Talk:Great Replacement/Archive 4

General approach to the subject
I am not, personally, comfortable with the general approach to the subject here. It leans heavily into an emotional characterization of the idea as a "racist conspiracy theory" and does not engage the real argument of its proponents, which means the article will be of little value in public discourse.

The main flaw in my view is that it conflates a real demographic trend, on the one hand, with the distortion and misuse of that trend, and the real conspiracy theory which is that the demographics are being intentionally engineered by shadowy elites, on the other. This unfortunate sentence appears: "Mainstream scholars have dismissed these claims as rooted in a misunderstanding of demographic statistics and premised upon an unscientific, racist worldview." With three references, none of which in fact supports the proposition that the demographic change at the heart of the Great Replacement Theory is not happening.

This approach to the subject contributes to polarization, as it denies an actual fact and simply smears the people who are concerned about it without engaging the actual fact or the arguments of the people who are concerned about it.

The deeper truth here is that race itself is an unscientific concept, and ethnic and cultural change of populations over time is natural and inevitable. Birth rates decline in developed countries, and faster among the better educated and wealthier contingents in their populations, and to less than replacement levels in most developed countries -- that's an uncontroversial fact. It is natural that countries in demographic decline NEED immigrants to keep their economies going, and these immigrants generally enrich and enhance the cultures of the countries they immigrate to -- that's the whole American idea, isn't it? It's harder to persuade people that this is nothing to be worried about, but that is the only honest approach.

The article is disappointing -- not up to usual Wiki standards of logic and tone.

