Talk:White pride

Edit Suggestion (I have access so I could do it myself but I'll put it in here first just for props)

Evidently this page is causing all sorts of problems for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is losing credibility over bias and this article's headlining statement is one of the problems. The sources do indeed indicate that "White Pride" is a statement used by primarily "White Supremacists" but that doesn't mean there is not a compromise.

My suggestion is this. We simply put "White pride is a statement that encourages white people to celebrate their respective cultures and embrace their European heritage," at the front. This satisfies the dilemma. Then we put "The statement is historically known to be used primarily by white supremacists etc. etc. etc."

This keeps the sources accurate while satisfies the balance of order and protecting Wikipedia's image as a balanced and informed source. Please do give thoughts and suggestions. If no one gives me a reason why not to change it I will change it myself in the coming weeks. Historybuff3504 (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

No, just no. If Wikipedfia lacks credibility among white pride proponents, then who cares? The references don't support that wording, simple as that. FDW777 (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

First of all you misspelt Wikipedia. Second of all the whole point of Wikipedia is for it to be a reliable website that provides accurate and inoffensive explanations for the general public. If you or other editors don't care about credibility among groups then that is a serious problem that ought to be dealt with.

Also a direct base explanation of a term does not need sources as it is common sense. Frankly I don't know why encyclopedias explain terms like that at all but they do.

Not to mention that the initial explanation of the term "White Pride" I am suggesting is simply a base level look into what the term means. White Pride would by common sense be a statement encouraging people to celebrate their culture and heritage.

THAT is the base and absolutely irrefutable truth of the matter. Maybe the term is used only or primarily by racists and white supremacists but that cannot mean that the term itself is racist by nature. So we simply do as I said and put a simple irrefutable explanation of the term first, then explain that it is used primarily by white supremacists.

If someone still has a problem with this then common sense dictates that you are blindsided by politics. It is a simple matter. One side wants to change it completely and the other side wants it to stay exactly the same.

This suggestion I have made IS the solution to the problem. The only reason I haven't changed it already is because I want to make a point first.

This suggestion is going to either make both sides of the spectrum happy or make them both equally dissatisfied. But that is objectively better than having one side buried in the dirt. And if you disagree with that, no matter what side you're on, then you're part of the problem that plagues this country.

And so again I ask for someone to give me a reasonable argument as to why we cannot simply change the wording in this way. No more talk of sources because as mentioned sources are not necessary for a base explanation that could be found in a dictionary or honestly explained easily by most sensible people.

Historybuff3504 (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The reason you haven't changed it is for multiple reasons. Firstly you have no references. Secondly it's a violation of WP:LEAD. Thirdly it's a controversial edit requiring WP:CONSENSUS. FDW777 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I recommend reading, and understanding, the FAQ at the top of the page before replying again. FDW777 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Please show me where one of the goal descriptors of the site is "inoffensive". danzig138 (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

this would solve the issue! I mean, there should be nothing wrong with being proud of your white skin colour, but white supremacy. That is definitely and unconditionally wrong. I wholeheartedly support this idea. Not just because it would put an end to the bad imagery that the extreme right can wave over Wikipedia. Also because this article in its current form is not neutral. Dingspil Drenter (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

There isn't an issue. The term is exclusively used by white supremacists and has always been. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

It only seems that way because anyone who tries to use it the way Black People use 'Black Pride' get shouted down and cancelled.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-51316781 ~2026-24050-86 (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

That article doesn't mention white pride. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Time for semi-protection?

I went as far back as Talk:White pride/Archive 4, which goes into 2017. Since then, I have not found a single, constructive post leading to an improvement to the article from any IPs or new accounts. For the last eight years (and probably much longer) there's been the usual predictable moaning that achieves nothing and endlessly goes over the same ground, and wastes everyone's time. So time to semi-protect the talk page too? FDW777 (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I generally think protecting a talk page is an extreme measure. If there is disruprive editing on the talk page, it should be dealt with appropriately. Obvious vandalism and unconstructive requests can be swiftly removed as far as I am aware. My technical skills don't allow me to, (yet) but we should just archive the (answered) distruptive requests we have now if they do not require any action. Slomo666 (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Where did this expression come from?

I feel it would probably be easier to not have to deal with, well, scroll above, if we had a clear statement of when this was first used. The problem is, all the sources are busy arguing about if it is or isn't racist, or proving it is racist, or white guilt or whatever, so, unlike the "white power" phrase I actually haven't been able to find anyone discussing its origins.

I was able to add some early usages from the 1980s I found in books. Taken together, I suspect that this phrase may originate with either the Aryan Nations or a related group in the 1980s. It was used by the Order in the early 1980s, used as the name of a KKK rally led by Thom Robb in 1986, and by 1987 the Aryan Nations were selling merchandise of it. These are the first results I can find for it as a concept. The Order was an AN spinoff and Robb also had AN ties, so this indicates to me that it is probably from the AN. It also just seems like something they would come up with. I will keep looking, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

White Pride

Wikipedia should remove white pride as a racist connection or relabel Black pride as a racist connection. Connected to the Black Panthers who hate white people and Black lives Matter movement who also hate shite people.

wikipedia is not an American institution and should not speak about what it doesn’t understand. Why don’t you just focus on Denmark and its racism. Since your all white right. ~2026-10115-54 (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:Not forum WP:SOAP Whataboutism 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

i agree with you that this page just be changed. Because white pride in itself is not a racist term. I was honestly shocked to find out that this page really is like this. The only post I thought was fake news, that unfortunately turned out to be real. Now the issue with this page is that there are no references where white pride is used in a socially acceptable sphere. Therefore this page will always a debate between the Wikipedians who value common sense verses those who value references. I have no clue as to why this post has never been neutralized. It's absolutely disgusting and doesn't fit the Wikipedia narrative. Dingspil Drenter (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

If you think the page should be changed, then you need to provide references. Constantly bleating without references will achieve precisely nothing, other than action potentially being taken against those who wish to flout policy. FDW777 (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Because the phrase white pride has never been used by anyone who is not a white supremacist. That is the common sense expression of it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

1st sentence … change “primarily” to “historically” to reflect the accuracy of the references .

1st sentence … change “primarily” to “historically” to reflect the accuracy of the references . ~2026-27845-87 (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not a historical usage, it is still the only way this slogan is used. We could probably be saying it in a less verbose way, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)