Talk:White pride/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Opening Statement is Biased/Loaded

The opening statement, second sentence, has a dubiously worded cited statement "It is often closely aligned with white supremacy and white separatism.[2]". Anyone reading this source will be able to tell you that this is merely an opinion from a single book, and surely not a valid source for such a definitive statement, especially not so early on in the article. Use of words like "often", "closely", and "aligned" is vague at best. The opening statement is supposed to simply describe the subject in a neutral and plain fashion, not completely colour it and set a tone. Perhaps there are connections with certain groups, however I feel such matters should be covered in a subsection with a title like "controversies" or "criticisms". Suggestions on reworkings, changes, etc. anyone? ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 00:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's fine as is. White Pride=racist, antisemitic lunatics. We're done here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Systemic bias

I found this article from the Countering Systemic Bias WikiProject Open Tasks List and I'm not sure what the "systemic bias" involved is supposed to be. There's an obvious (and extensive) dispute regarding what counts as an NPOV take on "white pride" but that isn't the same thing. Elliotreed (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you insane

How can pride be linked with supremacy?!! Thats the most ridiculous thing i have heard. Being proud of being white does not mean you think 'white is right'. Can people not be proud of who they are without being branded 'Racist' I respect all cultures and races' I dont see why white people cant be proud???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorM93 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

White pride is racist

Racism says: "Racism is the belief that people of different races differ in value". Proclaiming white pride ("pride for being born white") in a time where caucasians are in a priviligied position seems racist (perhaps unintentionally so) to me. Sunnan 14:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

by this logic, white-non-pride is also racist

Any form of ethnic/national pride is racism. Furthermore, differerent races do differ in value, to say otherwise is naive. Avsn 00:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Different races do differ in value"? What the hell does that mean? That you believe that your race, presumably, is more valuable than, say, mine? --67.71.122.58 00:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A) sign your comments with a real name. B) 'differ' does not mean greater or lesser. 'Differ' is to say not all races are alike. It is only your assuming that I say more than I do. In other words, don't put words in my mouth. Avsn 02:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't play a semantic game, because based on the evidence peppered throughout this page, you'll lose it. You didn't just say that races differed. You said that races "differ in value". Difference in value suggests a hierarchy. Difference in value is like saying you're a dollar, I'm fifty cents, and Bob is two dollars. There's an obvious implicit hierarchy. And if you're applying it to race it makes you racist, and therefore unqualified to evaluate whether this article is NPOV or not.-Maggie --67.71.122.58 02:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Semantic I'll grant. That it invalidates the arguement, I'll not grant. "Value" does not automatically infer hierarchy. Consider this:

Process A and Process B both accomplish the same END. A and B go about reaching END with different methods. A and B have an equal number of advantages and disadvantages. However, A's method is useful to Industry X and B's method is useful to Industry Y. Thus A and B differ in value, without an implication of hierarchy. The same can be applied in the real world. Asians are known to be good in math and sciences to a degree greater that the other races around them. Blacks are better in some sports than other races. Get the point. I don't say that there are hard and fast rules to this difference, just that it exists. Avsn 17:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• I come bearing a few tips (you lucky boy you) for the next time you're eager to argue with someone. The first is, don't use words ("infer", in this case) that you don't understand. The second is, don't use words ("consider", in this case) that you can't spell. Thirdly, don't rely upon a long-discredited pseudoscience (racial eugenics, for example) to support your arguments, even if you intend them to be absurd. The supposed correlation of certain skills and 'race' is socially created (generally, African-Americans have a higher level of poverty than others, and thus have substantially less access to education in "math and sciences") and also quite spurious, based on the fact that there is more genetic variation _within_ 'races' than between them. I mean, come on. Your ideas were out of date in the days of Darwin.

• Yet another unsigned comment, but I will still respond. (unsigned it a peeve of mine, but that sort of thing is bound to happen in a place like Wikipedia.) My bad spelling aside, yes I mean imply not infer. I don't rely on 'pseudoscience' of any sort. I rely on the example of reality. If you don't believe in differences between races, I give you a better example. Why is it that some segements of humanity are prone to certain diseases while the rest of humanity is unaffected? (Sickle cell in Blacks or Tay-Sachs in Ashkenazi Jews.) You appear to object to the word race even existing. Typical of the Egalitarian. ***PESONAL OPINION HERE*** Equality is a fine Ideal, not a reality. Avsn 02:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Environment. Environment. Environment. Also, certain genes being retained because of certain groups leaning towards reproductive partners within their own immediate social community. It has nothing to do with 'races', which from a genetic perspective are non-existent. The term may be of use in cultural studies and cultural history, but to deploy them 'scientifically' is not merely bunkum, not merely inherently racist, but plain moronic. Ask a geneticist. A real one. --65.95.150.107 01:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Buts not ENVIROMENT likes you say theres proof every were you look that the races are different. 1st we look and are built different from each other.There are all sorts of stats as well that suggest that white act different than that. They all also prove that Blacks are more prone to being racists themselves than whites:

There were 6,804 hate crimes in the U.S in 2005 according to the FBI. 4116.42 of them had white offenders. while 1353.99 had black people as offenders. Now you may say that the white comitte majority of the hate crimes in the U.S but if u look at the population of blacks and whites you can notice that theres 5.3 times more whites than black. 36,121,000 Blacks and 194,874,000 whites.with saying that it means 0.037% of the black population commited a hate crime wereas only 0.002% of the white population did. This means that the blacks have five times less people but were 18.5 times more likely to commit a hate crime than a white.

This information Came from the FBI and U.S Government website so is accurate and credible

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/race/black/ppl-186/tab1.txt

