Talk:White pride/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Time to make an FAQ?

Okay, the steady stream of randos coming to complain about the article being racist is eroding my patience. I think it might be useful to create an FAQ to answer the common questions/complaints so we can point users to that and not have to entertain each and every user who raises the "the page is racist" argument. I would think the FAQ, should others agree to the idea, would include (1) Why is this page not like black pride, gay pride, etc., (2) why the page isn't "neutral", and (3) why is the page about the slogan. I'd be happy to draft something up quickly if there's interest in it (I've answered these questions a few dozen times already it seems).

Anyone else agree to an FAQ? Disagree? Wish to {{trout}} me a few times? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I could also see including "How can I go about improving this article?", with helpful links to WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:Consensus, why wikipedia is not a collection of personal opinions, but an encyclopedia, etc. I think it may cut down on the "this page is racist" posts, if people realise they have to do the work. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Like the idea of "how you can help". Adding a template for that now too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea! Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I whipped up something over on User:EvergreenFir/sandbox5. Below is what I got. Entirely open to suggestions, corrections, edits. You are welcome to edit my sandbox too.

{{FAQ page}} 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?

Two reasons: First, this article is about the slogan white pride whereas the other pages are about pride movements. Second, 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.

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?

The topics of Wikipedia articles must be notable, which is determined by coverage from reliable, independent sources. During discussions on the talk page for this article, we've not found enough coverage of any pride movements or of the concept of white pride to warrant its own article. The majority of sources cover the slogan "white pride" and its use by various groups.

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

NPOV (neutral point of view) refers to how articles discusses a topic as presented by reliable sources. If the sources present a topic in a positive light, Wikipedia must be neutral and present it in the same manner. Same goes 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?

Reliable sources are allowed to take sides, so long as the source is considered reliable. 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?

Editors are encouraged to research the topic and find sources to help expand the article. If you have something, you can boldly add it to the article yourself or bring it to the article's talk page to discuss it with other user. 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).

That said, the source must be consider a reliable source. 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. When we include notable opinions, we must attribute that opinion to its author. Sometimes an otherwise non-noteworthy opinion or statement is covered by reliable sources, and that coverage can be noteworthy. However, not all opinions are noteworthy, even if the person is well-known. For example, a tweet by LeBron James about climate change is likely not noteworthy despite the author being famous and the topic being well-known.

Felt Q5 plus that "found sources" template I added in the banners area addressed K.e.coffman's suggestion to include how to improve the article. We can totally add a Q6 about it too if you like. Let me know what you think. If I'm misinterpreting anything, please let me know. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep, Question 5 addresses what I was thinking about quite well. I'm thinking it can be trimmed (for length), to read:

• Editors are encouraged to research the topic and find sources to help expand the article. If you have something, you can boldly add it to the article yourself or bring it to the article's talk page to discuss it with other user. 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).
  
  That said, the source must be consider a reliable source. 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. When we include notable opinions, we must attribute that opinion to its author. Not all opinions are noteworthy, even if the person is well-known.
• K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

 Works for me EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I tweaked some wording on the sandbox. Note one of my pet peeves is the difference between WP:Notability vs. prominence. jps (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• WP:BOLDly added to the page. Feel free to edit or comment on Talk:White pride/FAQ. Thank you all for the edits and suggestions on the sandbox. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Anti white propaganda

This article is not neutral, it uses the SPLC as a source. The FBI no longer uses them as they are biased in such a way that it's an unfair source to use if Wikipedia trying to be objective. Obviously this article isn't. Any other "pride" article is positive. But white pride is racist. This is to for the leftist attitude that "all white people are racist" and that's unfair. Ticklewood (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

No. This is your opinion only. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:White pride/FAQ#Q3 EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also add that the "leftist" sobriquet is an unwarranted generalization. is essentially an Ad hominem fallacy and is not WP:NPOV. It is WP:Soapboxing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2016

This article is describing white pride as being hateful, offensive and racist. But, saying that, is racist in itself. If black, asian, mexican, etc. can have their pride, then why can't white people? Assuming they are using the term 'white pride' as being offensive is completely unfair and I would very much like a change to this offensive article.

EdwardPoyser22 (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. st170e^talk 18:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@EdwardPoyser22: Please see the FAQ at the top of this page (direct link: Talk:White pride/FAQ). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2016

Truman123456 (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC) This article is tackling white people and imposing white guilt upon them. i suggest that this article should have the same essence as the black pride article: Talking about how whites want to defend their culture.

I really hope this suggestion isn't classified as 'harassment' or any similar false accusations.

Thank you

 Not done - That's not a specific edit request. See the above section and the FAQ at the top of the page.- MrX 22:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Striving for consensus

I agree with everyone here who has said the current state of the article is racist, especially if you compare it to the other "__ pride" articles. Why when races are changed the concept of positive pride suddenly becomes moot? What makes white negative and everyone else positive? Just because reliable sources stating white pride = white supremacy exist doesn't mean they should necessarily be included. For the sake of consensus among this Wikipedia community (this is clearly a dispute going on here), inclusion of certain racist sources should be re-examined, in accordance to WP:ONUS. Also in the spirit of WP:UNDUE, here is what it states:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

In its current state the article makes it seem like the concept of positive pride amongst white people's race is a "tiny minorit[y]" because it is not even mentioned at all. I not talking of white supremacy but positive pride. There should be a more balanced side of the article instead of 100% negative, white supremacy slant. I think the goal with the article should be a neutral one, and one that achieves consensus among Wikipedia editors.

--Chiefmartinez (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:White pride/FAQ. If you know of significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, please bring them forth for discussion. Sources are very, very clear that the phrase white pride is overwhelmingly used in a certain way. Feelings of pride are only discussed as they relate to the phrase, because sources focus on the phrase. Sources also explain, as does the article, that the phrase has a racist history. If you want to change the article, provide new sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see Talk:White pride/FAQ#Q1,Talk:White pride/FAQ#Q3 and Talk:White pride/FAQ#Q4. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The tone of the article is still overwhelmingly negative and excludes all possibility of positive pride. Yes the sources backup what it is saying but is it even appropriate? The overall effect of the article is what I am referring to. Just because it can be portrayed the way it is, does not mean it should. Wikipedia:Non-discrimination policy --Chiefmartinez (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

How, exactly, is it inappropriate? The article doesn't exclude all possibility of positive pride. I don't see that at all. It discusses the documented history of the motto. It also quotes several academics who explain that it's a lot more complicated than "pride is bad". The motto doesn't have a pretty history, but that's not something Wikipedia should attempt to downplay just because it's unpleasant. Citing the boilerplate nondiscrimination policy for this seems like an extreme stretch. Nothing about this article is discriminatory towards users or employees of the Wikimedia Foundation as far as I can see. Wikipedia isn't censored, and we don't do false balance, so... what are you suggesting? So are you suggesting that we delete the article? I don't think that's going to happen. Grayfell (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with other editors who responded. See Talk:White pride/FAQ. If you know of significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, please bring them forth for discussion. Otherwise, it's a pointless debate; please see WP:Not a forum. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I am looking up sources and new information. --Chiefmartinez (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Your comparison to other articles is an irrelevant and misleading fallacy that does not convincingly support your conclusion. Tu quoque. 13:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, what is going on everyone. I researched some support for positive pride and it was instantly reverted within four minutes of posting it. I do not see what is warranting this kind of unbelievably negative viewpoint towards the term, to the point where differing viewpoints are "fringe" even with multiple sources supporting it that are reliable. The paragraph even acknowledged the term has been used in racist ways. The paragraph also was just a snippet of the overall article, not some major edit to debase all the other sources. What I am getting at is that this Wikipedia article is being controlled by a group that is unwilling to even acknowledge what I am saying.

Yes the term has a racist history, yes the professors and academia all proclaim it is racist. However with the edits I made it is clear that there is reliable data that exists that says white pride according to its believers can exist for people without it being a "white supremacy" issue or negative. I don't understand why these sources are being censored as "fringe" especially in light of all the other __ pride articles. --Chiefmartinez (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you formed a conclusion, then went searching for newspaper clippings to support the conclusion. See WP:SYNTH.- MrX 17:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edits appear to be about the concept of white pride. Article is about the motto. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@MrX I am just bringing new sources up for the article. The articles themselves do the conclusions: they state there are people that exist that believe in white pride and do not believe in white supremacy.