And the whole article is a serious violation of the Neutral Point of View policy -- it does not at all represent the point of view of the proponents of the theory, much less fairly. In my view it should be scrapped and done over. Csawyer99 (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're confusing this article, which is about a racist conspiracy theory, with information that more properly belongs in the article titled Demographics of the United States. This article should not soften or whitewash the racist elements of the phrase "Great Replacement".  Legitimate information about demographic shifts in the United States should be covered at Wikipedia.  This is not the article to do it it.  There is a proper article.  It is Demographics of the United States.  -- Jayron 32 13:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. The article, in its (understandable) eagerness to condemn the racism of the proponents of this theory, dishonestly and counterfactually brushes aside the grain of truth in what they are saying.  You can't deal with the racists without confronting that grain of truth head on.  And it's important to deal with the racists.
 * Making this right doesn't require "softening"; it requires more honesty and courage.
 * And don't forget the Neutral Point of View principle of Wikipedia. This is not MSNBC where we get to just rail against and hector people we disagree with. Csawyer99 (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a better structure for this article could be something like:
 * 1. It is true that the U.S., among other developed nations, is heading towards a "minority-majority" demographic situation on current trends. This is because birth rates reliably fall among better educated and wealthier demographics, and developed countries require immigration to keep their economies going.
 * 2. It is not true, however, that this process is the result of a conspiracy to eradicate "white people"; the idea of "white genocide" is not supported by any evidence.
 * 3. Furthermore, the same factors which reduced the birth rate among the earlier European demographics of North American and European countries, also reduce the birth rate in other countries as they develop. So it is not clear that "minority majority" demographics will actually be achieved, as the birth rate in the whole human population eventually falls below replacement rates.
 * 4. Furthermore, the American experience shows that American culture and society is not defined by the earliest European immigrants; succeeding waves of immigration have all brought their own specific contributions to the culture, which arguably has been made richer as a result, and practically no one today believes that American culture would be better off without the contributions of later immigrants. European countries which welcome immigration to some degree or another -- which is nearly all of them -- have looked to the American experience as a model.  In any case, developed countries have little choice but to accept a certain amount of immigration to keep their economies going, as demographic decline is a very severe economic problem.  China is now starting to experience this.
 * Something like that. Better written, of course; that's just an outline.
 * The main thing is not to respond to this by denying the one factual thing in what these guys are saying. Like that no one will ever be persuaded.  And anyway we should be posting anything factually false in Wiki, which the first above cited sentence is. Csawyer99 (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research, which this all appears to be. As has already been explained to you, this article is about the conspiracy theory, not immigration in general, and not the demographics of the United States. Grayfell (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , you appear to be making an argument that doesn't take into consideration the existence of the article White demographic decline, which discusses the demographic trends you seem inclined to deal with here. The scope of *this* article, by contrast, is "The Great Replacement", as it says on the tin - namely, a conspiracy theory *about* demography. If the relationship (i.e., the distinction) between the two articles doesn't appear to you to be sufficiently clear, then I suggest that would be a more appropriate locus for you to suggest improvements to the article(s). Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if all that is beyond thinking about -- let's at least get rid of the factual error, shall we? It is false to say -- as the article says -- that the decline of "white" people is some kind of "misunderstanding of the demographic data".  So-called "white people" are indeed turning into a minority -- that is a fact.  Which in my opinion is a great thing!  Coming as I do from a multiracial family.  At the very least, let's delete those sentences in the article, which are factually false. Csawyer99 (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What part of the following is not based on a "misunderstanding of the demographic data": The original theory states that, with the complicity or cooperation of "replacist" elites, the ethnic French and white European populations at large are being demographically and culturally replaced with non-white peoples—especially from Muslim-majority countries—through mass migration, demographic growth and a drop in the birth rate of white Europeans. That looks like a misunderstanding to me. Newimpartial (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not beyond thinking about, it's just that what you are saying is not even relevant to this article.
 * Calling this a misunderstanding isn't a a factual error. White people are in no danger of becoming extinct, becoming a minority isn't the same as declining in population, and multiracial white people are still white people. This conspiracy theory rests on a lot of pseudoscientific assumptions, including those about racial 'purity' and such that are not even internally consistent. If anything, calling this a misunderstanding is on the generous side. Grayfell (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This sentence:
 * "Mainstream scholars have dismissed these claims as rooted in a misunderstanding of demographic statistics and premised upon an unscientific, racist worldview."
 * Refers to:
 * "The original theory states that, with the complicity or cooperation of 'replacist' elites, the ethnic French and white European populations at large are being demographically and culturally replaced with non-white peoples—especially from Muslim-majority countries—through mass migration, demographic growth and a drop in the birth rate of white Europeans"
 * The sentence about "mainstream scholars dismissing these claims" is simply false, and none of the three cited references supports the proposition. There are two claims in that sentence:  One is that ethnic French and white European populations are being replaced; the other is about "complicity or cooperation".  The first claim is actually true, even if it is true only with respect to current trends. There is no misunderstanding of demographics in that claim.  The second claim is that there is a conspiracy to do it.  That is certainly false, although hard to prove.  The most we can say is that there is no evidence of such a conspiracy.  But in any case, the nonsense about "misunderstanding demographics" applies to the first claim, not the second, and this is simply false, and the references cited do not back that up.  This is a hot mess and needs to be corrected.  If you wrote something like this in a paper in one of my classes that would be an automatic F.  This kind of sloppiness does nothing to advance knowledge, or to fight racism.  On the contrary, this reinforces the racists.  Truth and accuracy are the only effective weapons against racism.  What we write should be true, accurate, and carefully crafted.  This is none of those. Csawyer99 (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC) — Csawyer99 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Actually, all three sources do support the sentence you're questioning. None of the editors who've responded to you agree with you that the article violates NPOV, and now four editors have disagreed with you. Wikipedia depends on sources, not on the personal feelings of comfort or discomfort of an individual editor.


 * Calling a racist theory "racist" is expressing a fact, not an emotion.


 * It's disheartening to hear that you would give an automatic F to a student who disagrees with your POV.


