Talk:White pride
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White pride article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Edit Suggestion (I have access so I could do it myself but I'll put it in here first just for props)
Evidently this page is causing all sorts of problems for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is losing credibility over bias and this article's headlining statement is one of the problems. The sources do indeed indicate that "White Pride" is a statement used by primarily "White Supremacists" but that doesn't mean there is not a compromise.
My suggestion is this. We simply put "White pride is a statement that encourages white people to celebrate their respective cultures and embrace their European heritage," at the front. This satisfies the dilemma. Then we put "The statement is historically known to be used primarily by white supremacists etc. etc. etc."
This keeps the sources accurate while satisfies the balance of order and protecting Wikipedia's image as a balanced and informed source. Please do give thoughts and suggestions. If no one gives me a reason why not to change it I will change it myself in the coming weeks. Historybuff3504 (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- No, just no. If Wikipedfia lacks credibility among white pride proponents, then who cares? The references don't support that wording, simple as that. FDW777 (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- First of all you misspelt Wikipedia. Second of all the whole point of Wikipedia is for it to be a reliable website that provides accurate and inoffensive explanations for the general public. If you or other editors don't care about credibility among groups then that is a serious problem that ought to be dealt with.
- Also a direct base explanation of a term does not need sources as it is common sense. Frankly I don't know why encyclopedias explain terms like that at all but they do.
- Not to mention that the initial explanation of the term "White Pride" I am suggesting is simply a base level look into what the term means. White Pride would by common sense be a statement encouraging people to celebrate their culture and heritage.
- THAT is the base and absolutely irrefutable truth of the matter. Maybe the term is used only or primarily by racists and white supremacists but that cannot mean that the term itself is racist by nature. So we simply do as I said and put a simple irrefutable explanation of the term first, then explain that it is used primarily by white supremacists.
- If someone still has a problem with this then common sense dictates that you are blindsided by politics. It is a simple matter. One side wants to change it completely and the other side wants it to stay exactly the same.
- This suggestion I have made IS the solution to the problem. The only reason I haven't changed it already is because I want to make a point first.
- This suggestion is going to either make both sides of the spectrum happy or make them both equally dissatisfied. But that is objectively better than having one side buried in the dirt. And if you disagree with that, no matter what side you're on, then you're part of the problem that plagues this country.
- And so again I ask for someone to give me a reasonable argument as to why we cannot simply change the wording in this way. No more talk of sources because as mentioned sources are not necessary for a base explanation that could be found in a dictionary or honestly explained easily by most sensible people.
- Historybuff3504 (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- The reason you haven't changed it is for multiple reasons. Firstly you have no references. Secondly it's a violation of WP:LEAD. Thirdly it's a controversial edit requiring WP:CONSENSUS. FDW777 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- I recommend reading, and understanding, the FAQ at the top of the page before replying again. FDW777 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Please show me where one of the goal descriptors of the site is "inoffensive". danzig138 (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Historybuff3504 (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Time for semi-protection?
I went as far back as Talk:White pride/Archive 4, which goes into 2017. Since then, I have not found a single, constructive post leading to an improvement to the article from any IPs or new accounts. For the last eight years (and probably much longer) there's been the usual predictable moaning that achieves nothing and endlessly goes over the same ground, and wastes everyone's time. So time to semi-protect the talk page too? FDW777 (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- I generally think protecting a talk page is an extreme measure. If there is disruprive editing on the talk page, it should be dealt with appropriately. Obvious vandalism and unconstructive requests can be swiftly removed as far as I am aware. My technical skills don't allow me to, (yet) but we should just archive the (answered) distruptive requests we have now if they do not require any action. Slomo666 (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Where did this expression come from?
I feel it would probably be easier to not have to deal with, well, scroll above, if we had a clear statement of when this was first used. The problem is, all the sources are busy arguing about if it is or isn't racist, or proving it is racist, or white guilt or whatever, so, unlike the "white power" phrase I actually haven't been able to find anyone discussing its origins.
I was able to add some early usages from the 1980s I found in books. Taken together, I suspect that this phrase may originate with either the Aryan Nations or a related group in the 1980s. It was used by the Order in the early 1980s, used as the name of a KKK rally led by Thom Robb in 1986, and by 1987 the Aryan Nations were selling merchandise of it. These are the first results I can find for it as a concept. The Order was an AN spinoff and Robb also had AN ties, so this indicates to me that it is probably from the AN. It also just seems like something they would come up with. I will keep looking, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
White Pride
Wikipedia should remove white pride as a racist connection or relabel Black pride as a racist connection. Connected to the Black Panthers who hate white people and Black lives Matter movement who also hate shite people.
wikipedia is not an American institution and should not speak about what it doesn’t understand. Why don’t you just focus on Denmark and its racism. Since your all white right. ~2026-10115-54 (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- WP:Not forum WP:SOAP Whataboutism 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)