@EvergreenFir That is true. Maybe it would be better to reframe the article (or create a new one) that includes the the concept of it not just the phrase. I think the two can be confused. --Chiefmartinez (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you seriously citing a meme from reddit as a rationale for making these edits? Did you actually read any of the many responses here to that meme? Even those sources you cite for 'positive' pride demonstrate that the motto is controversial and mostly rejected by reliable sources as another rationalization:

• From the Harvard Law Record - Heston stated that "when I said white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride, I was called a racist. When I compared singling out the innocent Jews slaughtered in the Holocaust to singling out innocent gun owners today, I was called an anti-Semite."[1] So Heston admits that he's called a racist when he advocates the phrase, and his comments on the Holocaust... Yeah.
• From the opinion page of the Lodi News-Sentinal - Possibly it's youthful naivete on the part of the Enumclaw teens, but "white pride" is nothing less than a code term for racism that's fully understood and embraced by the Klan and other violent white supremacy groups as a...[2] It's a weak source, and it specifically supports that "white pride" is a racist code term.
• From the Knight-Ridder story (here's an easier to read link) - Loretta Reeves, chairman of the Temple PIRG, a public interest research organization, said that she endorsed the group's First Amendment right to organize on the Temple campus, but she maintained that it would divide the campus along racial lines. "For a group which has been patting its heritage on the back for centuries to now further proclaim their pride is racially divisive," Reeves said. "A better alternative is some type of racial coalition." This is already covered at White Student Unions, where context makes it very clear this is a minor example the phenomenon which has very little to do with the motto, or indeed the supposed concept it represents. Grayfell (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I move to have this discussion hatted. It is seriously not going anywhere useful. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to assume a modicum of good faith on Chiefmartinez's part... I don't think a hat is necessary. As mentioned above, part of the problem is that this article is about a motto and many people think it's about a concept. We don't have enough RS to make the article about the concept generally (currently like 90% of sources talk about the motto or how the phrase is related to racism/supremacy). I don't think we'll find that changing any time soon, but I it would be too pushy to shut down the conversation. If Chiefmartinez wishes to dig for sources, let them; the most splendid gems are rarely found on the surface. But we should focus on the motto, not the concept. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The connection to the white student unions is interesting. If there are solid sources connecting it to the phrase or concept or whatever, I would like to see them, but articles which use "white" and "pride" together in passing aren't cutting it. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfall the sources also have a reverse to what you described: they all demonstrate historically people who have gone by "white pride" and claim not to be racists. Just because there is other commentary in the articles doesn't negate the claims by the WSU, Enunclaw teens, and Charlton Heston. But if the majority wants those sources not to be present then so to be it.

The reddit meme is actually how I discovered the article and I found it be to disturbing that Wikipedia would be condoning racism against white people by making it negative. As Evergreen pointed out though I was confusing the phrase with the concept. I think the reason that "white pride" is so specific (phrase) as opposed to the other __ pride articles (concept) is precisely why there is a controversy with the "white pride" article. People may come in the article thinking it has to do with the concept when in fact it is referring to something else. I think a good alternative would be including a hatnote at the top of the article or something along these lines:

This page is about white pride as a motto. It is not to be confused with the concept of white pride itself.

or

Not to be confused with the concept of white pride.

or

Not to be confused with the positive racial identity of being white.

What does everyone think of this? The hatnote doesn't have to be worded exactly like the way I did, but just provides a way of distinguishing the racist motto vs positive racial identity of being white. --Chiefmartinez (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hatnotes are for disambiguation between articles. There is no article for "White pride (concept)" nor is there likely to be based on available sources. Brown Eyed Girl has a hatnote for Brown Eyed Girls because that's another article with a similarity, and the hatnote reduces confusion instead of adding to it. Green-Eyed Lady doesn't have a hatnote saying "This is about the Sugarloaf song. It is not to be confused with the concept of ladies with green eyes", because that's never going to be an article and it would only create confusion. We have articles on white people and articles on pride. To combine those concept here would be WP:SYNTH, as it would imply that the phrase "white pride" can be separated from it's racist connotations based on a very selective interpretation of some very obscure sources. It would also completely misinterpret the history of black pride just to prove a point, but that's another issue. Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Just for information, there is now an article at White Pride (Non-Racist). I am taking no stance on that article (or this), just came across it while patrolling new pages and saw that it ties into the discussion here. PGWG (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It's gone per WP:A10 and WP:POINT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• I do not see the need for a hatnote to link to a non existing article. But the current lede to the article fails to provide any context for the so-called motto and does not really reflect the contents of the article. The association with white privilege which is sourced in the body of the article is missing from the lede. One of the sources ,Carol M.Swain, asserts that the motto is used by white supremacists in an attempt to appeal to a wider audience. Well this also not explained in the lede. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.". Dimadick (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• • White Pride (Non-Racist) been deleted by another Admin as duplicating this topic. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell "very selective interpretation of some very obscure sources" The sources I used in the June 12 edit were quoting the people directly in the articles. That is not an interpretation on my own, but them using their own words. Also newspaper articles are reliable sources even if they are old/obscure. Being obscure doesn't negate its reliability.

"as it would imply that the phrase "white pride" can be separated from it's racist connotations" The sources I used had people A) using the phrase "white pride" and B) claiming they opposed racism/discrimination. These people seem to imply a separation, or at least a separation that exists in the minds of these people. If a separation exists then a hatnote mentioning it should be reasonable. I also think it would cut down on the controversy of the article if it were included. --Chiefmartinez (talk) 04:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

They are very obscure and relatively old for such a contemporary topic. That doesn't make them unreliable, exactly, but not every verifiable fact belongs in the article, and if this is the best we've got, then it's WP:UNDUE. There's also the issue that one of them is an opinion piece, which is handled differently from news and reporting. As a general rule, opinions need to be attributed, so in this case we should be able to explain why we are mentioning the opinion of the 1999 Tacoma News Tribune editorial board via the Lodi News-Sentinel. There's no explanation for that I can see other than propping up a specific POV. The other two a bit better, but not nearly enough. As the controversy essay you link points out: Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views in a controversy.

All of those sources also mention in some way that the phrase has serious problems with interpretation. All of those sources specifically mention that the phrase is closely associated with labels of racism. Since this is a common thread for all reliable sources I've seen which discuss this phrase, downplaying this point would be non-neutral. If some of the people using the phrase oppose or claim to oppose racism, that could be explained in the article, but only with much better sources, and not in a hatnote. Grayfell (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

So you are equating the beliefs expressed in the sources I provided as essentially being pseudoscience or a fringe theory.

Here is WP:PROFRINGE:

"if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play."

The Lodi News-Sentinel article: "Other ethnic groups, they argue [whites], have pride in their cultures and races, so why shouldn't whites? They should, ..." While the rest of the article explains "white pride" as having racist connotations there is a legitimate acknowledgement here. The author that opposes the use of "white pride" agrees that there are aspects that are legimitate and not fringe.

Here is a new editorial: "Question: Why is it that "white pride" is called bigotry... Answer: Rarely is white pride associated with the history and culture of the white race. Instead it has frequently been used as a slogan by groups who vocalize the fear that minority groups will overrun the rights of white people." Here the author explicitly makes a separation between the positive and negative. He wouldn't make a distinction if he didn't feel like there was none to make.

Here is another new article, this one being an editorial. It says the negative connotations of "white pride" is in part due to newspapers promoting racial separatism. This is another instance where the author acknowledges positive usages of "white pride" independent of supremacy/racism.

I would say it is difficult to conclude all these authors are white supremacists.

From WP:PROFRINGE: "Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable."

So let's suppose the sources I originally linked to (not this posting) were indeed fringe. That is OK, supposing their fringe ideas are notable.

Here is WP:GNG:

- Significant coverage

- Reliable

- Sources

- Independent of subject

- Presumed

These sources (this posting) adhere to "Significant coverage"; no original research is needed to interpret the stances made by the people in the articles. They are Reliable. All are secondary Sources, because they discuss the usage of "white pride". All are independent of the subject; none are associated with the people they describe. They all adhere to "Presumed" because overall they create an assumption that it should be included.