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/offenders.htm

Now with this information in front of us How can you say the races are the same for one and for two how can anyone call white pride racist when its clearly shows that black pride is racist not WHITE PRIDE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.216.71 (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• If you dislike this article, I suggest this: write a counter article. "White Pride: as viewed by society at large" perhaps. Let this article be "White Pride: Explained by those with White Pride". Avsn 00:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Don't be stupid. That's not how Wikipedia works. Articles - not the encyclopedia as a whole - have to be balanced. They have to be grounded in fact. An article about White Pride can certainly describe what the White Pride community looks like - which is to say, an awful lot like a KKK meeting - but it certainly doesn't need to take the perspective that white pride is a good thing, or that taking 'pride' in a position of socioeconomic dominance is in any way honorable or natural or scientifically ordained. You might wonder why I've resorted repeatedly to ad hominem attacks. It's because you're a racist, or, more accurately, that certain of your opinions are racist. Therefore you are in no position to write objectively about an issue such as this. -Maggie--65.95.150.107 01:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Firstly, no I am not a racist. I don't mind you attacking my argument, but refain from attacking me. My pride in my heritage is justified, and if you believe being white negates my right to pride in my heritage, I'll say you are wrong. I, individually am not "in a position of socioeconomic dominanace". If you believe this article is unbalanced, balance it out. I refuse to be PC. If a Black man can say "Black Pride!" and have it be a statement of ethnic pride, I can just as well be proud of my "whiteness". Futhermore, just because a black man cannot qualify his blackness (IE Zulu, Xhosha, Hottentot, whatever.) doesn't mean I have to qualify my whiteness by saying "English, French, etc." "White" covers it fine thank you. As for objectivity, this is a controversial article, there is no way to satify your obviously inflated requirements in that area, I won't try. Avsn 02:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• You did exactly that I thought you'd do, which is to say, responded to my personal attacks rather than my scientific and sociological arguments. The obvious reason is that you can't defend yourself on those bases. Although admittedly the personal attacks were more fun to type, I find it worrying that it appears to be you who have been left in charge of this abandoned outpost. The article cannot be saved. It needs to be cleared out and completely rewritten, and I don't have the time. But are you really naive enough to believe that "black pride" is something other than mere solidarity in the face of persistent oppression? Just like gay pride. And because white people have never been systematically oppressed, the very idea is a contradiction, if not necessarily an offensive one. - Maggie --65.95.150.107 02:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well apparently citing Sickle Cell and Tay-Sachs is unscientific. Guess I'm the Unscientist. As for "scientific and sociological arguments": I sure didn't see any, maybe giving an opinion is "scientific and sociological." I'll willing agree to disagree. When "Maggie" has a genuine arguement I'll gladly return to this subject. There are some people who just don't know how to argue properly.Avsn 02:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have to groan, but I'll repeat myself, slowly if need be. Sickle-cell anaemia and Tay-Sachs disease are not 'scientific' proof of racial predispositions - they are, on the contrary, reflections of the fact that members of a given social group (let's say, Ashkenazi Jews) tend to find their mates and produce children within that group, thereby proliferating certain alleles, because their partners are that much more likely to be carriers of the mate gene to their own. The child thus ends up with the disease. This doesn't actually prove the existence of 'races' - it merely reflects the social reality of certain groups being reproductively insular. In fact, it's patently absurd to say that they in any way are indicators of 'racial' predispositions - because by that logic, a union between an African-American and an Ashkenazi Jew would be that much more statistically likely to produce a child with both Tay-Sachs and Sickle-Cell, when in point of fact that would be almost impossible (indeed, genetically absurd), because those diseases require both parents being carriers of a given gene, and having both parents sharing a gene of this sort in turn requires a certain degree of socio-sexual insularity - which obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with race, but is rather a social phenomenon. Just because your examples are diseases doesn't mean they're scientific. I can suggest that a left-handed Scot is more likely to have a red beard than (say) a right-handed Chinese person, but it would be foolish to suggest that it has anything to do with the hand with which either man signs his name. -Maggie--65.95.150.107 03:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has become emotionally charged. Thank god it's being discussed here instead of the article. Th intro should make it clear that white pride in itself has nothing to do with the view of one race having value over another. That it is a cultural celebration that is completely unrelated to the white power/white supremacy and white separatist movements (At least two very unrelated movements). It should demonstrate that the term has become confused due to white power/supremecists "borrowing" on the theme of white pride to lend credibilty to their supremacist agenda and that it is misunderstood by other political ideologists as being synonymous with white supremacy.

I feel the 14 words should only be included in a separate section that gives examples of the use/allegation of misuse of the term "white pride" by white supremacist persons and organisations. Consider the source of the 14 words; David Lane was a defendant on trial for an alleged white supremacist hate crime.

I also feel that any discussion on the supposed value or meaning of race, beyond the way of life, belief system of different subcultures (Saxon/Celtic/Nordic or whatever) should be moved to the white supremacy section.

The problem is that supremacists wholeheartedly believe that their use of the term "white pride" describes their beliefs exclusively and that many people lump white pride in with white supremacy. This is quite a hot potato.

I vote that we stay on the focus of white pride as a cultural movement; introduce, but keep separate the political meanings/non meanings and refer as necessary (and as fairly as we can) to the white supremacy section.

I'm also surprized that this hasn't been vandalized more.

Lets try to come up with an outline of where to place what ideas and let that lead us.

Example:

I. simple definition of white pride (no supremacist stuff yet)

     A. different cultures involved
          1. Celt for example

          2. Nordic/Viking...
     B. Mythology/Religons commonly held by the various people 

2. Controversy concerning use of white pride (the viewpoints)

    A.   Pro Supremacy white pride view
    B.   Non-supremacist white pride view
    C.   those who believe they are one in the same.

If we got a good outline going some of these problems could solve themselves.

I disagree entirely. The term "white pride" was coined by the very racist organizations you decry for having misappropriated the term. Your history is backwards. White Pride has always been reactionary, and it has always been pernicious. Non-racists who are nonetheless proponents of 'white pride' are simply ignorant of the history of the term. -Maggie --70.50.79.26 01:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yours would seem to resemble the "C" viewpont (C. those who believe they are one in the same). Are you saying that white people were not proud of their culture long before the term or this issue ever existed?

The idea of cultural pride has likely been present since the stone age. It's tribal.

Assuming that what you say is correct; that the term "white pride" was coined solely by racist organizations. That matters very little. The viewpoint's inclusion in this article is still valid because it describes a popular way in which the term "white pride" is used today.

Though I'd be interested to know how you know that the term was always used SOLELY by supremacist groups. Have you traveled in white pride or white supremacist circles?

I think it's important that all viewpoints are treated equally (and neutrally). Likewise, that the term may or may not have been misappropriated or whether or not non-supremacist/pro white pride proponents are ignorant of the term's history represent only one belief about the term's origin.

If we can't pinpoint exactly who used it, when or in what context, then we can do little more than describe the positions within the debate of it's origin.

Even if you're 100% correct; that it IS popularly used in a non-supremacist context is still very relevant.

But this article is largely not about people of white European heritage feeling proud of themselves because they're special too and la-dee-da. If it were that simple there would be nothing to discuss, and indeed that aspect of the issue is dealt with amply in the first sentence of the article.

What this article is really about is the standard, capitalized usage of the term White Pride, and that is not in dispute. At the moment I have neither the resources nor the patience to annotate the first published usage of the term, but I can say with certainty that it does not predate David Duke. And I am not convinced that it is popularly used outside of racist/white nationalist/white supremacist organizations. If you are, provide an example. - Maggie --70.50.79.26 03:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly it is popularly used or there would be no debate from anyone else on this page about it's use. I think you are confusing the more general term of White Pride with the slogan, "White Pride, World Wide", a slogan widely used in racist literature (displayed around a Celtic cross, and so somewhat offensive to pagans). There is even debate on whether that organization (it's called Stormfront) is a racist one - an entirely different can of worms with it's own dedicated wiki page. I'm not even gonna fight you on that one.

My point is that if people have another use for it, we are duty bound to tell about that as well whether or not we find it palatable. This is the reason that dictionaries frequently have more than one definition. Incidently, I checked and "White Pride World Wide" already has it's own page. David Duke (Or as some say, Malcolm X's doppleganger) has his own page as well. I'll concede that it makes sense to include his speil as well as David Lane's 14 words so long as we fairly represent opposing views. Otherwise, The Racism article covers it all so why have a separate page at all. There is a duty here to be balanced.

- Iasonis 

Hurray I have a name!

