[WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement

Sun Jan 1 20:36:03 UTC 2006

Point taken. However, the term "white nationalism" is much more firmly established than "childlove". See for instance "The New White Nationalism in America", a scholarly book by Carol M. Swain. And also, white nationalist claim to be different than white supremacists thus a distiction is made (though whether it's a real distinction or just a matter of hiding one's views in order to make them more palatable is an issue).

Conversely, there is no distinction between "childlove" and "pedophilia". The former is a pure synonym for the latter and its purpose is not to draw a distinction of some sort but to serve as a euphemism. 

Homey
> 
> From: Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com>
> Date: 2006/01/01 Sun PM 03:17:10 EST
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: Re: [WikiEN-l] Article: Childlove movement
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 