Maybe a hatnote is not the answer. But I do support some kind of inclusion that acknowledges this aspect of "white pride" that is independent of supremacy.--Chiefmartinez (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I dunno. The Malkin source seems not to say that white pride is good, but more that black pride is bad. At the very least it never explictely says so. The other source you give talks about how the majority of the time white pride is a racist slogan, I dont see any real endorsement of the idea as a notable fringe idea, and no proponents of it are pointed to. Our lede sentence seems to acknowledge it the same way the Deseret news Q&A does. We say it's primarily used by racists, they say it rarely isnt. Brustopher (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would call this fringe, exactly. This is a personal position, so it's not falsifiable and it's not expected to be, so pseudoscience isn't a great comparison. GNG is a distraction, because it's about the notability of articles, not the content in them. That said, I don't think the coverage is significant, so presumed (which "creates an assumption, not a guarantee") also fails. The page I've been pointing to is WP:UNDUE, which is part of NPOV.

There are proponents of "white pride" who say they are not racists or supremacists (or white nationalists, or racialists, or identitarians, or whatever the latest euphemisms is). They problem is that, according to the sources presented, they are in the extreme minority. Being generous, I assume this is because most white people who go this route express pride in much more specific groups ("Irish pride", "Scandinavian pride", "Basque pride", "Slavic pride", etc.) which is an option a large percentage of black people have been specifically deprived of. Most black people cannot confidently claim anything like "Ashanti pride" or "Ghanan pride" or similar. People who use "white pride", even those who sincerely reject racism, seem mostly oblivious to the existence of such distinctions, which is one reason it's characterized as a reaction to black pride instead of a movement in its own right. Black pride is associated with Pan-Africanism partly because it is impossible for many black people to trace their specific heritage. White people, on the other hand, generally have more specific information about their ancestry. I've found some discussion of this idea, but nothing in a usable source which directly ties it to the phrase, which is a shame, as it might assuage some of the concerns of reddit brigaders. At least, it might for the ones who actually bother to read the whole article instead of just the first two lines. I get the impression that a lot are just looking for an excuse to get offended, but there's not much we can do about them.

As for the sources presented, all of them support the idea that white pride is tied to racism. UNDUE suggest that one way to test an idea for inclusion is to name a prominent supporter of the idea. So far, the only person suggested is Charlton Heston, but he also said he had been called racist for it, and the obscurity of the source and hyperbole of his rhetoric suggests to me this isn't worth bothering with. Grayfell (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It makes sense after reading about the more specific groups mentioned: Irish pride, German pride, etc. that "white pride" doesn't have as many examples in the same way: it is segmented. I think positive white pride can largely be the same as the specific European group prides (Irish pride, German pride, etc). I have done some more searching and this week I came across this NYT article: Link. It ties in to this line of thinking: segmented pride is mentioned:

"Contrary to the philosophy of assimilation, ethnic pride and ethnic identification are being stressed in the new programs" and

"The feeling is spreading that ethnicity should be a source of pride and not an embarrassment, as it was to the grandparents of so many of today's students."

It further discusses this concept of white pride but not the specific phrase that is showcased in the Wikipedia article. Some of the books mentioned in the NYT article include: "The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics" and "Blood of My Blood: The Dilemma of Italian‐Americans". I haven't read either of the books, so I can't say how relevant they are to this Wikipedia article. Here is a JSTOR review of "The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics" for what it's worth. With the NYT article and two books maybe we could go back to the idea of differentiating the two: concept vs pride. The future Wikipedia edits could A) mention in some way white pride as describing positive ethnic pride regarding those of European origin (which the NYT article mentions: "Italian Power", "Polish Is Beautiful") and B) have the rest of the article as it is, explaining white pride as a phrase used largely by supremacist racists.

Sources for positive ethnic groups are much more numerous: 1, 2, 3 for those of Irish origin; 1, 2, 3 for those German origin, 1 for those of Polish origin, etc. --Chiefmartinez (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I have added the tag because:

• In relation with other articles of the same prose, the article seems to take a particular point of view, and does not consider all of the relevant sources.
• The topic has been very disputed in the past, as seen in the recent talk sections and archived areas.
• Adding of an FAQ really shows how far this problem has gone.
• White pride does not mean white supremacy. There are different articles for that.
• Most of the relevant sources seem to be taken from left-wing organisations, or organisations that are known for their bias.

KevinNinja (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean "articles of the same prose"? Then can you be specific about what changes you are proposing that will present the subject from a more neutral point of view? - MrX 18:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a long history of people popping in to say what they believe "white pride" should mean. This article, however, is about what independent reliable sources say it generally is: "a motto primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations to signal racist or racialist viewpoints."

The POV template is for "articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." The viewpoint of a group stirred up on reddit to post their feelings here is not the "perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources".

"The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." I'm not seeing such discussion.

Instead, I see you comparing this article to "other articles". Yes, other articles say various things about other topics.

Instead, I see you pointing to various drive-bys stirred up on reddit to say what they feel the phrase should mean or haw they want it to be used. That's swell. I'd like to see bananas used as for skating competitions in the Olympics, but that won't make it in any articles either.

Instead, I see you not liking that we've created a FAQ to save us some of the trouble of having to say things repeatedly when people post to the talk page without reading any of the past comments saying the same things repeatedly.

Instead, I see you saying white pride is not white supremacy. The article does not say that it is. It says that "white pride" is a motto frequently used by white supremacists (and others of similar opinions). Why do we say that? Because that is what independent reliable sources say.

Instead, I see vague claims that "most" of the sources "seem" to be from "left-wing" organizations "known" for bias. Really? The Star (Toronto), Sun Media, ProQuest, Routledge, Johns Hopkins University Press, Oxford University Press, Motivation and Emotion (journal), Annual Review of Sociology (journal), Cambridge University Press, U.S. Senate Committee on The Judiciary... That's the first ten sources (feel free to take a look at the rest). If you feel those are "left-wing organizations" and are "known for their bias", you're at the wrong project. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be stuck on the fact that you believe I am trying to make an assertion that the article is biased. If I came across as making that assertion, my apologies, but it was not my intention. I created the tag because there seems to be a constant dispute on the neutrality of the article. Shutting down discussion by undoing edits and acting like the dispute does not exist is exactly how we shouldn't approach this. KevinNinja (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There was not a real dispute. The arguments put forward by various IP's and sock puppets were not coherent. Earthscent (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

By adding the tag, you are asserting that you "have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view." You seem to be saying that you have noticed a lot of people disagree with what the article says. That's something else entirely. If you believe there is a serious NPOV issue, you need to "(point) to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies". The tag in question is not meant to tell people, "Hey, some people disagree with this article." It is intended to identify and focus work on correcting NPOV issues.

The overwhelming majority of the "discussion" on this page (and the reason for the FAQ) is single-purpose editors drawn here by their feelings about what they consider to be "white pride", not concerns about whether or not we are fairly representing what reliable sources have to say about the subject of this article: the slogan. - SummerPhD^v2.0

@KevinNinja There has been progress however I think in earlier discussions:

A) The article discusses the phrase, not the concept of "white pride" something I (and probably many others) initially confused. This fundamental confusion did make it seem like the article was racist, but it is just reporting the facts.

B) "White pride" as a concept can largely be the same as European ethnic pride, which has many segmentations (Irish pride, Slavic pride, German pride, French pride, etc.). This has not yet been addressed in the article. However this point alone is something I did not consider earlier, further adding to my perspective at the time.

C) The other pride articles do not necessarily affect this article. As SummerPhDv2.0 pointed out, articles are independent in their content.

As for NPOV maybe after reading these above points, what do you think? For me it is not necessarily racist/non-NPOV just lacking content/incomplete. I do think the article should mention point B, which I described in more detail in an above post I made. I hope this helps --Chiefmartinez (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe that a POV tag is necessary. The article is neutral and reflects what the sources say. That some people would like to present "white pride" as a positive concept is immaterial. It's similar to saying that the Confederate flag is about "heritage and pride". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Potentially new edits

Here is a draft of a possible new section that could be added to the article. I am posting here first before making any edits. Also my stance has changed significantly from earlier. Here it is:

Ethnic pride

Separate from the motto used primarily by racists, positive examples of ethnic pride regarding those of European origin has existed in several forms throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. During the 1970s in New York City, some groups of Italian and Polish origin created slogans such as "Polish Is Beautiful" and "Italian Power" in what Gene Maeroff of the New York Times describes as being stirred by a "rise of black consciousness" of the era. White ethnic studies were implemented during this time to encourage self-awareness and heritage. On January 3, 1973 United States House of Representatives member Robert A. Roe introduced the "H.R.994 - Ethnic Heritage Studies Act", which aimed at supporting ethnic studies involving many different ethnic groups including those of European origin.