Extended content

How can anyone call white pride racist, when you have the blacks screaming black power and the natives yelling native pride? Are whites the only ones that can be racist? How come blacks can call me a HONKEY and not be racist but i cant call him a N#@$#r. 198.166.216.71 06:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC) If an African-American called you any racist name, he would be racist. Whites aren't the only group that are capable of racism. Its been my personal experience that if you are in an arguement with someone and the first thing out of either of your mouths is a racial slur, then both people have some issues to address That is just absurd. It is also not the discussion at hand. The concept of White Pride was a reaction to Black Pride. Its first use in mainstream society was by supremacist groups. It has not been "corrupted" by supremacist groups. Its a little like argung that the word "kill" was given a bad name by murderers. There IS an arguemnt to be made that the term Black Power has always had its own negative and exclusionary connotations since the beginning. The interesting thing is that no one seems to have a big problem if someone displays Irish Pride or Italian Pride or English Pride. This could be addressed in another article. --Art8641 15:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Art8641, I agree with nearly everything you write, but white power does predate black power. White australia policy. I don't use wikipedia much, but I'm sure you can look it up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.5.123 (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC) The White Australia policy was not referred to as such when it was instituted. And, of course, the white Australia policy was absurdly racist. However, that policy wasn't about promoting the interests of white people - it was about denying non-whites access to Australia. In other words, it wasn't centered around being white (which white power is) it was centered around non-whites being "other." The main reason I see for the idea of white pride being racist revolves around the idea of "white blindness," in which the extreme dominance of white people is unacknowledged by the general population. Similar to the idea of the white Australia policy, people are often seen as white or non-white, with the non-white category having a significantly othered aspect to it. White people have been culturally dominant for the last few hundred years, which has led to the oppression of people who aren't white, and don't conform to white values. Henceforth, the (insert race here) power movements. The term white power (I'm not an expert, this is just what it seems to me) was likely a knee jerk reaction by white supremacists (among others) to the idea that other races gaining power is a threat to white cultural dominance. The reason that no-one is upset about Irish Power or Italian Pride is that Ireland (or Italy) represents an ethnicity, whereas whiteness represents a racial attitude which has historically been, and still is, culturally dominant to the point of excluding, marginalizing, and dis-empowering anyone who is not white. Being proud of being white is not socially acceptable, because being white means being a part of the group who enslaved, slaughtered, stole land from, and/ or abused every single other race on the planet. Whites are modern history's bad guys. - Hashtag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.19 (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Hashtag, your opinion is blatantly biased and stinks of anti-White prejudice. "being white means being a part of the group who enslaved, slaughtered, stole land from, and/or abused every single other race on the planet. Whites are modern history's bad guys" This statement is completely absurd and ignores global history. You left out the fact that every race has enslaved, slaughtered, and oppressed other races, including Whites. You single out Whites as the "bad guys" despite the fact that Asians, Arabs, etc. are historically responsible for more conquests, violence and oppression than Whites ever have been. You also appear to collectively blame White people as a whole, even though the vast majority of White people have nothing to do with slavery or oppression, and have often been victimized just as badly as non-Whites (for example, the Irish were racially oppressed and abused for hundreds of years), not to mention the disturbing levels of anti-White racism that is seen in many parts of the world, both historically and today. In addition, there's also the innumerable ways that Whites have helped humanity with our contributions to science, technology, philosophy, medicine and culture. As a proud White person, I find your anti-White rhetoric to be insulting and completely inappropriate. ICE Bullet (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their respective articles, not for general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-Racist Expressions of White Pride

One thing that I think needs to be examined and discussed is that in the US and Canada, most Whites know their ethnic heritage, at least in part, and can choose to express pride in that. For example, it's not hard to guess where Patrick O'Brian's, Michael Jacobson's, Victoria Cheese's, Nik Milosevic's, or Sven Gunderson's ancestors came from. There are ethnic heritage festivals in many major cities. While there are Pan-Asian student groups on college campuses, in the real world, Asians self-segregate by country-of-origin, so that southern California has Chinatown, Koreatown, and Little Toyko in Los Angeles, and Little Saigon in nearby Orange County. Few people of Vietnamese descent live in Little Tokyo.

However, because most Blacks are descended from slaves who were forced to give up their ancestral languages, beliefs, names, and culture, they have no connection to a particular region of Africa. (Not to mention the fact that many of the nations that exist today didn't exist at that time. If a Black person could even know that his ancestors came from what is now Nigeria, would he proclaim affinity for Nigeria, or for the Fulani Empire, or to the Nok or Ifo or Benin or other peoples?) This inability to trace their lineage necessitates the "Black Power" movement. Their skin color was the one thing that could not be taken away from them, and it serves to unite them in the West. 75.146.121.137 (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

American centric

"White pride" exists outside the Americas, the criticism listed here doesn't apply to universal "white pride". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.25.147 (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

This article, in its entirety is biased. This article is in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothaz (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100% that this article is written from an American perspective, one that would probably be described in the US as "progressive". While my personal views are largely aligned with the article, I have witnessed "white pride" that is not strictly exclusionist or negatively racist in the sense most would use the term. Brian 66.91.76.200 (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is biased and wrongly written, it clearly has a anti-white message which I find an insulting

As of this date, is there anything other than the paragraph of quotes from Ingram that is NPOV? The Ingram quotes are based on some very questionable assumptions that are not called out, but the other criticism paragraph is kind of needed to reflect very common views of the concept, and has appropriate caveats. Warren Dew (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I too find this article terribly insulting and a typical illustration of the gross double-standard at work in this country. The white male demographic is the only strata in society that is not permitted to feel pride in itself. If any attempt is made it is immediately labeled racist and is badgered into dissolusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.68.139.252 (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with white pride is that every other pride movement was formed as a response to white oppression. This has contributed to an overwhelmingly negative view of whiteness where any attempt to exclaim pride in being white is seen as insensitive to the people who were victims of white people being so proud of their whiteness that they oppressed everyone else. And to 71.178.110.201, I don't think deleting this article is going to help anyone. Starting from scratch, however, wouldn't be such a bad idea. - Hashtag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.19 (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, you do not have a clue. White Pride has been around as long as there were white people, as well as "x pride" for "x" people. It may not have been labeled as such, but from the time we crawled out of the ocean people have been proud of who they were. Saying "Black Pride" was formed in retaliation to "White Oppression" is asinine, unless you are saying that those peoples don't have a right to be proud of their culture and heritage on their own, only as a knee jerk reaction to whites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.3.128.198 (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not to propose this article for deletion?--71.178.110.201 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The reality is that currently the people who most advocate for the slogan "white pride" are connected with white supremacist movements and as such the term is seen by many as cover for white supremacy, at least in the U.S. where most the advocates for the term reside. It would agree in theory that it's possible to show pride for the one's European ancestry without being a racist/supremacist, but the reality is that terms like "White pride" are seen a euphemism for white supremacy and any attempt to try and argue that the form of "White pride" your advocating is not racists will largely fall on deaf ears. Now it is generally considered acceptable to show pride in one or more particular European cultures that make up ones race such celebrating Irish, Italian, Scottish, and Russian cultures so long as it does not come across as nationalistic. The problem with anyone trying to show pride in white/European culture as a whole is that past expression of pride in European culture where used primarily as example of the superiority of the white/European cultures cultures and I don't see anyway that can be unbundled such that "White/European pride" can ever be seen as anything other then euphemism for white supremacy. There is also the issue of the fact that even if you could separate supremacy from pride in being white, I'm sure some would argue that their is no need to tie positive aspects of various European cultures to the fact the majority of their citizens have white skin color. Black and Asian pride has never been about positive aspects of black culture being so as a result of have a dark skin color (save for a few black supremacy groups) but rather simply a reaction the claims of white racists that black people are inferior due to their skin color. Since the main groups that argue for "White pride" being not inherently a racist slogan are in fact white supremacy groups and since they are a very small minority these days in the U.S., any discussion of the slogan is going to be weighted in favor of the majority view in this country. Wikipedia NPOV policy very clearly states that article should not give undue weight to very small minority views since that creates the false impression such views are held by more people then in reality. If it where even possible to write an article on non-racist pride in White/European culture that complied with Wikipedia policies, "White pride" is not the title it should be called due to it's primary use by white supremacy groups. Ultimately I think anyone who truly believes that the slogan "white pride" can and should have non-racist connotations much like Black and Asian pride movement, you just going to have to accept that their is little chance of the majority of people in the U.S. accepting that position anytime soon and the fact that this Wikipedia article makes that cleat does not mean the article is not NPOV. If at some point in the future a significant enough number of people agree that the slogan "white pride" necessarily racist then you can come back and change the article to reflect the change in views of the slogan. One other thing, I don't agree that this article should be deleted simply because some don't like the way it describe "White pride" as it's a notable topic. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Swain/Nieli cite

I've asked for a full cite on these as I have been unable to verify the material. Searching for various pieces of the quote in the book has not turned up the quote cited. I'll give it a bit of time for someone to sleuth it out and see if I have access to a fully searchable text before yanking it. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Page organisation

This needs a re-work and re-organisation.

