Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory

Merge request
It's the same concept, predicated on the same logic, both in western culture. Bart Terpstra (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * FUCK NO! 63.152.4.6 (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading this back, the argument is that Umvolkung is the object version of this page, i.e. it's just a concept and this is the happening version, it's a proposed plot that is supposedly happening.
 * Shouldn't be merged, just linked. Bart Terpstra (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Closing; no merge, given the change-of-mind by the proposer. Klbrain (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add as purported means of an alleged white genocide: promotion of pornography, promotion of lgbt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theory)
Hey, i am new to wikipedia and i do not have enough edits to edit semi-protected articles. I believe that other purported means of an alleged white genocide include:

Alleged promotion of pornography (leading to lower birthrates) source: Among Some Hate Groups, Porn Is Viewed as a Conspiracy - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

And the alleged promotion of LGBT ideology (which adherents of the theory believe is not or rarely naturally present and instead a result of environment) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theory) Source: Antisemitism & Anti-LGBTQ+ Hate Converge in Extremist and Conspiratorial Beliefs | ADL

Additionally promotion of birth control / casual hookup culture is seen as an alleged mean of decreasing the number of white people. I could not find a source for this.

These alleged means are parts of the overarching "promotion of low fertility rates" which is already mentioned as one of the alleged means, however i believe that it may be relevant to mention these underlying alleged reasons as well, as they are antisemitic tropes and might partially contribute to why adherents of the white genocide theory are almost always opponents of these topics. Anonymeneer (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your suggestions are not unreasonable, but could you provide links to the suggested sources? Dimadick (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response.
 * When i posted the link to the sources in my original comment, wikipedia automatically replaced it with the headline. I assumed that it would be posted as a hyperlink, but it seems not.
 * My source from the New York Times for alleged promotion of pornography:
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/us/hate-groups-porn-conspiracy.html
 * My source from adl.org for the alleged promotion of LGBT ideology:
 * https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/antisemitism-anti-lgbtq-hate-converge-extremist-and-conspiratorial-beliefs
 * Aditionally this might be a better source for the alleged promotion of LGBT ideology because ADL is not necessarily a news source:
 * https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/antisemitism-transphobia-lgbtq-hate-1.6729223 Anonymeneer (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There was also a quote from the recent Wired interview with Grimes, where she suggested Elon Musk's transphobia is related to "the fertility thing", which sounds like pretty similar Great Replacement conspiracy stuff.
 * The article Great Replacement explicitly mentions in the lead that (my emphasis), with 3 references. It's followed up a link to a paper cited for Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the United States and 2 refs against
 * Neither article currently mentions the existence of LGBTQ+ people (and our increasing comfort with being out) as a part of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, though.
 * — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Polish Facebook pages?
The article says: "Hundreds of Polish Facebook groups such as "Stop White Genocide" have produced and disseminated images..." yet the original source states: "hundreds of facebook groups such as ‘Stop White Genocide’ – run from Poland – create and disseminate image...". So the source gives an example of one (1) FB group run from Poland, but the article transforms it into "hundreds of Polish FB groups". This shoud be corrected or, preferably, the whole section on Poland shoud be removed as the it is unsubstantiated (apart from this "one FB group run from Poland"). 31.182.243.156 (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

"White people are not dying out, will not die out, and are not facing extermination."
Coming here as a newcomer, is it not a bit weird that in an wikipedia article there is a claim about the future? Personally, I think this is a bit weird for a place such as Wikipedia.