Festivals and parades have also taken place to display positive pride regarding those of European origin. Examples include Irish pride parades that usually coincide with St. Patrick's Day, Oktoberfest which honors those of Bavarian origin, and Polish pride parades that honor the establishment of the 1791 Polish Constitution.

So there we are. I think there is more than sufficient evidence for a section mentioning ethnically motivated pride of European origin. I also changed a little wording at the start from the first posting to better fit the rest of the article. Any comments are welcome. --Chiefmartinez (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Your efforts are appreciated but this ventures far too much into SYNTH. You're tying together two concepts (white pride and ethnic pride) that the sources themselves do not link. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The first NYT article is about "America's white ethnic groups" and "the feeling is spreading that ethnicity should be a source of pride and not an embarrassment" in addition to other things. You are correct that it does not explicitly say "white pride" but functionally that is what it is talking about. In what ways does it not link white ethnic groups and pride in their heritage? --Chiefmartinez (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You need a source that says it explicitly. Earthscent (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

References

What is meant by "Anti-racist critics"? Critics of anti-racists? Or critics of racists? Please remove ambiguity, in case somebody can access the reference.

The section "Use as an identity marker" starts of with the words "Anti-racist critics". What is meant by that please?

• Critics of anti-racists?
• Or critics who are against racists (more simply: "critics of racists")?

This first appeared in a revision of 4 September 2015 by @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:. The reference given is (see link in revision or idem: footnote here) The information extracted from this reference in the Wikipedia article still doesn't clarify what is meant by "Anti-racist critics". Could anybody with access to the cited reference be able to rephrase so to remove the ambiguity of this expression? (Verheyen Vincent (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC))

The source can be reviewed at Google books. Carol M. Swain is a social scientist, and the book is not supportive of white nationalists/supremacists/etc., so I've rephrased the sentence. Grayfell (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Middle Ground

As many are dismayed at the progress of the page, I propose a new article be created titled European Traditionalism. Here the civilized concepts of what many in this talk page are calling under a positive light 'white pride' will be found. For good or for ill, the fact of the matter is that many overtly racist -- more oft than not skinhead -- groups have set the phrase 'white pride' in stone. Divi Filius XII (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. Start here- European Traditionalism. Remember to source everything you write. There's some advice for your first article here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A note of caution: You might have trouble finding reliable sources that explicitly refer to "European Traditionalism" as a concept. I'm not seeing much other than a noticeably white separatist blog and a few mentions in various sources about disparate ideas: DOMA, Putin and a new car design. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2016

2602:306:BD41:2640:491A:1F74:CA26:B856 (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Please remove the stupidity that white pride is racist. That is just ridiculous.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Fix or remove. Dano2880 (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Racially Insensitive Comment

I removed the following racially insensitive comment, which was restored: Special:Diff/733060736

Consider a factual statement: "despite constituting only 13% of the population blacks commit more than half of all murders" The statement itself is not inappropriate. If I said instead "Some (black) people may feel threatened by the statistic that..." that would be racially insensitive and inappropriate. I urge the OP to remove his comment. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This is pointy and not related to the article itself. Move it to the user's talk page or just remove it. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my point, and I'm not removing the line. Your comparison appears to be intentionally inflammatory. There's nothing else to be said about it. Grayfell (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2016

Replace "White pride is a motto primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations to signal racist or racialist viewpoints.[3][4]"

Insert "People of caucasian or European descent, who show pride in their heritage. White people of European stock have a right to look after their interests, especially in light of current demographic trends in the U.S. and Western Europe. Unfortunately, virtually every “white rights” movement has been laden with racism. White pride should not be confused with "white supremacy", which is a belief that white's are a superior race. Whites should not be ashamed of their color, but rather celebrate it. This is a motion to respect our culture and to assimilate and tie together cultures that are celebrated, with our culture that is brushed aside. White is a color - embrace it. Ghobbsjr (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Difference between "White Pride" and "White Power"

White Pride is NOT a term used to support racist groups! "White Power" is the term used by racist groups! I shouldnt be made to feel like a racist for being proud of being white! Just like a Black person isnt called a racist for having Black Pride! This page needs to be edited IMMEDIATELY!! Cody135333 (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

No. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not particularly helpful, 7&6=thirteen. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Cody135333: Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

How? This is clearly an attack against a particular race. Check all the other ethnic pride pages and its all positive things. This page needs to be fixed now. Cody135333 (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Cody135333, we follow reliable sources, not the personal views of editors. Please take some time to read the manual, and especially our policies. It's not really advisable for new users to jump right into articles about controversial subjects until they understand how Wikipedia works.- MrX 21:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This is discussed in the FAQ at the top of the page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Still no. WP:Trolls 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

...what in the.

Is this article completely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.56.213 (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It's rather hard to tell what you are trying to say. Adding something after the adverb might help. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This us ridiculous. Asian pride is related as positive, black pride is listed as positive despite current political events to the contrary, gay pride is listed as positive. Why can't white people be openly proud of their heritage without being called racist? I am not talking about neonazis or white supremists here. This article needs to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cf32:5760:5957:9b5c:9b5:7d36 (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top. clpo13_(talk) 18:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

...really?

Even Straight Pride is a better written article than this. The whole article looks like it was copy and pasted from an over the top feminist website, and it constantly repeats itself. Most obviously: Why do the writers appear to think it's only a neo-nazi or white-supremist trait? As someone who isn't even proud of aspects such as their race, this article is seriously one-sided. 51.37.56.213 (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Uh huh. See the FAQ at the top of the page. Grayfell (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View (NPOV)

I concur completely with the previous entry, which is why I added the Neutral Point of View template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hymnodist.2004 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Yet again, see the FAQ at the top of the page. White pride is not the exact same as every other kind of pride. If they were the same, why even bother making them separate articles? Many reliable sources treat white pride differently, and so does Wikipedia. The article reflects reliable sources in proportion to their weight, which is what NPOV means on Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur with the reasoning of Grayfell. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 05:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with Grayfell. Only if we allowed the IPs to pretend that white pride is the same thing as black pride would we need a NPOV tag. Earthscent (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresented and possibly irrelevant source

Since the cited article "Does White Pride lead to Prejudice" does NOT mention "supremacism" anywhere and only mentions "pridefulness" and "prejudice", I propose the following more accurate and balanced formulation:

In his article "Does White Pride Lead to Prejudice" Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, writes about two identifiable groups in a study: "One group very much identified with being White, but in a way that allowed them to recognize White privilege.... The other group also identified with being White, but described their experience much more in terms of how proud they were to be a part of the group.", concluding that "just because someone has a strong ethnic identity, we cannot make direct conclusions about their attitudes on other topics. This applies not just to Whites, but to members of other groups as well."

Alternatively, since the cited article doesn't actually talk about the motto or its use at all, and this article is said to be about the motto, not the idea, perhaps the quotes should be completely removed as irrelevant. In fact, this was done earlier by EvergreenFir: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_pride&type=revision&diff=720249481&oldid=720232195

If you disagree with both propositions, please explain yourself. There is no comment on the motto, and equating "negative attitudes towards diversity" with "supremacism" is clearly misrepresenting the source.

I would also like you to note that there was no discussion or agreement previously; a user made a series of large and highly biased edits on their own without any discussion, adding terms like "white supremacist ideation" out of nowhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_pride&type=revision&diff=722878549&oldid=721916799 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_pride&type=revision&diff=722901188&oldid=721916799 R3venans (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree: The OP does not make a convincing argument to replace the paragraph and instead seems to want to redesign the discussion of the Mendoza-Denton article to reflect a skewed POV. As for the other concerns, by definition, white people who have negative attitudes towards racial diversity are white supremacists. We have an article on the subject that explains exactly why, and it is not worth arguing this point here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Moreover, while the white pride "motto" is the most used aspect of this term to be sure, there is no reason to eschew discussion of the mindset behind those who use such a motto (which is what the article is about). 131.142.152.179 (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

"by definition, white people who have negative attitudes towards racial diversity are white supremacists"

Absurd nonsense. Then clearly Asian people who have negative attitudes towards racial diversity are "Asian supremacists", right? The cited article does NOT say that the people who identified as "prideful" use any such motto, so that point is moot as well. It's a misrepresentation. R3venans (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The summary seems accurate and I don't see the POV that the ip editor is alleging. The article talks about race-critical white folks who see their race, but see it as conferring privilege and thus work to reduce the race-power imbalance whereas others see their whiteness with pride and superiority. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is said about "superiority" or "supremacism" in the cited article. Furthermore, what then are for example white separatists and white nationalists as mentioned in this article? The article about "white supremacy" doesn't say anything about white separatists or white nationalists being necessarily the same thing as white "supremacists", and the cited article mentions nothing besides being "prideful". R3venans (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this a support for my proposition? R3venans (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that the line about supremacist ideation could be interpreted as mild WP:OR (and "ideation" seems verbose) but it is supported by the source, even if it doesn't use the specific words. We can and should use our own language when summarizing. The source is saying that there is a distinction between the white "power cognizant" group and the white "prideful" group, and specifically says that those in the prideful group show a greater tendency towards prejudice. The point is that people can claim a strong white identity without being "proud" specifically. It is not specifically saying that those who claim pride in their white identity should not be assumed to be racist, it's saying that those who claim a white identity in general should not be assumed to be racist. This article is about pride, while the source is about the effect pride has on attitude based on sense of identity. Including the summarizing line without any of that context would be misleading. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What, now this article is about "pride" and identity rather than the motto? There have been countless reverts justified with the reasoning that the article was about the MOTTO "White Pride" and its use, not the idea. The article introduction defines "white pride" as a motto, not as an idea.

