Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory/Archive 4

end of germanic people but not celtic people
Whenever people say white genocide it just means ethnic Germanic people will no longer exist. Celtic people will still exist. Can this be pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.197.249 (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ Wikipedia relies on professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, not on unsourced personal interpretation. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Zimbabwe
I write this as someone who has no absolutely no use for the thuggish regime which has been oppressing Zimbabwe, but the violent land seizures of land owed by white farmers in Zimbabwe as often been cited as an example of "white genocide". Supporters of the white supremacist government in Rhodesia in the 1960s and 1970s often claimed that black rule would cause some sort of genocide of the white Rhodesian population, and amongst certain quarters the land seizures launched by Mugabe government in 2000-2002 have been presented as a case of "white genocide" together with a "I told you so" attitude. It is true that land seizures were unjust and violent, but it is not true that Mugabe (who is an awful man) was trying to exterminate the white population of Zimbabwe. It is worth pointing out that the majority of the people killed in the land seizures were black employees of the white farmers-not that one would know that from the media's coverage, which tended to focus only on cases of white farmers being killed.

What happened in Zimbabwe was wrong, but is also wrong to claim as certain people do that is a case of "genocide" as the majority of the white farmers ended up being chased out of Zimbabwe rather than being killed. It is also striking that how many people present the land seizures in a racially charged way together with what amounts to an endorsement of Ian Smith, saying the violence against white farmers in Zimbabwe would never had happened under Smith and things were much better when Zimbabwe used to be Rhodesia. In other words, the lives of white Zimbabwean farmers count far more than black Zimbabweans and it would be better if the white supremacist government of Rhodesia still being around because white farmers were still own their land. This is a logical fallacy as it holds that if A is opposite of B, and if A is wrong, then B must be right. Robert Mugabe was a disaster for Zimbabwe, but it does not logically follow that this validates the policy of the Smith government. Mugabe and the rest of his party are a coterie of corrupt, thuggish people, but this line of criticism is clearly racist.

Given the frequent way in which advocates of this theory cite the example of Zimbabwe as a case of "white genocide" together with the related claim that things were much better when Zimbabwe was still Rhodesia, I think this article would be better if this was mentioned. Just as further thought-supporters of the apartheid government both in South Africa and abroad in the 1960s, 70s, 80s and into the early 90s often warned that black rule in South Africa would cause a "genocide" of South African whites. This is an important source of this theory, and it is striking how often supporters of this theory use the examples of Zimbabwe and South Africa. --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * What is it that you want to contribute to the article? If anything? --Dionysus1886 1/15/2019

Terrorist acts / hate crimes
I feel this edit about the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting doesn't really fit in the Advocacy section. Perhaps it would be better in a section specifically on violence, including Breivik and others. The White Genocide Manifesto itself was actually written in a federal prison.--Pharos (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In regard to the recent re-insertion of Bowers, I think a section somewhat along the lines of Incel may be more appropriate.--Pharos (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence
The current lead sentence is long and complex. It contains a lot of information in multiple lists and clauses, with a dozen linked terms, two semi-colons, and fourteen commas. Perhaps it would be better to add a new sentence to the beginning that is more simple, perhaps, The white genocide conspiracy theory is a belief in an organized attempt to destroy the white race. Something along those lines. The current lead sentence (with minor changes) could come right after to add more detail—there's nothing wrong with complex sentences, I just think it'd be best to start the article with as concise a definition as possible. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It could stand to be improved, definitely, but I feel your version is too brief and too vague. It's also important mention the neo-Nazi / white supremacist connection in the first sentence; while the full "neo-Nazi, alt-right, white nationalist/supremacist" should probably be cleaned up a bit for readability, that association is absolutely central to the topic and is the focus of virtually all coverage of it, so it belongs in the first sentence in some form - it is what makes this topic notable, essentially.  "Destroy the white race" is also a bit too broad - not every source mentioning the topic unambiguously connects it to that.  I would argue that the name of the conspiracy theory itself provides enough of a basic overview of what it is about for the first sentence.  Perhaps something like The white genocide conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory associated with neo-Nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, and the alt-right. It contends that mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation... with the list ending in an and / or. --Aquillion (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with a shorter lead sentence, and like Aquillion's version.--Pharos (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not associated with them; it's promoted by them. w umbolo   ^^^  17:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, it's promoted by them. One might also originated with, but it originated specifically with the neo-Nazi part.--Pharos (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I fixed the abuse of semicolons in the sentence, at the very least.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should revisit this - the lead sentence, and to some extent the intro as a whole, are lacking.--Pharos (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