What kind of source proofs such a statement about something that has not happened yet (aka the future)? How would you even prove this, that something "will" not happen? I get the general point but I feel like such statements should be changed. 2A02:A466:48EB:2:A182:E67D:8C80:F39A (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the given sources do not state that? 331dot (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see "Is white genocide a myth?" in the "frequently asked questions" box at the top of this page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've read the FAQ, and I feel there it is stated more correctly. It doesn't make the sentence in the main article any less botched. I think it would be better suited to replace the sentence in the article with "There is no evidence that white people are dying out (...)" As it stands now, it is rather pseudoscientific and again, making claims about an unknown future. 2A02:A466:48EB:2:A182:E67D:8C80:F39A (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The logic is like this:
 * You are walking Eastbound on some street in Kansas City.
 * Someone stops you and says, "Stop! you are going to drown!" reasoning that if you go on walking in the same direction for long enough, you will fall into the Atlantic.
 * It is justified to tell him, "no, I am not going to drown". Nothing "pseudoscientific" about it. The difference to "there is no evidence that I am going to drown" is minuscule.
 * Subpopulations change all the time. They increase and decrease. A decrease is not evidence of extermination. Can we stop this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I am not getting my point across.
 * In your example is an extremely simplified case of reality, and both the person stopping you as well as the person are actually making predictions about the future. But in our real world equivalent, the situation is way more complex. With way more variables and bigger timeframes, the predictions get way more messed up. It is like predicting the cause of death of a toddler based on what it ate for breakfast.
 * The sentence "White people are not dying out, will not die out, and are not facing extermination" does not define a clear amount of time nor gives clear conditions which makes you able to actually prove it.
 * Nobody knows what is going to happen in the future. We might all die in nuclear winter 10 years from now. Society might change in such a way that nobody will ever predict. Was anyone in the 1800 going to predict WWI and WWII was going to happen? I personally do not like to see such statements on Wikipedia and would like to think of the future as unknown.
 * By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with your statement "Subpopulations change all the time. They increase and decrease. A decrease is not evidence of extermination". I think this is a way better formulated sentence. But I do not see the relevance of bringing in this in, since it is not the topic of discussion.
 * This is my point, if you still not agree then we must agree to disagree. I do like a bit of intellectual discourse. 2A02:A466:48EB:1:50A0:7D02:A3B7:458F (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The statement is not referring to some possible future event. It does not say "will not ever". The definition of the white genocide conspiracy theory is laid out at the start of the article. The point of the sentence is that the claims by the believers in white genocide are dead wrong. Not that there is a lack of evidence. It is a purely racist belief with no basis in fact and we should not equivocate. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "are facing" and "will not" are, to my understanding, indicative about something happening in the future.
 * None of this dismisses Wikipedia articles of being neutral and correct in its statements. 89.205.132.179 (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The theory states that it is going on now. The current text correctly states that it is not. Obviously this planet will not exist forever. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You say the claims by the believers are dead wrong. Maybe it would help if the article explained specifically who those believers are, and what are the claims that are dead wrong. The info is probably buried in the article somewhere, but if it is so important to say that the claims are wrong, then it should be clear about what claims are wrong. When looking, I found claims that were not attributed to anyone, and claims that were not actually wrong. Roger (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph lays out the claims. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried chasing down those links. Sure, there are people who promote interracial marriage, racial integration, immigration, etc. There are others expressing adverse opinions about those things. There are sources complaining about far right conspiracy theories. There are a lot of straw man attacks. I am just not finding the specific claims that are dead wrong. The article should explain them more directly. Roger (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the lead and the body details the history with 333 citations. What part of these beliefs are not dead wrong? O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are not specific claims. There is no way to tell is they are true or false. They are vague and subjective. A specific claim might be that A says that Jewish organization B said in C to promote miscegenation by D, but the claim was proved false by E. With 333 references, surely there are some examples of claims that are dead wrong. Roger (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Surely there are examples of what is said in the lead. But your example makes no sense to me unless you think miscegenation is a wrong. Besides, it is not the claim in the lead. The lead says this is in order to cause the extinction of whites.... O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Surely there are examples of what is said in the lead. But your example makes no sense to me unless you think miscegenation is a wrong. Besides, it is not the claim in the lead. The lead says this is in order to cause the extinction of whites.... O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Objective3000
@Objective3000

''The statement is not referring to some possible future event. It does not say "will not ever". The definition of the white genocide conspiracy theory is laid out at the start of the article. The point of the sentence is that the claims by the believers in white genocide are dead wrong. Not that there is a lack of evidence. It is a purely racist belief with no basis in fact and we should not equivocate.''

You invoke biasy (and an opinion) by claiming that they are dead wrong. Mentioning the lack of evidence would be a better fit since it does not promote a certain view point but still mentions why their claims aren't supported. Vehicl30 (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Discussed and closed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)