The cited article doesn't discuss the motto or its use in any way, and doesn't mention "superiority", "racism", "racialism", "supremacism", "separatism", "nationalism", or "neo-nazi" in any form. The article mentions "negative attitudes towards diversity", "prejudice", and "pridefulness", and concludes with the mention that that other ethnic/racial groups are not different regarding the relation of ethnic/racial identity and "attitudes on other topics".

The user who made the edits decided on their own that "prejudice" equals "racism" equals "supremacism", even though the latter two terms aren't mentioned at all in the cited article. How does "prejudice" equal "supremacism"? Does there really need to be such a leap?

"The prideful group, by contrast, did not endorse these items as strongly, and showed a greater tendency towards prejudice than the power-cognizant group." So, this is the "white supremacism"? Damn, that's a LOT of "white supremacists", probably tens of millions in the US alone. I bet the vast majority have little to do with the motto "white pride" though.

The comments referring to "power" are rather ambiguous. Considering the author mentions that "other groups" can also be prejudiced and prideful, it logically follows from this strange OR interpretation that they are also "supremacist" if "their group has power", whatever that is supposed to mean. So, Japanese people with "negative attitudes towards (ethnic/racial) diversity" in Japan are also "Japanese supremacists" or maybe "Asian supremacists", because Japanese and "Asian" people obviously "have power" in Japan.

I would at least remove the mention of "white supremacist ideation" in the description of the source article, but in all honesty, if you really want to have the article look stupid, I'm not sure I really care. I have a feeling almost everyone reading this article have their own ideas and strong opinions about the topic already.

"FIGHT THE POWER" (笑) R3venans (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Having lived in Japan for a bit, your comment about "Japanese supremacists" is not far from the truth. Many nationalists there would be aptly described as such. But I admit that's beside the point. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Second draft:

Similarly, an article written by Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, discussing a "power-cognizant" group and a "prideful" group, affirms that identifying as white is not necessarily a sign of a prejudiced attitude: "Does identifying as 'White' predict negative attitudes towards diversity? That depends on how conscious you are of power.... One group very much identified with being White, but in a way that allowed them to recognize White privilege.... The other group also identified with being White, but described their experience much more in terms of how proud they were to be a part of the group.

It's simply replacing the unsourced and absurd mention of "white supremacist ideation" with a far more accurate representation of the source, which only mentions "negative attitudes" and "prejudice".

"affirms that identifying as white is not necessarily a sign of a prejudiced attitude" is far more truthful, and is exactly "in the vein" of the previous sentence, which discusses a "positive" identity. R3venans (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I still don't agree, although that is an improvement over your previous proposal. Nobody is actually claiming that simply identifying as white leads to a prejudiced attitude. Are they? A lot of people seem to think that's what the article is saying, but I don't see it, and I've never seen that claim in a reliable source. We should not use a line from the source to answer an argument that is only being made by the source, only in passing, and only to refute it immediately after. Making this point would be non-neutral. This is a recurring problem that comes up at this article, which ties in with why it has a FAQ. Some (white) people may feel threatened by the article, but that, by itself, isn't Wikipedia's problem. Presenting this point over and over is bending over backwards to preemptively reassure a small audience of people who don't seem to understand what the actual issue is. This point, if it needs to be raised at all, belongs elsewhere, such as white people or one of the many articles about cultural identity, or maybe white guilt or similar. Grayfell (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not like the current wording. Your first summary seemed good to me in terms of summarizing the source. But Grayfell makes s good point. Frankly I think it might be best to remove it entirely since it's not about the motto, but I'm not married to that position. My use of "supremacy" above was my own summary and you're right it's not in the article. But the article does say the "prideful" group tends toward prejudice: "The prideful group, by contrast, did not endorse these items as strongly, and showed a greater tendency towards prejudice than the power-cognizant group.".

I think the biggest hurdle facing this article is (1) the scope and (2) the nexus of white supremacy and white pride. For scope, we current limit the topic to the motto (mostly). I think this is the more notable part of it, and certainly is the part covered by sources more. The nexus is where we get into POV issues where people, generally anti-Progressive folks, wish to have some form of White pride akin to Black pride (a positive pride). Unfortunately, which this can exist in theory, it is inextricably intertwined with White supremacism historically and currently and cannot be discussed without that context.

I bring this up to try to clarify the underlying issues as I see them, but to also ask ourselves whether the source being debated fits the current scope or not. If not, do we include it and expand the scope a bit to include the idea of "white pride" more generally (or at least a section on it), or do we simply exclude the source? EvergreenFir (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I would accept removing the source, but I think it raises some interesting points. A major complaint has been the articles focus on the phrase instead of the concept. Well, here we finally have a okay source about the concept itself which even uses the specific phrase. In couple of sentences it's saying "Among people who strongly identify as white, research differentiates between those who recognize white privilege, and those who express pride. The prideful group is more likely to devalue diversity and to show prejudice, while the power aware group is more likely to value diversity." That's not great, but it's an attempt. Grayfell (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Agree: better reflects the source and it's much clearer. I'm still not sure what the previous wording meant. Re:Grayfell's "Nobody is actually claiming..." - the article opens with "White pride is a motto primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations to signal racist or racialist viewpoints." The academic source a direct comment on "white pride" - no question it's relevant to the article. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Where does the article say that identifying as white leads to prejudiced attitudes? White pride is not the same as white self-identification, that's the entire point of the source we're discussing. Grayfell (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

"Nobody is actually claiming that simply identifying as white leads to a prejudiced attitude. Are they? A lot of people seem to think that's what the article is saying, but I don't see it, and I've never seen that claim in a reliable source."

"... Cris Mayo, characterizes white pride as "a politically distasteful goal, given that whiteness is not a personal or community identity, but has been a strategy to maintain inequities of privilege and power."

This article actually quotes a source saying "whiteness is not a personal or community identity". That's a very radical and probably uncommon opinion about identity in general, but it's from a "reliable source", right? I wonder if they also believe that "blackness is not a personal or community identity". R3venans (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

From a social science prospective, that's not a radical or uncommon opinion. The idea if a Black community and shared experience goes back to WEB Dubois and probably earlier. The idea is that being a minority and opposed group creates the shared identity because there's a whole world invisible to the dominant groups perspective (DuBois calls this "the veil"). Anyway, we need to stop trying to parallel this article to Black experiences. Sources don't treat them the same and neither should we. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)4

see once again... i just finished reading this dicussion. If I cited aganast one of any of the negetive (and also inccorect) things you said that most defniatly offened every white person whom read this awful page, you would refuse the credible source beaucse you are simply adamant to not change the article. the problem is you are not trying to work with the people who are bringing it to your attenetion; but rather, you are discrediting any sources if they are from anyone not in your local public library.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.202.197 (talk • contribs) 03:06, December 14, 2016 (UTC)

No, we are not trying to "work with the people", we are trying to report what independent reliable sources say about "white pride".

If you have independent reliable sources that we are not using here or feel there are places where we are not accurately reporting what the sources say, we can discuss that. We cannot reasonably discuss what you claim we will do if you do something you have not done. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure those sources are reliable...?

Yes, I read the FAQ, and if reliable sources sometimes take sides (especially to the extent of seeming biased), then how are you so sure they're reliable? 51.37.95.125 (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

For a complete answer, please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The short answer is that reliable sources are those published sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.

