Talk:White pride

This article is quite peculiar for Wikipedia
Judging by the large amount of users that are perplexed at the difference between this article and other the pride articles, it would appear there is something fundamentally wrong with the content. The need for an FAQ if anything highlights this fact, even if it doesn't contain any satisfactory answers. It seems like the narrow determination of what is a reliable source (predominately a certain portion of US-based media) has lead to this issue - any ideas on how to fix the article? 60.234.208.246 (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The FAQ is because countless editors have already attempted this exact tactic of superficially polite POV-pushing on this talk page. Reliable sources are the same here as they are everywhere else, so nothing needs to be "fixed". Grayfell (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that more consideration needs to be made for how this article is worded and which sources are included, given that the specifics of this article are a hot topic in how wikipedia's balance and bias is viewed, the lede is especially pushy of a certain frame of reference. Most of the sources specifically investigate the term in a slim context of racial abuse whereas I would find benefit in contextualizing the term as a response to the dilapidation and displacement of classical western identity in the setting of multiculturalism, if any such texts exist, and I would be happy to see a viewpoint that analyzes the term without explicitly custodializing it to the Neo-Nazi movement or other fascist movements.
 * The current state of the article likely reflects an institutional bias in publishing, it would be prudent to seek those contradicting opinions so as to give a more equitable account of the term. Insect.eate (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Then you should be able to provide references that back up what you think the article should say. This has never been addressed by any of the visitors to this talkpage that think it is somehow about something else, presumably innocuous  Acroterion   (talk)   23:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

White pride vs black pride
It seems that the authors have a certain bias that they try to hide here Its not fair to mention the radicals on one side in the first paragraphs of the page while the other page has barely if ANY mention at all i don't say that radicalism does not exist but the fact that on ONE side the radicalism is plastered in the first few lines of text seems totally unfair on a technical sense 37.128.224.42 (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Read the FAQ at the top of the page. We go where the sources go, and for this topic, they lead to a pervasive tendency for "white pride" tp be a cover for bigotry.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, it's not the credibility of the info but the way it's presented
 * The order of things to be specific
 * White pride is first above all pride of the skin one has
 * The movement was and is used with racist intent but the problem is how DIFFERENT the articles are compared to white vs black vs Asian pride
 * You should give the simplest definition THEN add a topic where this movement is used by racists
 * In my opinion for it to be as unbiased as possible it should be like this:
 * WHITE PRIDE
 * Definition
 * Insert the definition like all the others
 * History
 * How it started theories rethoric
 * Different interpretations around the globe, Europe usa and other places
 * THEN list the controversies
 * Like how nazi germany used it the confederacy and what not
 * Because right now this current format hurts the credibility of Wikipedia as an unbiased political source that takes sides while claiming objectivity 78.96.206.170 (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "White pride is first above all pride of the skin one has" - cite this please. All you've done is list your own preferred definition.  Reliable sources overwhelmingly don't define the article subject in that way, and how other topics are handled in other articles is irrelevant.  They are not the same things.
 * "THEN list the controversies" - Controversy sections are discouraged, precisely because they can present an unbalanced view of the article subject with undue emphasis on the negative. It is always preferable that any "controversy" is discussed within the article with everything else, where it can be discussed as part of the bigger picture. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * source for that definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_pride
 * wikipedia
 * TO QUOTE from the official wikipedia page;"Black pride in the United States is a movement which encourages black people to celebrate African-American culture and embrace their African heritage"
 * definition given by wikipedia itself
 * now lets show the double standard of wikipedia and lets make a quote comparrison
 * white pride quote;"White pride and white power are expressions primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, fascist, neo-Nazi, and white supremacist organizations in order to signal racist or racialist viewpoints."
 * COMPARISON
 * Black pride quote
 * "Black pride in the United States is a movement which encourages black people to celebrate African-American culture and embrace their African heritage"
 * lets compare it with Asian pride
 * source :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_pride
 * quote from wikipedia
 * "Asian pride is a term that encourages celebration of Asian ethnicity and culture, with various interpretations and origins."
 * given the pages mentioned above it stands to reason that white pride would follow the same logic
 * Despite the fact that its claimed that ,and i quote " Controversy sections are discouraged, precisely because they can present an unbalanced view of the article subject with undue emphasis on the negative." the white pride wikipedia page ONLY STATES controversial topics and fails to give a similar definition that both black and asian pride pages includes
 * Closing statement
 * I DO NOT say that it isnt used by people with racist tendencies but this glaring difference between wikipedia pages hurts the credibility of the site 78.96.206.170 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources treat the terms/concepts differently so we must do the same. Please read the FAQ.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Controversial movements should be mentioned but the definition should be the same
 * I did not ask to remove the controversial information or reduce its importance in any way i asked to follow the same logic of definition that it was used in the previously mentioned pages i will make the suggestion to add this definition of white pride to maintain professional credibility.
 * First to quote asian pride ;
 * "Asian pride is a term that encourages celebration of Asian ethnicity and culture, with various interpretations and origins."
 * Given this wikipedia definition ,following logic white pride should be defined as this ;
 * " White pride is a term that encourages celebration of European ethnicity and culture, with various interpretations and origins."
 * The glaring difference between pages only gives the people who are racist more credibility and allows them to point fingers at wikipedia and use this difference as ammunition. 78.96.206.170 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "source for that definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_pride" - Nope.  That is a definition for Black Pride, not White Pride, (and Wikipedia cannot act as a source for itself anyway). Your argument is essentially The Mexico City article should look the same as the Manchester City article, because they both mention places and end in "City", despite reliable sources saying they are not the same things.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * except that mancester city DOES NOT end in mancester city but the full definition is Manchester City FC(footbal club)
 * your example is a False equivalance
 * source
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
 * https://effectiviology.com/false-equivalence/
 * white in the context white pride reffers at the collor of the skin
 * source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people
 * i will say now
 * the wiki definition starts with a politically influenced definition and not its simplest definition
 * to quote te wiki article
 * "White pride and white power are expressions primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, fascist, neo-Nazi, and white supremacist organizations in order to signal racist or racialist viewpoints."
 * the problem isnt that this paragraph exists but that the barebones definition is ignored and there is a GLARING DOUBLE STANDARD compared to asian and black pride
 * also some sources used to define white pride are either news articles some that no longer exist or are personal opinions
 * to end this argument once and for all
 * White pride IS USED BY RACISTS it is BUT its simply INCORRECT to not add the definition used on other pages
 * This INTENTIONAL oversight will only serve as amunition for those who are racist
 * And worst of all it hurts the credibility of the site as politically neutral
 * Best regards 78.96.206.170 (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)