Talk:White pride/FAQ
 | Below are answers to frequently asked questions about the corresponding page White pride. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please feel free to change this material in light of new discussion. |
To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
A1: Wikipedia reflects how reliable sources treat topics and sometimes two semantically similar topics are treated very differently by sources. For example, compare misogyny to misandry. Most reliable sources treat the topic white pride as being most notable as a slogan used by white supremacists whereas sources indicate the other terms are used mostly to describe coherent social movements.
Q2: Why don't we make the article about "white pride" as a concept or a movement like black pride, gay pride, or Asian pride?
A2: The subjects of Wikipedia articles must be notable, which is determined by coverage from reliable, independent sources. The reliable sources found for this topic indicate that white pride is a substantively different concept from the others mentioned. The majority of sources discuss the slogan "white pride" and its use by various groups as being the most prominent use of the idea. If a coherent "white pride" movement separate from white supremacy, white separatism, or white nationalism actually exists, it is not documented in reliable sources.
Q3: This page seems racist/biased/overly negative. Why isn't this page neutral? What about Wikipedia's policy of NPOV?
A3: NPOV (neutral point of view) refers to how articles discuss a topic as presented by reliable sources. If the sources present a topic in a positive light, Wikipedia must be neutral and indicate that this is what the sources do. This is likewise true for negative coverage. Sources can be biased so long as they are reliable. Wikipedia explains sources, even if those sources take a "side".
Q4: This article uses biased sources. Shouldn't we balance it out?
A4: Reliable sources sometimes take sides. What makes a source reliable is not whether anyone thinks they are biased but rather whether they adhere to the standards that Wikipedia uses to determine reliability. For some topics, most reliable sources cover the topic in a certain way and Wikipedia must give due weight to that coverage.
Q5: I found a blog/tweet/article that talks about white pride. Can we add it to the article?
A5: Editors are encouraged to research the topic and find sources to help expand the article. If you find something you think deserves inclusion first consider whether the source is reliable. Secondary sources are often preferred to primary ones. Fringe sources are usually not included unless they are used to cite information about the source itself. Some people's opinions are considered noteworthy, especially experts on a topic whose opinions who have been noticed by third-party independent sources. When we include prominent opinions, we attribute that opinion to its author. Sometimes an otherwise non-noteworthy opinion or statement is covered by reliable sources, and that coverage can be included. However, not all opinions are noteworthy, even if the person is well-known.
If you come up with new reliably sourced content or new sources that you think are reliable that can support text that already exists in the article, you can boldly add that to the article yourself or bring it to the article's talk page to discuss it with other users. Remember, Wikipedia works by forming consensus and sometimes bold edits are reverted so they can be discussed (read here about the bold-revert-discuss cycle).
If you come up with new reliably sourced content or new sources that you think are reliable that can support text that already exists in the article, you can boldly add that to the article yourself or bring it to the article's talk page to discuss it with other users. Remember, Wikipedia works by forming consensus and sometimes bold edits are reverted so they can be discussed (read here about the bold-revert-discuss cycle).