This article cites established mainstream news sources, books from recognized mainstream and academic publishers and articles in peer-reviewed academic journals. Is there a particular source here whose reliability you are questioning? - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Credibility as you define the word is academically incorrect

To be credible, an author must be an "expert" in his or her field of study but even being a "expert" does not make a source credible. To be considered credible, a source (i.e. author) must have verifiable, scientifically proven, fact through observation of repetitive instances that can be repeated with certainty via a scientifically proven methodology. Obtaining an advanced degree, being a well-known author, having success as an author, even being recognized as a source of "credible" information does not make a "credible source". Credibility depends entirely on the source's ability to "prove" a theory with hard factual data and the proof of the theory must be capable of re-creation with a statistically meaningful level of confidence. Merely observing a phenomenon does not make an individual, or group of individuals, credible sources. For instance, there are documented cases of UFO sightings by "credible" sources both in terms of individuals as well as groups of people but the existence of UFOs is not considered to be a proven scientific fact of their existence, rather, merely proof that a person, or people, experienced an event which cannot be explained by their "natural world" understanding of the atmosphere, reflections of light, depth perception, vision, and/or mental and physical health. Many people considered Adolf Hitler to be a credible source but was he in fact credible? By the definition of credible presented by SummerPhD he would be considered a credible source. I think history has proven that Hitler was not a credible. Similarly, Bernie Madoff was considered a highly credible source whose opinions on the market and investment expertise were highly sought after but was he a credible source? I think you'd agree that "credibility" as defined by SummerPhD is a term defined by the then available predominant perception by a publicly accepted majority. The dictionary defines credible as "appearing to merit belief or acceptance". Do we really want to perpetrate ideas that are today accepted as being truth and fact or should we instead demand a higher level of accuracy and demand that a source prove, scientifically, that it is credible to the extent that it's thesis is indisputable. Einstein was a credible source. If a source has not PROVEN their theory beyond a reasonable doubt AND the theory cannot withstands the test of time then it is not credible. Any discussion of a source being credible based on any other definition, or the definition as SummerPhD has presented, is a direct path to bias, confusion, disinformation, prejudice, ignorance, and continued manipulation of fact. MBA2001 (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

As a tertiary source, this is not how Wikipedia works though. Please see WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:TRUTH as they are related to your comments. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh Lord. SummerPhD hasn't actually used the word "credible" anywhere on this page, much less defined it. Same goes for the word "expert". SummerPhD did link to WP:RS, but that doesn't use the word "credible" either, and only barely discusses expertise. Fabricating statements in order to respond to them is not assuming good faith. Grayfell (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to confuse the quotations around my reference to the words credible and expert as implying that I was quoting SummerPhD's specific word selections. I used quotation marks to indicate the words in which she provided a definition for, specifically SummerPhD wrote "This article cites established mainstream news sources, books from recognized mainstream and academic publishers and articles in peer-reviewed academic journals. Is there a particular source here whose reliability you are questioning? - SummerPhDv2.0 01:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)". SummerPhD is making reference to her argument that the article must be considered somewhat factually correct and credible by Wikipedia users and no changes are necessary because the author cited sources that were one or more of the following: 1) mainstream news source, 2) a book from a recognized mainstream and academic author/published writer, and/or 3) an article that has appeared in a peer-reviewed academic publication - with 3 and 4 being basically the same thing but I'm directly referencing SummerPhD's word choices and phraseology. Again, and to make my argument more clear for others that may be misled; EVERY SINGLE form of media irrespective of the fact that it is for entertainment or education is subject to manipulation. I'm not someone that is a paranoid psychopath untrusting of a single sole but I can cite specific examples throughout history of extremely well respected, highly prestigious academic publications who continually published works by a particular individual and the particular individual was very well known and his/her opinions were considered to be policy altering concepts. Then, one day, someone came along and proved his/her theory and life's work incorrect, wrong, false, and invalid and that formerly highly "credible" "expert" was relegated to living life as in shame and/or reversing his/her life's work. So, to bring my point full circle and to ensure that there's no confusion with respect to my intention and reference to the words credible and expert; SummerPhD is associating credibility and value of a particular person's work with popularity, acceptance, and mainstream academia's interest of that person's work at a particular period in time (or over a period of time). That is incorrect and if Wikipedia uses SummerPhD's approach to determining what is worthy of inclusion then I have lost respect for Wikipedia. However, I acknowledge that Wikipedia is a user-driven data source so it too is fallible but if someone is going to present themselves as an editor to the Wikipedia community then they should at least be knowledgeable enough to not fall victim to the lure of popular publications, no matter how academic or mainstream they may be. I speak from experience as a published author in "mainstream academic publications" nationally as well as "mainstream news sources" within the state of Texas. I've seen what it is I'm referring to time and time again and I'm only attempting to highlight the inaccuracy of SummerPhD and Wikipedia's reliance on the sources SummerPhD eluded to as having been tested and worthy of citation. An idea is an idea. A fact is a law of nature that never changes, persists throughout time, and can be relied on to always behave in the same manner no matter what occurs in it's environment. The subject of the main article with respect to the term White Pride and the pretense that conclusions can be drawn and inferences made by the term and who uses the term is not fact but merely speculation by casual observers who have a biased perspective. There is no place for human emotion when seeking to present a credible argument. The sources that were referenced in the original article were authors, researchers, and academics who each had their own specific intention behind their writings and they had a limited, highly focused audience they were targeting who themselves were biased and self motivated to seek out, invest, and study works by authors having the particular purpose as said authors had/have. If you enter a bikini contest and you weigh 400 pounds it's easy as hell to win when all the other contestants weigh 800 pounds. The citing used in the original article is similar to the 400 pound girl making the argument that she's the hottest thing in town because she beat out all the other contestants in the bikini contest. Context, validity, target audience, and common sense would go a long way in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBA2001 (talk • contribs)

The standards Wikipedia uses here are WP:V, WP:NPOV and, by extension, WP:RS. You have four basic approaches to changing the article:

1) Find additional material in other reliable sources and add it.

2) Show that the material that is here does not correctly summarize what the cited sources say.

3) Show that some of the sources do not meet WP:RS and remove those sources and the material they are cited for.

4) Work to change WP:V, WP:NPOV and/or WP:RS. (This cannot be accomplished in a single article's talk page.)

A high level argument here about the subjective experience of reality, individual fallibility and bias is pointless. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Just chiming in to agree with Summer. Have you read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS? You need to follow one of the suggested courses. A metadiscussion doesn't belong here. Doug Weller talk 13:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

What happened to no bias in our articles? Huh?! What about our policy of NPOV?!

Seriously, this article really riles me up. Not only is it biased to an extreme, as shown by some examples:

Example #1:

"White pride is a motto primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations to signal racist or racialist viewpoints."

Sure, this is usually used by white supremacist type groups; however, they aren't the only people who use the term. If any white person says "I've got white pride" to anyone, especially a black person, they'd be called a racist for saying that "they're better than blacks," which not only is not true, but also when a black person says "I've got black pride," they are congratulated for having pride in their ethnicity. Not their race- their ethnicity, or if you really want to call it that, their ethnic group. I'll stick with ethnicity for now.

Example #2:

"[P]eople who openly express White pride seem invariably to be those alienated from the mainstream culture—KKK members, skin-heads, and White supremacists—people trying to grab onto some basis for feeling good about themselves when conventional avenues such as successful careers and relationships are not working well for them. Consequently, the vast majority of people who avow White pride seem also to explicitly avow racism.[7]"

Okay, let's take a look at this line of the article. People who share their positive opinion on white pride are called, among other things: members of the Ku Klux Klan, skinheads, and White supremacists. I've got some white friends who not only have pride in the fact that they have a certain amount of melanin in their skin, but are also perfectly alright with other ethnicities using a variation of the term. Note the word "invariably." To me, this screams bias. Yes, many of the people who use the term "white pride" are skinheads or members of the Klan- people who hate others of different ethnicities; however, the same could be said for the rioters in Baltimore and Charlotte who, when asked, would probably say that they have Black Pride. Also, why is it always considered racist when there is a white person who is proud of their European heritage, but completely fine when Asian-Americans have pride in their lineage and culture. Don't believe me? Look at the article. Same for black pride and gay pride. C'mon, people we're supposed to be the one unbiased place on the internet. For God's sake, if you put "What is white pride?" into your Google search bar, the first definition that comes up is:

"White pride is a motto primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations to signal their racist or racialist viewpoints. Sociologists Betty A. Dobratz and Stephanie L Shanks-Meile identified "White Power!"

