[WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement

Sun Jan 1 20:17:10 UTC 2006

On 1/1/06, homey2005 at sympatico.ca <homey2005 at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> That's insufficient for NPOV, indeed to use a term simply because a particular group uses it is very POV. We should not use a euphemism simply because advocates prefer it. If we did we'd be referring to "white nationalists" rather than "white supremacists", "Racial rationalists" rather than "racists", "Historical revisionists" rather than "Holocaust deniers".

Not to put a bee in your bonnet but we do have an article on [[White
nationalism]]. It actually provides a pretty good example of the best
way of dealing with this sort of thing:

"White nationalism is a political and social movement to advance the
social and economic interests of white or Caucasian people."
"White nationalists explicitly deny being racial supremacists, arguing
that they merely wish for each group of people with shared heritage,
including white people, to be allowed to promote and preserve its
heritage, and do not desire to oppress or dominate other races as
racial supremacists do. Critics, however, argue that white nationalism
intersects with, or is a euphemism for, white supremacy."

Now obviously in all cases this level of "neutrality" is not
completely warranted -- something like "Holohoax" for example which is
nothing but a perjorative. I don't know enough about the case in
question to have any worthwhile opinion but I think this is the sort
of thing that MGM is getting at.  Other examples include distinctions
like [[Pro-life]]/[[Anti-abortion movement]].

When something is legitimately a proper name of a "movement" or
organized campaign it should generally have an article using its
established name, even if it very quickly explains that the name
itself is in dispute. Generally speaking, of course.

FF