A lot of the content in the "introduction" (I'm not sure of the proper name) section doesn't really belong there. There are a lot of quotes and opinions on "white pride", more of a dicussion (whether NPOV or not), which would belong under appropriate sub-headings, not the introduction. What should be there is perhaps a contextualisation of "white pride", and most of the stuff already there can be put under different subheadings.

Something like: -Definition (the first sentence, already there), relate to similar slogans -Relate "Pride" to "Separatism" and "Supremacy" (make it known they are not the same, but rather increasingly extreme ideologies)

-When the slogan was first coined (no content on this) -Where, and in what context (no content on this) -How it is used today (already in paragraphs 3 & 4, but needs to be summarised and signposted that this is the MODERN interpretation and usage)

-Brief summary of the controversy surrounding it, e.g. "The slogan "White Pride" has attracted international controversy due to its strong ties with {and maybe origins with if that is true} "white supremacy"[link to article]."

Origins: -stuff about where it originated, expansion on introduction, links for further reading (such as "white supremacy" or "Klu Klux Klan")

Modern Usage: -this section can be built from existing paragraphs in the article

Criticism: -HERE IS WHERE ALL THE QUOTES AND OPINIONS BELONG -Should be formatted as a list of criticisms of white pride, and (if any) responses by advocators of white pride, making sure to never generalise an opinion but cite who said it, when and where. Contradicting or different responses by different advocators would also be cool if there are any

Any other sections

See Also: -White guilt -Other "pride" movements [Black pride, etc.] -White supremacy -Racial seperatism -Etc.

Footnotes, Bibliography

27.99.3.4 (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

For wikipedia, ALL prides (Blak, asian, gay..) are positive and desirable prides, except white pride that is fascist and neo-Nazi.  ??????? I'm white pride. Who is the racist who has written this article. Maybe a jew???

revised defination presented for public approval, if you have an issue please edit

White pride, is a slogan most frequently used by peoples of European decent to express affirmation of dignity, honor, and respect in their cultural heritage and community. It is also used to express a connection to ones European roots and ancestry, a concept many whites feel is often unecessarily misconstrued and absent in modern western societies. The concept has gained a lot of ground in recent years for many reasons, mainly being an increased awareness of the need to maintain and preserve a multitude of culture and ethnic distinctions that make whites like other races and national groups unique. Other more controversial reasons being an overall feeling by many whites, that their individuality is being glossed over by inadvertent or intentional overzealousness in attempt at equalizing western society after European expansion, colonisation, enslavement, and discrimination against other "non white" groups and peoples. -controversy- The term "White Pride" can easily be misconstrued as a "rascist" or discriminatory term as it has been adopted and perverted by many hate or fascist groups. While most individuals only wish to convey a quality of justified self respect, some groups have used the term in an attempt to convey a message of hate or superiority. These groups however are a minority and are often affiliated with "street" or prison gangs, who participate in violence, bigotry and narcotic trafficking, all of which could be defined as the polar opposite of the qualities and actions the majority of individuals are attempting to express. Some White pride advocates claim that there is a cultural double standard in which only certain ethnic groups are permitted to openly express pride in their heritage, and that white pride is not inherently racist, being roughly analogous to racial positions such as Asian pride, black pride, or non-racial forms such as gay pride.[4][5] Carol M. Swain and Russell Nieli state that the white pride movement is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States, arguing that over the course of the 1990s, "a new white pride, white protest, and white consciousness movement has developed in America". They identify three contributing factors: an immigrant influx during the 1980s and 1990s, resentment over affirmative action policies, and the growth of the Internet as a tool for the expression and mobilization of grievances.[6] A white pride T-shirt Sociologists Betty A. Dobratz and Stephanie L Shanks-Meile state that "White Power! White Pride!" is "a much-used chant of white separatist movement supporters".[7] According to Joseph T. Roy of the Southern Poverty Law Center, white supremacists often circulate material on the Internet and elsewhere that "portrays the groups not as haters, but as simple white pride civic groups concerned with social ills".[8] The slogan "White Pride, World Wide" appears in the logo of Stormfront, a website owned and operated by Don Black, who was formerly a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.[9] The North Georgia White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan describe themselves as "a patriotic, White Christian revival movement dedicated to preserving the maintenance of White Pride and the rights of the White Race".[10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commonsenceforanuncommonage (talk • contribs) 08:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this a proposed edit? Would you please cite sources here? I added a number of [Citation needed] and a false equivalence. It need many more. Jim1138 (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Three problems with this proposed addition/change:

1) Some of the material is an edit to what is there. I do not intend to dig through it to figure out what is being changed and why. Your job is to explain that, especially given the next two problems.

2) You cite the American Journal of Human Genetics to describe the common usage of "white pride". The article does not use the phrase. It does not support the material you wish to add.

3) You cite American Renaissance for what "many whites feel". White supremacist groups do not speak for "many" whites. They are not a reliable source for statements other than non-controversial matters of self-report (i.e. "American Renaissance is published by..."). - SummerPhD (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Jim1138 edited Commonsenceforanuncommonage's talk page entry? Even if just a "citation needed", it's not a good idea, I don't care who he is.Tgm1024 (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Plurality of "whiteness"

I have only recently become aware of this "white pride" movement. It appears that there may be branches of this movement that include specific white cultures, such as Irish-American, etc. and it may be helpful to readers if further information was added about those branches of the movement, or if it was clarified whether there were "official" branches of the movement. We do a disservice to white people in referring to them as if they were all of one history and mindset.

I believe that there needs to be counter-argument for the criticism portion of this page as well, to more thoroughly explain the motivation behind the movement. In reading the article it seems to say, effectively, "This organization is founded by Nazis and KKK members, and even if they think otherwise, this is just meant to give whites privileges." Personally, I have Spanish and Cherokee heritage as well as Celtic ancestry, and I look white. I am proud of my white Celtic ancestors, as I am proud of my Spanish ancestry (who were not dark-skinned). This article does not present the whole picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.58.218.152 (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If there is specific material you feel should be added, you will need to cite independent reliable sources for the material. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying you are proud of being white itself, not just Celtic and Spanish, who happen to also be white, or what? As I don't think it qualifies as "white pride" if the pride is in individual white ethnicities, not in "being white" per se. So I don't know if that qualifies as "white pride" in the sense discussed in this article. mike4ty4 (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we set white pride as a neo-nazi slogan and as a cultural concept aside?

Hello everyone.

Seems like all the buzz around this article originates from two meanings of "white pride" being confused.

One white pride is a concept which IS similar to any other pride, ethnic or not.

Another is the supremacist slogan.

Why don't we distinguish those? Maybe it would be better to make two separate articles.

TL;DR summary: This article presents an unbalanced point of view through its lack of a clear definition(s) or description(s) of white pride anywhere in the article, its presented selection of users of the phrase, and its citation of the Southern Poverty Law Centre without mentioning that their labels are often considered controversial.

This article is uninformative and doesn't present a neutral point of view.