Not only that, but Wikipedia also has the first result for black pride:

"Black pride is a movement encouraging people to take pride in being black to various degrees. Related movements include black nationalism, Black Panthers, Afrocentrism and Black supremacism. The slogan has been used in the United States by African Americans to celebrate heritage and personal pride."

Those are the first results. That's what people are going to read when they're interested in the current issues in America, and that's what they're going to believe, since obviously Wikipedia can never be wrong, nor can it ever be biased. I rather like these definitions of white pride instead, since they fit better with the tone of the other articles on black/gay/Asian/whateverelseyoucanthinkof pride, and they're also less biased.

"A term used for whites whom are not ashamed of their race." --Brinxster, Urban Dictionary

"when someone is proud of having white skin and having european heritage, often mistaken as racism, although it is just like black pride/asian pride. Now white supremicy is racist." --bjhrjkklsef, Urban Dictionary

I'm not saying to get rid of the parts about Neo-Nazism, the KKK, and the other ethnicity-based groups; however, don't label something as racist when it isn't. That's like calling a Big Mac a carrot. Well, folks, that's rant for today. Hope ya enjoyed it, and change the article sometime soon, or, if not, I can take matters into my own hands. I don't really care either way.

SleepySOB (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It riles up a lot of people, which is why this has already been discussed multiple times. Comparing black pride to white pride is a dead-end for reasons already explained, and Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. Not by a long shot. Did you read the FAQ at the top of this page? Grayfell (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. I never said that we should just copy-paste those definitions from UD, anyways, I was just using them as an example. SleepySOB (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you read that, you know that Wikipedia works by reliable sources. NPOV also works by reliable sources. We reflect what sources say, which is this: while many people may profess pride in being white without necessarily being overt racists, the phrase "white pride" is primarily used by racists, and was likely coined or popularized by racists to make their ideology more likable. If you don't agree with that, you need to find new sources, but taking matters into your own hands without those sources isn't going to work. Grayfell (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

While it is true that "White Pride" is a term mostly heard in conjunction with extreme racists, it by no means "Black Pride" isn't. "Black Pride" is a term that had been coined by militant organizations that wanted racial segregation in the US before it was used in the context of equality. In fact, the only source that is linked to the first sentence of the "Black Pride" article is a single digitally published e-book that was written with anecdotal evidence and the authors own interpretation. This is not a reliable source. Otherwise you would justify considering extreme right wing lecture (Of which there are many) for the "White Pride" article as reliable sources as well. Why would that be any less legitimate by your justification? As you can see, that's a problem. This is exactly why he wanted both articles to be rewritten with a neutral stance instead of the current existing personal bias by the author. A perfect example would be the article about Nationalism. It is concise and the author doesn't take either position, eventhough it is mostly associated with Nazi Germany. "Black Pride", "White Pride", "Gay Pride", "*** Pride", etc, all read like opinion pieces and they need a serious rework, otherwise they're just sensationalistic garbage pieces that you can find in any other tabloid. Or explain to us why taking a stance as a wikipedia author and writing a biased article is good. That's just whitewashing society. 2003:6B:91D:4901:DC0F:D74E:2AEC:E2F0 (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The two sources used in the lead of the black pride article are from reputable academic publishers. Looking them up in WorldCat, both of those books (in physical form if that's important) are available in libraries in the US and many other countries. The sources are both reliable and verifiable as Wikipedia defines those terms. If you have a specific complaint about that article, Talk:Black pride is the place to make it, but only if you can support it with reliable sources. If you have reliable sources for your claims about the history of black pride, that could be useful there. Wikipedia is a collaborative process, and there is no single 'author' who is responsible for an article. Saying that nationalism is "mostly associated with Nazi Germany" seems like unsupportable original research, but again, this isn't the place to discuss that. Grayfell (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

By "the only source that is linked to the first sentence of the 'Black Pride' article", I assume you mean the only source cited in the first sentence of Black pride. That would be Lois Tyson (2001). Learning for a Diverse World: Using Critical Theory to Read and Write about Literature. Psychology Press. pp. 208–209. ISBN 978-0-8153-3774-4.

The reason I'm being so specific is I don't see a "... single digitally published e-book that was written with anecdotal evidence and the authors own interpretation. This is not a reliable source." Psychology Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis. It is quite clearly a reliable source.

More to the point, we are here to discuss this article, not numerous other articles on other topics that follow the format "________ pride". Yes, someone saw the phrase "black pride" and decided that they would name their ideology "________ pride". This does not mean that Car Wars should in any way mimic Star Wars. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and the Confederate flag is a symbol of "family and pride"; see Chris Rock On The Confederate Flag. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:DFTT. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with User:EvergreenFir WP:Trolls seems to apply. WP:Do not feed the trolls. And User:K.e.coffman, I agree with your observation but would mention that irony (or sarcasm) may not be understood here, and loses something when it is just being read on the screen. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

What are YOU talking about Greyfell? There are numerous articles online criticising "Black Pride". Do you even understand the definition of pride? I'm a believer of White Proud but that makes me a racist according to you? You're really REALLY annoying me. Being proud of your race doesn't make you a racist. You seem to think because a bunch of Neo-Nazi idiots said White Pride then that gives it a new meaning, a racist one? Oh but because some large news company says it then that makes it so and a "reliable source". I think you'll find "White Power" is the racist motto. You are offending my race and you expect me to be calm??? ActorBoss (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ Q3 at the top of the page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

From what I'm reading here, the opposition isn't to the notion that it's wrong for a white person to have the same pride in who they are that a black person or gay person should (at least I hope it's not), but to the act of adding information without citing sources. Wikipedia is very particular about backing up information with sources that meet a stringent set of criteria, and it is incumbent upon people adding such information to do so. If you were to find sources meeting these criteria, then presumably it would be alright to add a section on the concept of white pride being applied in non-racist contexts.

That said, I think expanding the lead-in to the article beyond a single sentence could go a long way towards reducing the perception of there being a double standard in play here. 74.215.30.124 (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI, ActorBoss has been blocked indefinitely for several reasons. Regardless, more quality sources would be helpful (almost always the case), and I agree that the lead should be expanded. Grayfell (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

black powers defined as ".....celebration of culture and of heratige..." but, white power defined as "....a racist movement/hate group...." can we do something, please?

of course this article lists white pride as a racial slur for a "supremacist" movement of white people; while on the other hand the article on black pride says the following: "is a movement in response to dominant white cultures and ideologies that encourages black people to celebrate[clarification needed] black culture and embrace their African heritage." is it possible that anyone else from Wikipedia could rewrite this article -- besides a biased, passive aggressive author? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.202.197 (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This is about the phrase "white pride". This article is not about white power, it's not about black power and it's not about black pride. All of those things are different, and the articles treat them as different because reliable sources treat them as different. Yet again, please see the FAQ at the top of this page. Grayfell (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell, I agree with your reasoning. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Using the terms "pride" and comparing "white pride" to "pride" of other groups, it's clear to see that the information is misplaced, if you are positive it's not biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th7blaze (talk • contribs) 22:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Equality

In order to fit with the introductions/definitions of gay/asian/black pride, the first paragraph needs replacing or appending, with a misuse of white pride being neo-nazism(in parallel with BLM).

I suggest something along the following lines:

White pride is a movement in response to other cultures and ideologies that encourages white people to celebrate white culture and embrace their European heritage. In the United States, it was a direct response to black racism especially during the Black Lives Matter and Antifa movements. Related movements include white power, white nationalism, and white supremacism.

White pride is the positive stance against discrimination and violence toward white people to promote their self-affirmation, dignity, equality rights, increase their visibility as a social group, build community, and celebrate sexual diversity and gender variance. Pride, as opposed to shame and social stigma, is the predominant outlook that bolsters most white rights movements throughout the world.

In summary: White pride is primarily the positive embrace of white culture and ideologies. A celebration of oneself and ones' heritage. To disagree and give an unfair portrayal of the matter, is blatant discrimination, rendering the existence of any of the aforementioned articles effectively invalid. In contrast, I highly recommend the inclusion of KKK and Neo-Nazism and examples of misuse of white pride, similar to the BLM movement being a misuse of black pride. Thank you.

EDIT: In response to "Q1: Why doesn't this page look like black pride, gay pride, or Asian pride?[hide] 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 described coherent social movements."

