Talk:White pride

Frequently asked questions

To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why doesn't this page look like black pride, gay pride, or Asian pride?

A1: Wikipedia reflects how reliable sources treat topics and sometimes two semantically similar topics are treated very differently by sources. For example, compare misogyny to misandry. Most reliable sources treat the topic white pride as being most notable as a slogan used by white supremacists whereas sources indicate the other terms are used mostly to describe coherent social movements.

Q2: Why don't we make the article about "white pride" as a concept or a movement like black pride, gay pride, or Asian pride?

A2: The subjects of Wikipedia articles must be notable, which is determined by coverage from reliable, independent sources. The reliable sources found for this topic indicate that white pride is a substantively different concept from the others mentioned. The majority of sources discuss the slogan "white pride" and its use by various groups as being the most prominent use of the idea. If a coherent "white pride" movement separate from white supremacy, white separatism, or white nationalism actually exists, it is not documented in reliable sources.

Q3: This page seems racist/biased/overly negative. Why isn't this page neutral? What about Wikipedia's policy of NPOV?

A3: NPOV (neutral point of view) refers to how articles discuss a topic as presented by reliable sources. If the sources present a topic in a positive light, Wikipedia must be neutral and indicate that this is what the sources do. This is likewise true for negative coverage. Sources can be biased so long as they are reliable. Wikipedia explains sources, even if those sources take a "side".

Q4: This article uses biased sources. Shouldn't we balance it out?

A4: Reliable sources sometimes take sides. What makes a source reliable is not whether anyone thinks they are biased but rather whether they adhere to the standards that Wikipedia uses to determine reliability. For some topics, most reliable sources cover the topic in a certain way and Wikipedia must give due weight to that coverage.

Q5: I found a blog/tweet/article that talks about white pride. Can we add it to the article?

A5: Editors are encouraged to research the topic and find sources to help expand the article. If you find something you think deserves inclusion first consider whether the source is reliable. Secondary sources are often preferred to primary ones. Fringe sources are usually not included unless they are used to cite information about the source itself. Some people's opinions are considered noteworthy, especially experts on a topic whose opinions who have been noticed by third-party independent sources. When we include prominent opinions, we attribute that opinion to its author. Sometimes an otherwise non-noteworthy opinion or statement is covered by reliable sources, and that coverage can be included. However, not all opinions are noteworthy, even if the person is well-known.

If you come up with new reliably sourced content or new sources that you think are reliable that can support text that already exists in the article, you can boldly add that to the article yourself or bring it to the article's talk page to discuss it with other users. Remember, Wikipedia works by forming consensus and sometimes bold edits are reverted so they can be discussed (read here about the bold-revert-discuss cycle).

This page is not a forum for general discussion about White pride. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about White pride at the Reference desk.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White pride article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 60 days

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article is quite peculiar for Wikipedia

Judging by the large amount of users that are perplexed at the difference between this article and other the pride articles, it would appear there is something fundamentally wrong with the content. The need for an FAQ if anything highlights this fact, even if it doesn't contain any satisfactory answers. It seems like the narrow determination of what is a reliable source (predominately a certain portion of US-based media) has lead to this issue - any ideas on how to fix the article? 60.234.208.246 (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The FAQ is because countless editors have already attempted this exact tactic of superficially polite POV-pushing on this talk page. Reliable sources are the same here as they are everywhere else, so nothing needs to be "fixed". Grayfell (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that more consideration needs to be made for how this article is worded and which sources are included, given that the specifics of this article are a hot topic in how wikipedia's balance and bias is viewed, the lede is especially pushy of a certain frame of reference. Most of the sources specifically investigate the term in a slim context of racial abuse whereas I would find benefit in contextualizing the term as a response to the dilapidation and displacement of classical western identity in the setting of multiculturalism, if any such texts exist, and I would be happy to see a viewpoint that analyzes the term without explicitly custodializing it to the Neo-Nazi movement or other fascist movements.

The current state of the article likely reflects an institutional bias in publishing, it would be prudent to seek those contradicting opinions so as to give a more equitable account of the term. Insect.eate (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should be able to provide references that back up what you think the article should say. This has never been addressed by any of the visitors to this talkpage that think it is somehow about something else, presumably innocuous Acroterion (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White pride vs black pride

The FAQ at the top of the page and the responses to the IP editor are clear in that Wikipedia's policy does not allow us to treat white pride as equivalent to black pride because reliable sources do not treat them the same. The IP editor is engaging in original research, which is against policy. We only reflect what reliable sources say about a subject, not what we as individual editors believe it should be. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It seems that the authors have a certain bias that they try to hide here Its not fair to mention the radicals on one side in the first paragraphs of the page while the other page has barely if ANY mention at all i don't say that radicalism does not exist but the fact that on ONE side the radicalism is plastered in the first few lines of text seems totally unfair on a technical sense 37.128.224.42 (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the FAQ at the top of the page. We go where the sources go, and for this topic, they lead to a pervasive tendency for "white pride" tp be a cover for bigotry. Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not the credibility of the info but the way it's presented