There was an issue as BLP/N that led me to BOLDy adjust this first sentence, as seen here. One part of this was to split the run-on sentence. The other part was to establish that the c.theory is one believed by multiple groups rather than calling it a "neo-Nazi, alt-right, white nationalist/supremacist" theory, which read like this means the theory only applies to those that are all three. Switching it around means that any of those groups apply to this (eg some that believe it could be alt-right but may not considered neo-Nazi or white nationalists). Just cleaner wording. --M asem (t) 23:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I tweaked to "generally associated with". I think the previous wording might be reasonable, but I do have a problem with saying that "other groups" also advance this conspiracy theory - that isn't actually supported by any of the cites or any of the main body. The theory is invariably advanced by people with racist agendas. Nblund talk 00:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me, same intent but reads better. Basically, with three ideologies here A, B, and C, the intent was to say it was was a c.theory that comes out of any of those three, and not from the intersection of the three, which was how the original version read. --M asem (t) 03:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Nazi Germany connection.
The bit in the lead making a connection to Nazi Germany needs secondary sources and, if we can dig them up, a section in the article proper reflecting it. Right now it feels like it's relying on interpreting a primary source. I tweaked it a bit, since the source clearly isn't being cited as reporting on the conspiracy theory, it's being cited as an example of it - but that only makes the need for secondary sources more obvious. --Aquillion (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2019
i like to add this video "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3qxhLNFUSw&feature=youtu.be" and these comments through the page or comments like them how easy vigilant activities can snow ball out of control ,authorities appear to allowing no respect for the rule of law, I 'd also like to comment on protections like this they can lead to a political bias my argument is the law and compliance to it. its noted that the Chinese incursion goes unnoticed so dose the white means European only ? and this video as a reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TK2cxeSQ_w Steven Laube (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bradv 🍁  14:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

More facts
This article contains a lot of he said, she said, but not enough facts.

I propose a section which factually lists global demographic changes of white people as a percentage of the total world population.

"More arresting is that the white population is shrinking not only in relative but in absolute terms. Two hundred million white people, one in every six on earth—a number equal to the entire population of France, Britain, Holland and Germany—will vanish by 2060."

Source: "Global White Population To Plummet" - The National Policy Institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.147.63.29 (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not be quoting a white supremacist lobby group without good reason.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed that National Policy Institute is not a reliable source. Additionally, we should not be compiling facts from various sources to support or tear down the conspiracy theory. Rather, we should report what independent reliable sources directly state about the conspiracy theory. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2, 2019: The second sentence of the paragraph following the "South Africa and Zimbabwe" sub-heading is punctuated incorrectly. I cannot fix it because the article is locked. Properly punctuated, the sentence would read:

"In particular, the story of Rhodesia (as Zimbabwe was formerly known), which was ruled by a white-supremacist government until 1980, holds a particular fascination for white supremacists."

Even with the punctuation corrected, the sentence remains awkward. I'd recommend editing it and perhaps even breaking it down the information it contains into two sentences.

As I noted above, I'd take a crack at revising it myself, but I cannot because the article is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.100.174 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

