ meant” (never mentioning whether their Czech counterparts fared any better) — a far cry from discriminatory forced sterilisation of targeted ethnicities. — Unsigned, by: 18.104.22.168 / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 11:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Roma vs Gypsy
I once saw a clip on YouTube where George Pruteanu, Romania's leading grammar Nazi, participated in a discussion where he argued that it is an imposition to make people say rom instead of țigan (which has negative connotations and is widely used as an insult for anyone the speaker doesn't like; "you Gypsy!" is something you'll often hear). "The Dutch call themselves Nederlander. That doesn't mean we have to call them that." If someone in the US went on TV saying that he refuses to say "African-American" because "black" (or Negro, or even the other word) is good enough, all reasonable people in the US would go nuts, but this is apparently a very common attitude in Romania.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 03:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's a gross simplification by the article to say Roma is right and Gypsy is wrong. In the UK, the terms Gypsy and Traveller are at least as common (reflecting the complexities of ethnic identity), and many organisations use 2 or 3 names together. Even outside the UK, there are organisations like the Swiss GIRCA. It's political and depends on how you identify yourself, who you want to associate with or see as a leader, what language you prefer to speak, etc. But some names are seen as generally offensive, some are contested, and maybe there's none that everyone is happy with. The general question of how we should refer to other nations and peoples (like Nederlanders) is another big complex thing: ask the people of Myanmar, Cabo Verde, or Czechia. Ideally you refer to individuals by the name they prefer. Unless they're not that bothered. Or there's the French approach where you don't refer to ethnic groups at all? Annquin (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Italy still has Concentration Camps
The Italian Government forces Roma people to live in concentration camps. —ClickerClock (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- this is needlessly imflammatory bullshit. the article rightly points highlights the prejudice roma face in italy and elsewhere. it is true to say the living conditions of these 'nomad camps' are far from ideal, are pretty abhorent, but the informal settlements they are evicted from have there own associated problems. these are not concentration camps any more than refugee camp is and they are not referred to as such in the article. this is not calling 'a spade a spade'. you do not fight discrimination with bullshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)