 * This thread is getting repetitive, so I think it has run its course. NightHeron (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Many people who are accused of complaining about "great replacement" are in fact complaining about de-facto trends and not necessarily claiming a specific organized conspiracy to replace white people. This is common of "conspiracy" accusations, where there is no distinction between applying a negative value judgement to a trend and accusing the trend of being caused by some organized conspiracy. Because of this, you may as well broaden the scope of this article. Globe Holder (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to turn this into a debate but "race is unscientific" is semantics here. It's unscientific if you define it as a human subspecies because of taxonomic technicalities but the population clusters that proxy "races" technically exist so you might as well say white, black, asian exist anyway. They exist in an empirical sense (that said, hispanic is cultural; in practice most are a gradient of Native American & Spaniard). Your issue is you don't think people should care because you think delineating between human beings is immoral, probably. It's also your opinion that "enriching" a culture with another one is good. It's a value judgement. Globe Holder (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Britannica?
How did a locked article end up using references like Encyclopedia Britannica? 194.102.58.6 (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Far right conspiracy theory
Not sure how this has been designated as a far right conspiracy theory if many of those enacting it have plainly stated their aims. Are these not the droids we are looking for? 159.196.13.167 (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Globalization isn't a conspiracy, but a product of international trade relationships which happens by itself. And the protections for political refugees have been adopted long ago by Western countries, and this cannot be construed as a conspiracy. In fact, writing this from the Netherlands, most Dutch politicians see refugees as less and less welcome. And most immigration to the Netherlands aren't refugees, but EU workers, who enjoy freedom to relocate and seek jobs in other EU countries than their own. Refugees cost money, EU workers keep this country running. Are the US a conspiracy just because people can freely relocate from one US state to another US state? tgeorgescu (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * you aren't addressing his question at all138.88.248.199 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone might perhaps simply add a few academic references to the benefits of diversity, and some media articles clamouring to add a bit of popular emphasis to this message. Under a title 'Political narratives for population change' and ground the edit with an academic discourse on migratory politics and its confluence with progressive political tenets. Critical race theory can be offered as a contentious backbone to a theoretical justification for targeted and directed diversity for nations with traditionally white populations. If a social framework has been built around (antagonistically) the concept of whiteness, and political movements have been formed that exclude only a politically charged identification of 'white male' who is considered socially, sexually, and physically part of a group that retards reform and revolutionary justice, we can demonstrate a valid sociopolitical basis for an encouraged movement of peoples into Europe and its connected regions, whereas for other regions this would simply be incidental and not open to being hitched onto any globally-spanning political agitations. This is all assuming an editor can organically detect this narrative from the corpus of relevant texts we have available, and I state it in the interests of provoking further research. A clear objective here would be to fairly counterpose the far-right half of this story with the progressive half. The Great Replacement is not just a far-right conspiracy, it is a far-left conspiracy, and this has troves of backing in academic discourse, alongside prominent media investigation. 'Abolish whiteness' 'Whiteness as a system of oppression' Racial essentialism, racial political blocs, and political parties that support migrations as opposed to those that do not. The Great Replacement could very well be seen as a key, and essential political issue and beyond what can be called conspiracy. Akin to calling a cost-of-living crisis a conspiracy, I think people's perceptions are the key here, not some out-of-date media bulls. What about media outfits like The Spectator and The Telegraph in the UK. A huge business consortium has attempted to buy both, and it was very quickly brought into governmental adjudication in the interests of preserving the UK's vital press freedom and integrity - I doubt such a hoo-ha would be fomented over some rags, and I think the United Kingdom's government can be seen as a reliable arbitrator of viable and trustworthy media organisations.
 * I also think it may be eminently worthwhile to learn from discourse around the current crisis and conflict in Gaza. Latent attitudes considered veering towards the genocidal have been alleged, and calls for ethnic cleansing have been inferred in political and academic discourse. Whatever precedents have been acquired on those particular subjects for Wikipedia and general media can be repurposed for any similar disputes on this subject here. 89.205.63.123 (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This whole IP intervention appears to be off-topic for this Talk page - it seems to be essentially a rant in support of the conspiracy theoty (viz. The Great Replacement is not just a far-right conspiracy, it is a far-left conspiracy).
 * No changes should be made to thus article to promote WP:FALSEBALANCE or to placate conspiracy theory supporters. Newimpartial (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

More material for the article: UN report on replacing migration
I recommend adding a section to this article covering the UN report titled Replacement Migration: Is it A Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations? available at

https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/unpd-egm_200010_un_2001_replacementmigration.pdf.

This report is of significant relevance as it explicitly asserts that, from a demographic standpoint, the ongoing immigration rate will maintain the stability of ageing and decreasing European and US populations.