The order of things to be specific

White pride is first above all pride of the skin one has

The movement was and is used with racist intent but the problem is how DIFFERENT the articles are compared to white vs black vs Asian pride

You should give the simplest definition THEN add a topic where this movement is used by racists

In my opinion for it to be as unbiased as possible it should be like this:

WHITE PRIDE

Definition

Insert the definition like all the others

History

How it started theories rethoric

Different interpretations around the globe, Europe usa and other places

THEN list the controversies

Like how nazi germany used it the confederacy and what not

Because right now this current format hurts the credibility of Wikipedia as an unbiased political source that takes sides while claiming objectivity 78.96.206.170 (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"White pride is first above all pride of the skin one has" - cite this please. All you've done is list your own preferred definition. Reliable sources overwhelmingly don't define the article subject in that way, and how other topics are handled in other articles is irrelevant. They are not the same things.

"THEN list the controversies" - Controversy sections are discouraged, precisely because they can present an unbalanced view of the article subject with undue emphasis on the negative. It is always preferable that any "controversy" is discussed within the article with everything else, where it can be discussed as part of the bigger picture. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source for that definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_pride

wikipedia

TO QUOTE from the official wikipedia page;"Black pride in the United States is a movement which encourages black people to celebrate African-American culture and embrace their African heritage"

definition given by wikipedia itself

now lets show the double standard of wikipedia and lets make a quote comparrison

white pride quote;"White pride and white power are expressions primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, fascist, neo-Nazi, and white supremacist organizations in order to signal racist or racialist viewpoints."

COMPARISON

Black pride quote

"Black pride in the United States is a movement which encourages black people to celebrate African-American culture and embrace their African heritage"

lets compare it with Asian pride

source :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_pride

quote from wikipedia

"Asian pride is a term that encourages celebration of Asian ethnicity and culture, with various interpretations and origins."

given the pages mentioned above it stands to reason that white pride would follow the same logic

Despite the fact that its claimed that ,and i quote " Controversy sections are discouraged, precisely because they can present an unbalanced view of the article subject with undue emphasis on the negative." the white pride wikipedia page ONLY STATES controversial topics and fails to give a similar definition that both black and asian pride pages includes

Closing statement

I DO NOT say that it isnt used by people with racist tendencies but this glaring difference between wikipedia pages hurts the credibility of the site 78.96.206.170 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources treat the terms/concepts differently so we must do the same. Please read the FAQ. EvergreenFir (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial movements should be mentioned but the definition should be the same

I did not ask to remove the controversial information or reduce its importance in any way i asked to follow the same logic of definition that it was used in the previously mentioned pages i will make the suggestion to add this definition of white pride to maintain professional credibility.

First to quote asian pride ;

"Asian pride is a term that encourages celebration of Asian ethnicity and culture, with various interpretations and origins."

Given this wikipedia definition ,following logic white pride should be defined as this ;

"White pride is a term that encourages celebration of European ethnicity and culture, with various interpretations and origins."

The glaring difference between pages only gives the people who are racist more credibility and allows them to point fingers at wikipedia and use this difference as ammunition. 78.96.206.170 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"source for that definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_pride" - Nope. That is a definition for Black Pride, not White Pride, (and Wikipedia cannot act as a source for itself anyway). Your argument is essentially The Mexico City article should look the same as the Manchester City article, because they both mention places and end in "City", despite reliable sources saying they are not the same things. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

except that mancester city DOES NOT end in mancester city but the full definition is Manchester City FC(footbal club)

your example is a False equivalance

source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

https://effectiviology.com/false-equivalence/

white in the context white pride reffers at the collor of the skin

source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people

i will say now

the wiki definition starts with a politically influenced definition and not its simplest definition

to quote te wiki article

"White pride and white power are expressions primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, fascist, neo-Nazi, and white supremacist organizations in order to signal racist or racialist viewpoints."

the problem isnt that this paragraph exists but that the barebones definition is ignored and there is a GLARING DOUBLE STANDARD compared to asian and black pride

also some sources used to define white pride are either news articles some that no longer exist or are personal opinions

to end this argument once and for all

White pride IS USED BY RACISTS it is BUT its simply INCORRECT to not add the definition used on other pages

This INTENTIONAL oversight will only serve as amunition for those who are racist

And worst of all it hurts the credibility of the site as politically neutral

Best regards 78.96.206.170 (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.