POV problem
Well let’s see..., I’m gonna keep it brief: The problem with this article primarily lies in the South Africa and Zimbabwe section which by no coincidence is the largest section of the article. It’s written like a personal essay from the perspective of white supremacists and even (sickeningly) sympathizes with them on the subject whether intentionally or not. Maybe, just maybe, if that section was broken up and formatted in continuity with all others then this article wouldn’t have this editorial bias. Trillfendi (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you give some examples? Or just make whatever edits you think are necessary and be bold. Marking the entire article as having POV issues out of the blue doesn't really make sense imo. Marking just the section as having POV issues would be more accurate too. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Henry Jackson Society source
Pages 21-23 and 39-43 of, has many more examples of the subject than the article currently contains, mostly about the UK, which we don't cover at all presently (the "United Kingdom" section is three sentences on Katie Hopkins talking about South Africa) but also Germany, Poland, Norway, Sweden, Hungary, Austria, and origins in an apparently widely cited 1925 book by Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi entitled Praktischer Idealismus (practical idealism, pertinent excerpts of which are quoted in his article), none of which the article covers, along with many additional details on the US that the article is missing. EllenCT (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Does The Turner Diaries specifically mention the white genocide conspiracy theory?
The Turner Diaries has long been a favorite among racists, white supremacists, Neo-nazis, and other random chuckleheads and assclowns. In the discussions above, our favorite Original Researcher claims that you can find the white genocide conspiracy theory in The Turner Dairies but in The Atlantic J.M. Berger of The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague (ICCT) says this:


 * "The Turner Diaries is notable for its lack of ideological persuasion. At one point in the novel, its protagonist, Earl Turner, is given a book to read. Turner claims the book perfectly explains the reasons for white supremacy and the justification of all of The Order’s actions. Importantly, this magical tome’s contents are never specified."

and


 * "The Order [was] a real-life terrorist cell that was directly based on the organization described in The Turner Diaries. In a yearlong spree starting in 1983, The Order killed three people and stole millions of dollars, much of which was then distributed to white nationalist leaders and never recovered. Members of the group referred to Turner as their 'bible'. "


 * "One member of The Order, David Lane, became a prolific writer in prison after authorities broke up the gang in 1984. Although he wrote a number of lengthy ideological tracts, one of his most important works was the three-page 'White Genocide Manifesto,' which took Pierce’s dislike for complex ideological formulations to new heights, instead arguing from a platform of 'Nature's laws, common sense and current circumstances.' The manifesto argues that 'racial integration is only a euphemism for genocide,' and that the 'white race' is on the verge of extinction due to interbreeding with other races."

The White Genocide Manifesto was written in 1995. The Turner Diaries was first serialized the mid 1970s and the first printing in paperback was in 1978.