It's crucial to address this report in the article, as it is frequently cited by far-right groups to support their claims of the Great Replacement. Including a discussion or mention of this report serves informational purposes and ensures a comprehensive exploration of the topic. Chaozn (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No, the report does not support the right-wing conspiracy theory at all, and our article should not discuss every source that the propagandists for Great Replacement falsely claim supports their POV. The article simply reports on demographic trends and projections, without advocating or describing a policy of artificially increased immigration. You're wrong that it explicitly asserts that, from a demographic standpoint, the ongoing immigration rate will maintain the stability of ageing. It says the opposite: "The levels of migration needed to offset population ageing (i.e., maintain potential support ratios) are extremely large, and in all cases entail vastly more immigration than occurred in the past." NightHeron (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well according to the report and I think that this needs to be addressed in this post the current number of immigrant would suffice to stop decline of population. Therefore if the current population declines but the number stays the same it means that the number of immigrants will compensate this decline and thus replace the population.
 * I believe that even these support the claim of a great replacement theory those needs to be adressed in this article. Even if I personally believe that it's a good thing that the migration mix up with the indigenous people of the country.
 * If you want to have a summary of the article from the UN here is the press release provided by the UN:
 * https://press.un.org/en/2000/20000317.dev2234.doc.html Chaozn (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The population is also growing taller over time. Is this due to complicity or cooperation of "replacist" elites also? GR theory applies racist reasoning to these stats. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point you are trying to make.
 * According to the UN the demographics of migration are sufficient enough to compensate the declining population of the European Countries.
 * I believe that this should be in the article while adding that the theory that this is promoted and encouraged by a so-called elite is completely False.
 * There is nothing in demographics but as this is the foundation of the theory it must me tackled in this article. Chaozn (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that report is not the foundation of the theory. The foundation of the theory is anti-immigrant bigotry and racism. Period. The fact that its proponents' warped imagination fancies that some UN report supports their paranoia is WP:UNDUE for this article. It is not our role to refute all the nonsense they spout.
 * No other editor agrees with you about this, and you've been repeating yourself. It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. NightHeron (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think that because you and someone else believe that this should not be in the article is a reason for not putting it.
 * I would like to remind you that wikipedia is free to write for everybody. Plus you don't seem to mention the previous talks on this article which also would like to write a section on this topic.
 * Even if Renault Camus is anti-immigrant and of far right he is still an intellectual who based his work on some truth which is what is stated in the UN reports Chaozn (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong again about the UN report. It does not provide "some truth" that there's an anti-white conspiracy, which is the central fringe claim this article is about. That's like saying that a report on the large number of deaths among the elderly in the poorly managed U.S. Covid pandemic provides "some truth" to a theory that the policy mistakes were actually a conspiracy against the elderly designed to decrease expenses for social security and medicare. NightHeron (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that don' be ridiculous.
 * I am saying that the work of Renault Camus is based on the demographics of the immigrant population versus the indigenous population and this is what the UN report is about.
 * However it starts to become a complotist theory when the Renault Camus accuses this population of replacing the current population instead of mixing with it. Also this demographic phenomenon to be encourage by elites and governments.
 * This is why I think that the wikipedia page should be more nuanced about the great replacement instead of having such an obvious bias toward far left. Chaozn (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The UN report summary you linked to was about decreasing populations due to aging and low maternity rates. This is not related to this article. This is a waste of editor time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * immigrant population versus the indigenous population So, applied to the US, it is about European, Asian and African immigrants (starting in the 16th century) and indigenous Americans? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2023
This post provides false information that imposes a false political agenda. Please remove mention of conspiracy or right wing mention as it is unrelated to politics. 2601:5C4:4301:4240:EC37:4560:E077:3BAB (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What post? - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 19:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This is misinformation
If you look at Frances demographics based on race since the early 1900's this is no longer conspiracy 2601:58C:407F:3450:A040:8B06:8F52:AA31 (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * So, is the French government imposing a one-child policy upon Whites? Guess not. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How is it relevant to the fact, or not, the original major ethnicity is getting replaced by a foreign ones?
 * Whether the "great replacement" is encouraged or not by some malicious hidden intent (conspiracy theory) isn't involved to the fact a population is factually getting replaced by one or some others in proportion of population.
 * And it's not nationalist/racist to observe this phenomenon with objective eyes. 195.101.88.55 (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Framing it as "replaced" certainly is nationalist/racist. Objective eyes call it migration.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can we include the figure in the article? I would like to be enlightened and understand whether it's a phenomenon or not. Some say it's a conspiracy theory. I think a figure would be helpful to determine whether that is true or not. 82.147.226.185 (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The goal of a Wikipedia article is not to encourage WP:Original Research, but rather to summarize the description of a topic by all of the significant opinions on a topic.Sadads (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)