There is no explanation of what white pride is, why the phrase used, or any in-depth history of the phrase and its use. Almost no activist groups, political parties, magazines, websites etc. which use the phrase have been mentioned.

In fact, the ONLY subsection of this article is "Criticism" - and. Does this seem like an objective article to you?

Let's compare this article with the article for black pride, shall we? In the article for black pride, no criticism has been included; either in a dedicated section or anywhere in the article. On the contrary, a quote has been included to laud it as "a rock in the face of expressions of white supremacy". In the beginning of the article, it states that "black pride is a movement encouraging people to take pride in being black" and that "the slogan has been used in the United States by African Americans to celebrate heritage and personal pride". The author(s) of the article have tried to create a very positive feel to the term by linking it with civil rights campaigners "speaking out against the United States' segregated society and lobbied for better treatment of all races" - this despite the fact that the phrase was used by Malcolm X, who was openly hateful of white people and openly, very publicly called for mass violence against them. Yet I don't see any of this reflected in the black pride article, about its association with militant anti-White violence.

In the white pride article, however, the author have drawn up a collection of "socially unaccepted" groups with whom to link the phrase and a list of criticisms - some of which are in th main body of the article. The KKK are listed here, and a few quotes claiming that users of the phrase are "white supremacists". But none of the political parties, magazines, activist groups, individuals, websites etc. which use the phrase have been mentioned in the article. Never in the article is any description of the phrase even made. I mean it. I have looked through the article and have not found a definition or definitions given for "white pride". In the entire article. Why didn't you use the suggestion of the other post in this talk page to open the article with "White pride, is a slogan most frequently used by peoples of European decent to express affirmation of dignity, honor, and respect in their cultural heritage and community.[1] It is also used to express a connection to ones European roots and ancestry, a concept many whites feel is often unecessarily misconstrued and absent in modern western societies.[2]". As soon as I opene the black pride article, I'm given a clear definition of the term. "Black pride is a movement encouraging people to take pride in being black." It elaborates to claim that "The slogan has been used in the United States by African Americans to celebrate heritage and personal pride." Yet when I open the white pride article, I don't get a definition(s). I just get a group of people whom the article claims uses the phrase. No definition or description.

This article is a joke, a complete joke. It's an absolute anti-White propaganda piece. Just as the black ride article is designed to legitimise that term, so this article is designed to stigmatise and to illegitimise the phrase "white pride" by presenting an imbalanced article through a variety of techniques, and ultimately to help suppress people from expressing white pride. Whether by design or not, this article is massively unbalanced in its presentation and point of view. And that violates Wikipedia guidelines.

I suggest that a definition or definitions be included at the beginning of the article, that criticism of the phrase be confined to the Criticism section unless it has some other purpose in the article, and that a larger collection of people and groups making use of the phrase be included.

Again, as posters have recognised, THIS ARTICLE IS MASSIVELY BIASED AGAINST THE USE OF THE PHRASE "WHITE PRIDE" and needs to be chsnged.

We need to create a clear, detailed, objective article about white pride, and this article isn't one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.230.117 (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I might have put this in the wrong place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.230.117 (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is based on the most reliable sources we can find on the subject. Arguing in all caps about a conspiracy against the term is not helpful. jps (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced additions

Wikipedia articles are intended to summarize what independent reliable sources say about a subject. If you have material to add, it must cite reliable sources or it will be removed. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The original text in the definition for white pride is completely inaccurate and biased. Although there is a facet to the term or slogan that is connected with hate speech and or white nationalist skin head gangs/organizations this aspect belongs in the controversy section.my only goal is to present a proper presentation which mirrors the definitions of black pride and Asian pride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commonsenceforanuncommonage (talk • contribs) 08:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact is, "White Pride" is used primarily by a bunch of bigots as stated in the first sentence of the article. This is well established by many, many WP:RS. As a certifiable way-over-privileged "white guy", I wish to not be associated with this sh*t. The WP:WEIGHT is correct and the article should retain its criticism of "White Pride" Jim1138 (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Your opinions and Salon.com are not reliable sources. Have a look at the Black pride article and the vastly different tone there. It lists users of the phrase such as Black Panther Party without calling them racists (and they are). This is article is dripping with liberal, progressive, anti-white bias. Not even close to WP:NPOV Matty1487 (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion about salon.com is not a reliable source. Your stating they're not NPOV does not make them POV. Get consensus on a talk page before deleting sourced information. Ratemonth (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Official neutrality discussion

If anyone's wondering why IP's have been making a lot of changes on the article and lots of complaints on the talk page the past few days, it's because this picture has popped up on a lot of social media recently. Perhaps for WP:NEUTRALITY we should change the "evil nazi racists" tone on the article, and/or tone down the "positiveness" on the others? --Steverci (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we find reliable sources that are more positive about white pride? I think that trying to tone down the positiveness of the other two would not only be disruptive but would be likely to annoy the WMF Board. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I will restate my previous recommendation, deleted along with everything, that formal mediation might be in order about this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Levonscott User talk:Levonscott User:Levonscott 10:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Certainly a reasonable position Robert, the mediation, but I don't think there's anything to mediate if no one can provide a source that documents this positive white pride.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. If there are no positive sources, there is nothing or very little to mediate. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead edits discussion

I reverted Ylevental's edits to the lead (see [1]). Primarily because the lead sentence does not reflect the body of the article (per WP:LEADSENTENCE) and does not reflect reliable sources' definitions of white pride. Moreover, these major changes were done unilaterally and in the context of major POV editing on this page and black pride by the user and other editors after a social media post on Reddit was circulated (see WP:ANI#Vandalism_to_article). I'm starting discussion here as WP:BRD and a final good-faith effort to resolve conflict on this page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC

@EvergreenFir: A summary of the changes that I did, and tell me which ones are notable: The lead states the obvious, that white pride encourages people to take pride in being white. The first source I added was from UC Berkeley http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/does_white_pride_lead_to_prejudice, titled "Does White Pride Lead to Prejudice?" The second source I added was http://www.inquisitr.com/2785751/black-pride-vs-white-pride-war-rages-define-black-power-positive-racial-prides-racist-hate-groups/ However, Dr. Janet E. Helms, founding director of Boston College’s Institute for the Study and Promotion of Race and Culture, writes “The task for whites is to develop a positive white identity based on reality not on assumed superiority... Not in the sense of Klan members’ ‘white pride’ but in the context of a commitment to a just society.” This quote can be found in multiple books too. Ylevental (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious that a Guinea pig is a pig from Guinea. However, that is verifiably not the case.

That someone at UCB said whites have the task of developing white pride that is not in the sense of Klan members' 'white pride' suggests that Klan members' 'white pride' exists and the white pride that is different than that has not been developed. "We need to develop a use for coal that doesn't destroy the environment" implies the uses we have -- those that actually exist -- destroy the environment.

One side observation: Sometimes bold editing is needed to get discussion rolling on a stagnant topic. At the time of your edit, Ylevental, this topic was in no way stagnant. In such a case, it is easy for "bold" to be seen as part of the in-your-face ranting of the "but if reliable sources say positive things about 'X pride', we have to say positive things about 'Y pride'" crowd. If reliable sources say cherry pie is pie filled with cherry, we do not ignore the simple fact that a cow pie is neither a pie nor filled with cow. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Understood. So in this context, "White Pride" is a slogan, and Black pride is a movement. Ok, I re-added the inquisitr source within respect to the terminology.Ylevental (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Helms and American Renaissance cites

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I've reverted your recent removals. Please elaborate on your "context" criticism wrt Helms and why American Renaissance isn't sufficient in this context. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

American Renaissance (magazine) is a white supremacist publication. As such, it cannot be used as a reference without being couched as "white supremacist" and, further, should only be used when outside sources have noticed its commentary. jps (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Please stop edit warring and come discuss this. Also, it appears you called another editor a white supremacist, which is unacceptable.