Obviously this is true. Media in it's current form is likely to show that side of it. The whole debate, the initial reason why this is even a thing, is because it's misrepresented, or underrepresented. People here, I assume, obviously acknowledge, the reliability of the sources and the content within the sources, but the issue is the selective use of sources. Generally, it is used that way by media, and by a fair amount of people, because any other way is deemed wrong. In order to gain a fair representation, a distinguished line needs to be shown between the two. Use the sources that show the positive side to being white(i.e actual white pride). I think regardless of the outcome of my post, like the article states "This article's introduction section may not adequately summarize its contents."; maybe whoever is refusing to change this, to give the actual literal definition of the phrase, absolute minimum acknowledgement, should at least fix this (which would coincidentally solve the matter). I'm interested to see if you genuinely oppose what I said.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th7blaze (talk • contribs) 22:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC) 

We've already been over all of this so, so many times. When you say "misrepresented" or "underrepresented", that's original research. Wikipedia doesn't use original research. Articles should reflect sources, and the amount of representation in sources is what Wikipedia uses to determine due weight. If you have new reliable sources, present them for discussion. Do you have a source giving "the actual literal definition of the phrase"? Does that source agree with all the others that say this was born out of racism and false-equivalence to black pride? While we're at it, does that source explain why this is different from Irish pride, Italian pride, German pride, etc.? If not, this has already been answered multiple times above and in the talk page archives. Saying neo-Nazism is parallel to the BLM movement severely undermines the neutrality of your position, also, as sources recognize that those things are fundamentally different. Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying Wikipedia can only regurgitate the same nonsense the mainstream media blurt out? In that case, fair enough. If the policy of the website is literally to look at popular opinion instead of equally represented opinions, then that's fair enough. I've wasted my time, and I know 100% understands why no one uses Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. I can give you many sources, Grayfell, for you to just say,"Nope, I don't like that". And no, they would say something along the lines of, "These people are proud of being white". Instead it would be SIMILAR, not DIFFERENT, to Irish pride, Italian Pride, German pride etc. Give me one reason why white extremism isn't the same as black extremism other than the race of people committing the crimes? Now tell me the difference between Neo-nazism and BLM other than the races of each movement. I think the non-neutral one out of you and I, certainly isn't myself, Grayfell. Also, fundamentally no. Fundamentals refer to the core of a movement, and the leaders in both are racists. The sources you look at, skim completely over the BLM extremism and publish the movement through rose-coloured spectacles, I'm afraid. Feel free to argue otherwise, but you'll just further embarrass yourself.Th7blaze (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

We are not quite saying "Wikipedia can only regurgitate the same nonsense the mainstream media blurt out". Wikipedia exists to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This will leave out viewpoints from the extremes and material from minor and heavily biased sources. That is what Wikipedia is. If you are interested in providing your opinions about a topic, such as what a phrase "should" mean or harmonizing descriptions of differing topics, Wikipedia is not what you are looking for. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: Yes, thank you. I've gathered that now, it seems to be a major medium for concise definitions, I was aiming to sway this, but as it is restricted to using mainstream media, this particular definition, for the time being, remains the same. Essentially, it is a regurgitation, as there is only one viewpoint to this, according to mainstream media, and the fact this is even a debate, shows this isn't considered even remotely by mainstream media. That's true about Wikipedia's represention, although in reality, the "minor" sources you refer to, happen to be the most reliable available to mankind. I agree totally, I should have thought about it, but it's worth it in terms of making a start. One man alone can't change the world and I certainly don't have the time to waste my life on changing such a menial thing, but it would be nice for my children and their children to not feel unfairly represented amongst their peers, purely for the colour of their skin(assuming my children are white) just because a minority, ruined it for a majority. I've seen what I personally consider reliable sources talk about BLM as racist and extreme, however, black pride does refer to black extremism in the opening paragraph, so there is no discrimination in that sense. Finding examples "white pride" as literal "white pride" from a "reliable"(Agreed on by majority) source can be much rarer.Th7blaze (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You've both raised and answered your own issue in your post: "Generally, it is used that way by media, and by a fair amount of people, because any other way is deemed wrong." That is the position to which wikipedia gives due weight because that is the general consensus based on the available sources, as you so neatly put. To use an analogy; I may well have alternative suggestions for the use of the phrase "just do it" but the authors of that page are not going to allow me to contribute them to their page without source material because the consensus is that that phrase is an advertising slogan for Nike. What you need to get your idea included is a something from a source like the BBC showing that it covers white pride in the same positive light that it covers Scots pride and it will be considered for inclusion. You may also hit a hurdle should you propose sources which are not as credible or noteworthy as the ones included already in this article. Taking note of this point will save you time if you are considering ploughing through blogs, published manefestos of far leaning politicians or less noteworthy news sources for referenced material.Edaham (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it's now very much clearer that Wikipedia is just a summary of "biased" mainstream media. In the sense of most mainstream media, publish the same thing and react differently to different groups doing the same thing, depending on the likelihood of an uproar from that group. Neo-nazis would not even bat an eye to hate, yet members of the BLM movement would lose their minds if portayed negatively. The aim of me even being here in the hope that I can begin to change this, but as Wikipedia is restricted to using "reliable"(popular) sources, unless I was to run the majority of the aforementioned sources, there's nothing I can do on a global scale, quite yet. Also, wikipedia is horrible to reply to posts, is there a link that teaches me how to do this? Sorry.Th7blaze (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Th7blaze: "Popular" isn't really correct. Read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. As for replying to posts, see Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk pages. Remember that we are a mainstream encyclopedia, unlike say Conservapedia which supports Creationism. We try to "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Doug Weller talk 15:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thank you. Hopefully this should get to you. I agree with you totally bar the first point. Popular is 100% correct, as you state Wikipedia is a mainstream medium. The purpose of mainstream media is to fit in well with what's popular. Popular = mainstream. In order to make amendments then, I assume I have to get a large amounts of reputable sources showcasing pride(celebration of culture and ideologies) within white communities? "Reputable" is certainly debatable, but I know Wikipedia's definition, and that's all that matters here.Th7blaze (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I took the liberty of performing the search I suggested for white pride on the BBC. It's clear that in the vast majority of cases, the people who identified with the slogan according to BBC reports were quite in keeping with the current tone of the Wikipedia article. There were two I came across in which an editorial put forward a more sympathetic view. You might want to drag those out and see if there is anything which could be useful and improve the article. In reply to your comments on the concept of "popularity and bias"; we are dealing with a term which is a part of common parlance. By definition, the popular and indeed biased meaning of the term is what Wikipedia should report. That is after all how it is mainly being used. You are not at a dead end however. This article can and will change. Your best recourse to make yourself a part of those changes is to do the spade work and come back with sources. It is not easy, but in terms of changing the article it is a million-fold more productive than just trying to argue your case on the talk pages, which is by the way, a slight infringement of talk page policy. I've already pointed you in the direction of some source material which might be accepted. A typical sentence you might want to add could read, "in recent months the <<reliable source>> reported <<some contrary view point>> in contrast to the typical usage of the term". This might happen for example, if a museum or public event were to hold a white pride exhibition or demonstration which genuinely supported the idea of a "celebration of the culture of white people as a race". It's not outside the realm of possibility that such a thing could occur or has already occurred. All you need to do is source it - reliably.Edaham (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Edaham: Thank you. I suppose for the time being, I would be at a dead end. I'll keep an eye out, what advice would you give regarding conforming to Wikipedia's definition of "reliable source". Although with Trump presidency and Brexit, maybe the media will change with the time, and speak things how they really are. Again, thank you.Th7blaze (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Th7blaze: No, "popular" is not correct. This article is heavy on peer reviewed journals and texts from university press. If those are "popular", you and I have very different definitions of the word. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0 What's the popular definition of "white pride" in your view then? That is what I'm referring to. A higher percentage of those journals and the university press reports will tend to lean towards the typical mainstream media view of the term. However, as I said earlier, this website is literally made to condense mainstream media, and ignore (or skim over) all minor, less established (although more reputable) sources.Th7blaze (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2017

White pride is a movement in response to dominant black cultures and ideologies that encourage white people to celebrate Tsaunders (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done and  Unlikely. Please use the talk page to seek consensus before requesting such an edit, and please cite sources to support the proposed content.- MrX 21:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Remove Inadequate Lead?

I've added a reasonable amount to the lead; shall we remove the Inadequate Lead banner? LeoTindall (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)