Talk:White pride: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Official neutrality discussion: new section)
(Official neutrality discussion: comments)
Line 27: Line 27:
   
 
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 [https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/12717902_947846465322214_4371000710160726707_n.jpg?oh=c199d513b76883b05bb7d90c5d135615&oe=5765A90E 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? --[[User:Steverci|Steverci]] ([[User talk:Steverci|talk]]) 03:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 
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 [https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/12717902_947846465322214_4371000710160726707_n.jpg?oh=c199d513b76883b05bb7d90c5d135615&oe=5765A90E 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? --[[User:Steverci|Steverci]] ([[User talk:Steverci|talk]]) 03:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  +
:Can we find [[WP:RS|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. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  +
:I will restate my previous recommendation, deleted along with everything, that [WP:RFM|formal mediation]] might be in order about this article. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:31, 11 February 2016

WikiProject Sociology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Discrimination  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

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 (talkcontribs) 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 [WP:RFM|formal mediation]] might be in order about this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)