The source is fine to use when referring to people's opinion pieces. We are not making statements in Wikipedia's voice; we are attributing the statements to the individuals. That they made those statements in a white supremacist publication is not the issue. The issue is whether or not those particular people's opinions are notable enough to be included. Nothing prevents us from citing a white supremacist source on a topic related to white supremacy so long as we attribute the statements to individuals. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing close to appropriate couching of the claimed sources in the text. Nor is there any attempt being made here to understand that this magazine is basically unreliable. Why are you arguing for the inclusion of content sourced to white supremacist sources? It should only be done if others have noticed it. Full stop. jps (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The magazine is unreliable for general information. But we're citing opinion pieces, right? That's WP:SPS basically. Perhaps you should ask at WP:RSN? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Attempting to compromise by mentioning the publication directly. See this edit. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Why should the opinions of a retired police officer matter at all? Or a journalist? This is a sociology question. At least the opinions of a clinical psychologist and founder of an institute make sense. jps (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Right now more than 10% of the article is content source exclusively to American Renaissance and there seems to be no notice of that content outside of other white supremacist sources. I don't think that this is a reasonable thing to do at this page at all. There are loads and loads of sources about white pride in the scholarly literature, many of which carefully explain the white supremacist position. I don't understand what the motivation is for keeping white supremacist sources in the article. jps (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:, thank you. @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: White supremacist sources are perfectly reasonable for the beliefs and opinions of white supremacists, while scholarly literature is best for an analysis of those beliefs. I've restored the earlier summary of Helms. I'd prefer we negotiate changes here on the talk page than through reverts and re-reverts. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit introduces a falsehood. Helms did not write anything in the book. She is quoted in the book. Please self-revert. jps (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The beliefs and opinions of white supremacists are not relevant to the academic study of this subject unless they are noticed by the scholars who study the subject. Since scholars have not taken note of the opinions of the retired police officer and the conservative journalist who believes that black people are less intelligent than white people, it is not Wikipedia's place to include those opinions that have not been noticed. They need to be removed until you can demonstrate that academic serious sources have paid attention to their claims. jps (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

My edit doesn't suggest Helms wrote anything in the book, as far as I can tell. The standard you propose for inclusion (that every claim and opunion must be noted by serious scholars) is not one I'm aware of. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit reintroduces the wording: "As an alternative, Janet E. Helms, founding director of Boston College’s Institute for the Study and Promotion of Race and Culture writes..." No context. No mention of the book. Nothing. Fix it. jps (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion is WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT/WP:FRINGE (and it doesn't get more fringe than active advocacy of white supremacy). If no one pays attention to a claim, we don't include it in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I believe your latest edit puts you past 3RR. Beyond that is unnecessarily WP:WEASEL. Please revert. As for context for Helms, I don't follow your argument - I introduce the "falsehood" that the quoted text comes from Helms' writing in the book by not mentioning the book? Would your objection be satisfied if we cited the Helms source directly? And please, there's no need for contentiousness, we all seem willing to compromise. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

(1)It's not possible to revert that edit (which you yourself reverted). I'm not sure why you think it is. (2) Helms didn't write the book. We cannot cite Helms directly because it is a quote from a personal communication with her in the book already cited (written by another person). Please try to keep up. jps (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right that I linked the wrong diff - corrected now, please revert. So then how are you suggesting we improve the sourcing for Helms? And please mind WP:NPA. In case you're not aware this topic is subject to discretionary sanctions. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it so hard for you to look back in the history where you removed the wording you seek?

As an alternative, Janet E. Helms, founding director of Boston College’s Institute for the Study and Promotion of Race and Culture was quoted in the book "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together In The Cafeteria?": And Other Conversations About Race as saying that a white person "must become aware of his or her Whiteness, accept it as personally and socially significant... ... Not in the sense of Klan members’ ‘white pride’ but in the context of a commitment to a just society.”

As for your claim that my edit violates 3RR, I don't see how it is a revert. If you don't like the edit, explain why. WP:WEASEL is not an explanation unless you think "belief" is a weasel word.

jps (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

James J. Lambden - which discretionary sanctions are you referring to? I do not see any in the list of current sanctions that apply. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

American politics 2 applies, I believe. I'm stepping away for a bit until we can discuss without insults. EvergreenFir, please ping me if I'm needed, thanks. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I'm keeping my distance a bit. This page makes me so weary. Hoping someone else will join the discussion soon. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Reposting my comment from RSN:

• Not WP:RS -- should not be used. The citing to it on the opinions of people mentioned sounds like WP:OR, based on a WP:primary, questionable source and should be avoided. (I consider a white-supremacist magazine to be a primary source on white supremacy). If there's a reliable, secondary source that analyzed these quotes and came to similar conclusions, then I would support including it. Otherwise, it sounds like the opinions of people quoted are presented in Wikipedia's voice, and is problematic.

I believe the situation is similar to quoting Himmler verbatim in the SS article (from my list of Special mentions of various fringe content I've been finding in Wikipedia):

• Himmler is cited in Wikipedia's voice, beyond the pale: Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler stated, "Once the Führer himself has made a decision and given the order, it must be carried out, not only according to the word and the letter, but also in spirit."

Please also see a follow-up discussion on my Talk page: Wikipedia voice.

Hope this is helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2016

This phrase is being completely misrepresented by this page. If white pride is a slogan used by racist groups to advance their racist agenda then so is black pride, Asian pride, ect. It is not the place of scholars to weigh in on the supposed rights and wrongs of society. This page was clearly written with an agenda clearly against white people and any type of positivity associated with them. I implore to you correct this injustice in the name of equal preservation of knowledge for all peoples 104.229.39.118 (talk) 04:17, 26 March 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. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

If you have a specific edit in mind, propose it, but this talk page is not a forum for discussing what the term means. It's also not a platform for advocating a position. Wikipedia is, actually, for scholars who 'weigh in' and that about it. Briefly summarized, the black pride movement was a reaction to white racism, specifically the entrenched and powerful opposition to the civil rights movement. It was not intended to denigrate other races. White pride, on the other hand, is a phrase intended to make white racism seem more acceptable and reasonable as a precursor to segregation and racial supremacy. Comparing the two like this is a false dichotomy. If you're worried about a lack of positivity being associated with white people, I hear there's some movies and TV shows coming out this year that have positive portrayals of white people, so keep your eyes out. Grayfell (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up to RSN

There was a big discussion, including at RSN, but AmRen is still here. I propose the following edit for the lead:

Currently:

• According to Joseph T. Roy of the Southern Poverty Law Center, white supremacists often circulate material on the internet and elsewhere that "portrays the groups not as haters, but as simple white pride civic groups concerned with social ills".

• Writing in the white supremacist magazine American Renaissance, Steve Sailer argues that white pride has a negative reputation because white people are expected to be at the top of the societal ladder, and that pride movements are associated with lack of social status. He says that this stigma affects blue-collar whites in particular. Retired police officer Justin J. Moritz also wrote in American Renaissance that he tried to trademark the phrase "White Pride Country Wide" but it was denied for being offensive, despite his belief that phrases like "Black Pride" and "Black Power" were trademarked. Philosopher David Ingram argues that "affirming 'black pride' is not equivalent to affirming 'white pride,' since the former—unlike the latter...

References

Suggested change:

According to Joseph T. Roy of the Southern Poverty Law Center, white supremacists often circulate material on the internet and elsewhere that "portrays the groups not as haters, but as simple white pride civic groups concerned with social ills". Philosopher David Ingram argues that "affirming 'black pride' is not equivalent to affirming 'white pride,' since the former—unlike the latter...

References

The original lead cites from a WP:FRINGE source directly, which I don't think is appropriate.

Any objections? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. Grayfell (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please. RSN had clear consensus that they were not reliable sources. Lets remove them. Can always look for better ones later. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I object to wholesale removal of the AR sources - I don't see at consensus for that at RSN. Was there a follow-up discussion elsewhere? I'm comfortable with removal of the police officer's statement though. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The AmRen content still looks problematic to me, for example it includes: "...white people are expected to be at the top of the societal ladder..." -- expected by whom? The overall society? (No, thank you.) According to white supremacy ideology?

That's the problem with using fringe sources -- the article begins to sound like one. It would be better if a secondary WP:RS source, such as a historian or a social phycologist, looked at AmRen and analysed their views, and then Wikipedia can use that. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sociologist Michael Kimmel wrote quite a bit on blue collar workers, white people at the top of the social ladder and how this influences white supremacist thought in his book Angry White Men. I can't remember if it explores the concept of 'white pride specifically or not, and I don't have a copy on me right now, but I'd be surprised if it doesn't. Brustopher (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything in there on Google Books ([2]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Since we appear not to have a source to replace the AmRen statement, I'm going to go ahead and remove it as being cited to a fringe source and containing fringe language. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: within the "big discussion" at RSN there was no consensus for removal. We're not using it to state claims in wiki's voice, and Am Ren is mentioned in several high quality sources. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus clearly is against you. Let it go. jps (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please try your best to be civil :) I believe you were cautioned earlier against personally directed comments. I can't recall whether you participated in the RSN discussion but the link's above - can you point to a policy-based argument for exclusion either here or in that discussion? James J. Lambden (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No one agrees with you. Therefore consensus is against you. jps (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

A review of this talk page and the RSN discussion shows that's untrue. Consensus is not a vote. Achieving it requires policy-based arguments. "White supremacists - icky!" is unfortunately (or fortunately) not a policy-based argument. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the content should stay off. It uses white supremacy language and comes from a fringe source. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, I respect that you feel that way but "I agree that the content should stay off" is not an argument for removal. On what grounds would you like to exclude it? It's a fringe source on a fringe topic - I don't expect to find a non-fringe sources advocating white pride, so the alternative is to exclude representation of their views. As the reader may be here to better understand the views of the white pride movement, excluding them seems unhelpful. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:FRIND indicates that we should only source fringe opinions that are noticed by independent sources. jps (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The argument above was that the source was fringe. Are you suggesting now instead the view is fringe? Let me know which, and I'll address it. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia only includes the opinions of white supremacists when reliable sources that are not white supremacist take note of them. That is the essence of WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:FRIND seems to be applicable. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Complete Article Overhaul

This article only discusses "white pride" as a phrase, rather than aspects of various "white pride" movements throughout history. I believe the article needs to be redone to include information regarding the phrase and the origin of such, a brief history of white pride movements, specific aspects of what white pride focuses on, legal status, and criticism. While I do not believe the Black Pride article is particularly thorough, the formatting and types of content may be a good place to start. The current White Pride article could be streamlined and included as part of the "criticism" section. StrayDotM (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Any overhaul of this article would need to be based on reliable sources. Direct comparisons to black pride are of limited value, since, as the article explains, the terms have different histories and uses. The current article appears to be a mostly straightforward reflection of how academic and journalistic sources regard the concept, and to relegate that to a criticism section would be non-neutral (see WP:CSECTION) and would likely introduce false balance. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I only brought up the Black Pride article to compare the format to this one, not to compare the actual topics. My intent was to point out that here, we're treating "white pride" as simply a term, while the "black pride" article references both the Black Pride movement and the origins of the phrase "black pride." My contention is that this article needs more information, such as a brief history of the term, beliefs commonly associated with white pride, and a list of groups which could be considered proponents of the concept of "white pride." Surely there must be reliable sources referencing these things, as no one is denying that a such a movement has existed. Presenting facts and information would still be neutral, despite the consensus you mention - I'm not arguing that the initial definition here needs to be changed, just that the article needs more information. If it was formatted as such, the extended criticism would make the most sense in a related section. Even the thoroughly discredited Flat Earth has an article outlining the history and context behind it. StrayDotM (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the phase, not the movement. The movement is already documented in these articles: white separatism, white nationalism, neo-Nazism, and white supremacy.- MrX 15:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Whatever our personal POVs, the article reads like someone has extracted the "Criticism" section from a much fuller "white pride" article. Even the opening sentence shows this bias and the two references clearly have an agenda. It would be more balanced if we heard some neutral historical stuff and also from their proponents what they think white pride means to them, before we launch into the "it's all totally racist" citations, which are perfectly valid in a Criticism section. So I totally agree with StrayDotM it does need an total overhaul and along the lines he/she suggests. WikiProject Discrimination certainly has its work cut out here! --Bermicourt (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What would a "fuller white pride article" look like, here? The lead's reliance on quotes from academics is awkward as hell, but the underlying point being made is valid. The phrase is closely connected to racism, specifically the normalization of racism, so any reliable sources are going to include that as a defining trait. The phrase has very little history beyond that, which should be reflected in the lead, and to stick it in a criticism section would be completely missing the point made by the article's multiple reliable sources. If the majority of usable, independent sources describe something in unflattering terms, relegating that to a separate section would be overly accommodating. If reliable sources describe the phrase's use from an insider's perspective, that's fine, but it should be kept proportional to coverage. Grayfell (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Similar to Grayfell, I'm have questions about a "fuller white pride article" approach. Other than that, I don't see a need for an overhaul. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2016

The first part of the page should be changed to truly reflect the nature of this motto of 'White Pride'. 'White Pride', although used by such racist organizations, is simply a statement of encouragement for people who wish to rightly celebrate their white heritage. If you look at the start of the 'Black Pride' article, you can see that there is no claim of Black Pride being racist; however, it is so for White Pride. This must be fixed. ItIsII (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Addressed a dozen times already. OTHERSTUFF, WEIGHT, etc EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Racism verses Vandalism

Hi, I made an edit to remove some terribly racist, offensive material from this page and it was reverted as vandalism. Please can we get a quick vote and opinions on a) whether this edit was anti-racist or b) whether this edit was vandalism? [3] Thanks. Sheepy Shoo (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey Sheepy! Basically the issue is that the source you added in no way is relevant to any of the things you added to the article. The article mentions jack #### about a white pride movement, and discusses white ethnic identities in a more general sense instead of the specific motto "white pride" or a white pride movement. Do you have any sources whatsoever that contradict the claim that "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." If you do, please provide them! Otherwise, I'm afraid there's not really much you can do. Brustopher (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey Brustopher, Thanks for your reply. I see your point. All the sources on this page are unbelievably racist. I can find a few that aren't and define this concept properly. For instance this one directly contradicts the disgusting and obscene racist bias of that claim [4] saying white power "does not mean and does not have to mean a state of supremacy". Which is the point that REALLY needs making in this article in order to prevent me AT LEAST slapping a non-neutrality tag on it! I had thought that neutrality, common sense and above all NOT BEING RACIST would carry weight enough to balance a desperately skewed article but if you really need balanced sources, here's some more. [5] this one (tabloid although national) quotes a steward of the white pride organization claiming they are not Neo-Nazis and talks of it as to "celebrate being white. Just like other people celebrate being gay or black." [6] This is a first amendment matter and one says there is no constitutional means to deny students from the "same right to establish white pride organizations as any other racial or ethnic groups". [7] Huffington Post, re-posting Sky News in 2012 says “It’s got nothing to do with racism, it’s got nothing to do with extremism,” Tancredo told Fox News 2009. “It has to do with celebrating the benefits Western civilization has brought to mankind, not the least of which is the concept of law. It’s designed to bring attention to the issues, discussions and points of view that aren’t readily available in the typical classroom on liberal colleges run by left-wing loonies.” Also highlighting that the movement today is “a safe space for members who have filed hate/bias reports and who have had anti-white language used against them. Especially the female members who have heard ‘cracker’ and ‘honkie,’ and nothing has ever come of it. It’s a support network for a campus that is hostile toward white students.” [8] John Gabriel states here that “In the case of “white pride” identities, the Internet and music have provided opportunities for the formation of new global alignments around whiteness which have encouraged interchange and convergence between the US, England and the rest of Europe. Such developments suggest that the very global processes which might have undermined racialized identities within a national context, have served to re-configure them on a global scale.” So I think it's time Wikipedia woke up and realized we're not in the 1860 civil war or the 1960 civil rights protests anymore and the statements on this page are as horrifyingly racist against white people nowadays as the worst of the KKK propaganda against blacks were in their time. Sheepy Shoo (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok let's go through this bit by bit. I feel your first quote is a bit of a quote mine, especially given that it's talking more generally about the concept of pride and that the sentence which immeadiatly follows is this: "But informally it does sometimes mean supremacy, at least connotatively." The mirror source is a tabloid, but if you have any more academic or serious secondary sources that describe the views of white pride advocates as thus, I have no objection to you including them as long as the views are attributed. The next source you link in no way claims that "white pride" movements aren't largely racist just that they have first amendment protection. For the Huffpo stuff see what I wrote about including attribtued views. The John Gabriel source also in no way states that white pride movements are not largely racist, and something similar is already included sourced to study by Back, Keith and Solomos. Finally, dial down the rhetoric a little! Brustopher (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

That's just your (Redacted) opinion of racist sources. So the system is inherently racist. It doesn't mean Wikipedia should be, should it? I've neutrality tagged the page in complaint. Sheepy Shoo (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources state that the phrase "white pride" is primarily used by white supremacist (&ct) organizations to signal their racist viewpoints. As a result, that's what Wikipedia says. If reliable sources stated that the phrase was used by left-handed cooks to express their hatred of overcooked pasta, that is what Wikipedia would report. I has nothing whatsoever to do with what you or anyone else feels it should mean or how it should be used. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how similar phrases are used. Reliable sources explain it, Wikipedia reports what they have to say. Arguing that all of the sources are wrong/misguided/racist/etc. is a non-starter here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Biased Source Removal Request

Hello. The first sentence in this article seems to be using heavily biased sources. Primarily the one from the DailyDot and the sourced Whitewash: Racialized Politics and the Media book. I wasn't able to find a copy of the third source, it should be looked into to make sure that it's credible. There wasn't much information about it online either. Once I have more time, I'll look into it more thoroughly.

Here's my reasoning and proof:

1) The Daily Dot piece is dubbed an "opinion piece" on the upper-right hand corner. This means it's not factual and probably shouldn't be the opening sentence of a supposedly unbiased article. If we're to leave it, I suggest making sure that the article states that the source is an opinion piece. In fact, I'd go as far to say that the entire article should clarify that it's all essentially opinion (I.E. how some parts of the article include sentences like, "People commonly argue," I understand that some of it is factual based on past history events, and those are fine).

2) Whitewash: Racialized Politics and the Media seems to be biased if you check page 5 (the sourced page) of the book. It itself doesn't provide any real sources for its claims, and seemingly simply reflects the opinions of the author himself. There may be a page in the book where the author clarifies with a case study or something of the sort, but page 5 of the book does not do this and isn't suitable for an unbiased article, nor does it really provide meaningful proof for what article claims. Please feel free to correct me if anyone has better knowledge on the book (for example, someone whom has studied and read the entire thing), but regardless, please correct the book page number to reflect a more insightful part of it. There's not many reviews online or even discussion of it, making it very hard to discern its credibility.

I think it's imperative to preserve an unbiased viewpoint in Wikipedia articles, not only that, but it's imperative to uses sources that are good and trustworthy, and have been thoroughly peer reviewed to ensure that they're valid.

Perhaps a good way to remove some of the animosity this article causes would be to move the last two sentences of the article up toward the top, and perhaps even including them in the first sentence.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15bmckinney (talk • contribs) 05:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The article isn't currently long enough to divide into sections. If it were, we would not necessarily need sources for the first paragraph anyway, since the lead of the article is intended to summarize the body (MOS:LEAD). The first sentence is supported not just by the three sources attached, but by the entire article. The rest of the opening paragraph strongly supports that sentence, so the specific sources should not be shuffled around out of formality. As for the sources in question:

• Whitewash is written by John Gabriel, who is a respected academic in the field, and the book is published by Routledge, a respected academic publisher, making this unambiguously an WP:RS for Wikipedia's purposes. Since page 5 is part of the introduction to a book which covers "white pride" in multiple places, this seems acceptable. Choosing a more specific page in a case like this is not always needed or helpful.
• The Daily Dot article is not as great a source for this, but the points being made are supported well enough, especially in combination with the other sources in the article.
• Race, gender, and the contemporary white supremacy movement appears to be a an academic thesis. Not something I would use, but again, in combination with the many other sources in the article, I don't see a problem. Grayfell (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

15bmckinney is confusing WP:BIASED with WP:NPOV. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2016

I would like to update this page due to my finding of this page to be inaccurate, highly subjective and very biased/prejudice against the movement. It is shown in a highly negative context, with no reasonable reason why, even though other groups such as the "Black Power" movement have done many radical things very similar to that of the "White Pride" movement. I think that this should be rectified and the article be rewritten in a neutral perspective without the clear bias currently present. Moreover if we do live in a free and equal world/country then we must also treat subjects like the "White Power" the same as the "Black Power" movement. It will also be highly beneficial to Wikipedia itself, as Wikipedia is regarded as a place of learning and objectivity, and should not be used to harbour propaganda or political opinions in the context of a factual document.

So in essence I would like the "White Pride" page be written in a manner similar to that of the "Gay Pride" and "Black Pride" pages. An example of which is: "Black pride is a movement in response to dominant white cultures and ideologies that encourages black people to celebrate black culture and embrace their African heritage.[1] In the United States, it was a direct response to white racism especially during the Civil Rights Movement.[2] Related movements include black power,[2] black nationalism,[2] Black Panthers, Afrocentrism, and black supremacism" And the "White pride page be changed to: "Black pride is a movement in response to dominant white cultures and ideologies that encourages black people to celebrate black culture and embrace their African heritage.[1] In the United States, it was a direct response to white racism especially during the Civil Rights Movement.[2] Related movements include white power,[2] white nationalism,and white supremacism." Thank You. Special:Contributions/crosssafley (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope. If you can provide even a single reliable source that in any ways disputes what this page is saying about the primary use of the white pride slogan, EVEN JUST ONE, EVEN HALF A SOURCE, please do so. Otherwise nope. Brustopher (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - The request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The request must be specific, and should cite sources if they are not already cited in the article.- MrX 20:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)