So you won't find any specific mention the white genocide conspiracy theory in The Turner Diaries, but it clearly planted the seed for Lane to popularize the white genocide conspiracy theory among white supremacists 17 years later. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Guy, have you actually read the book, or are you just guessing from second-hand accounts of it? Firstly, as per the previous section, the white genocide conspiracy theory did not originate with David Lane, it's from a 1925 book by Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi entitled Praktischer Idealismus (practical idealism) which has been widely cited by white supremacists throughout the 20th century. The Turner Diaries complains of "the growing percentage of non-Whites" in Chapter 2, and Chapter 5 contains this passage:
 * But one thing which is quite clear is that much more than our freedom is at stake. If the Organization fails in its task now, everything will be lost-our history, our heritage, all the blood and sacrifices and upward striving of countless thousands of years. The Enemy we are fighting fully intends to destroy the racial basis of our existence.
 * No excuse for our failure will have any meaning, for there will be only a swarming horde of indifferent, mulatto zombies to hear it. There will be no White men to remember us-either to blame us for our weakness or to forgive us for our folly.
 * If we fail, God's great Experiment will come to an end, and this planet will once again, as it did millions of years ago, move through the ether devoid of higher man.
 * Chapter 6 has similar passages, like, "the majority of those who wanted a solution, who wanted to preserve a White America, were never able to screw up the courage to look the obvious solutions in the face." Chapter 8 says, "many young Whites, instead of opposing this new threat to their race, have apparently decided to join it." Chapter 10 says, "By terrifying the White population they will make it more difficult for us to recruit, thus speeding our demise." Chapter 14 has this:
 * Each day we make decisions and carry out actions which result in the deaths of White persons, many of them innocent of any offense which we consider punishable. We are willing to take the lives of these innocent persons, because a much greater harm will ultimately befall our people if we fail to act now.
 * Chapter 20 gets into the all-out race war, which I won't quote from because it's so stupid. Chapter 21 has several paragraphs on cannibalism of Whites by Blacks, which are far too disgusting to quote. Chapter 22 is all about saving Whites from their otherwise inevitable mass starvation. I have no idea whether the diatribe about whether to preserve, "very light Blacks-the almost Whites, the octoroons and quadroons, the unclassifiable mongrels from various Asian and southern climes," counts as pertaining to white genocide or not.
 * Then the whites win, and then they hang all the white women who ever dated non-whites, then everyone nukes each other (Chapter 26: "the newscaster gloated, 'The White vermin died like flies. We can only hope they realized in their last moments that many of the loyal soldiers who pressed the firing buttons for the missiles which killed them were Black or Chicano or Jewish. Yes, the Whites and their criminal racial pride have been wiped out in California, but now we must kill the racists everywhere else, so that racial harmony and brotherhood can be restored to America. We must kill them! Kill them! Kill! Kill!'") The End. EllenCT (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone needs to read the book to determine whether or not it should be cited as an inspiration for White Genocide Conspiracy Theories - that would be WP:OR. Instead, we would need to find reliable secondary sources that cite the Turner Diaries as an influential text here. I don't know of any. Nblund talk 16:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that the Atlantic article and similar sources describing that connection are sufficient to mention it - it's not like the Turner Diaries are a WP:BLP where mentioning them requires caution; the fact that they were part of this chain leading to the modern formulation of the conspiracy theory is noted by several sources and therefore worth a sentence. See eg. here, too, which begins the history of the conspiracy theory by mentioning the Turner Diaries:  The recent manifestation of white genocide has its origins in the American neo-Nazi movement. The Turner Diaries, a very influential 1970s novel by William Luther Pierce, posited a dystopian world in which... and then it goes on to give a brief timeline.  Given that many sources mention it that way, I think it would make sense for us to have a similar timeline in the article. But I'd be careful not to go outside what those sources say (ie. they don't specifically say it's an inspiration or words to that effect.)  --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I am happy to provide direct reliable sources. They are not difficult to find:
 * Since the 1990s, ideological white nationalism in the United States has declined. But since 2008, recruitment based on less-defined racial fear and hostility has risen to take its place, emphasizing ideologically neutral concepts such as “white genocide” and shifting toward less clearly delineated movements (such as the “alt right”). Users participating in these new movements on social media routinely and selectively highlight incidents of racial unrest and black crime as evidence that “The Turner Diaries are coming true” --
 * The recent manifestation of white genocide has its origins in the American neo-Nazi movement. The Turner Diaries, a very influential 1970s novel by William Luther Pierce, posited a dystopian world in which white Americans were oppressed by non-white minorities at the behest of Jewish politicians. --
 * EllenCT (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on those sources, I agree that it's probably okay to mention that The Turner Diaries are part of the chain, but I would avoid going beyond that to say that The Turner Diaries explicitly propounds a version of white genocide conspiracy theory - that's a step further than Berger goes. Nblund talk 18:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * update For example: I think this edit on The Turner Diaries goes a step beyond what the sources really support. As an aside, I really think that taking this edit to two separate pages and then posting nearly identical talk page comments to both pages makes it difficult to reach consensus - I'm going to make exactly the same points in response to what you're saying at Talk:The_Turner_Diaries, so lets just save the megabytes and sort this out in one place. Nblund talk 18:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * okay, let's discuss the edit on the book's talk page instead of here. I would like to know why you think the sources don't support that the book advances a WGCT, perhaps in terms of how you would word it. I look forward to your reply at Talk:The Turner Diaries. EllenCT (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Criticism section inclusion
There have been no objections to these individual inclusion proposals so I am proposing making this two paragraph addition to the "Criticism" section:


 * White genocide is a myth based on false science, false history, and hatred. There is no evidence that white people are dying out or will die out, or that anyone is trying to kill them as a race or ethnicity. White supremacists claim that ethnic diversity is equivalent to white genocide. White supremacist men are threatened by women's choices to forgo childbearing for careers, use birth control, and marry nonwhite men, so they claim to be trying to save the white race by attempting to control the behavior of women, attacking interracial couples, lesbians, and feminists. They feel so threatened by the potential loss of power among their leaders that they fabricate paranoid claims that the very survival of whites is threatened, for example by, "individualism, celibacy, feminism and other forms of sex-role confusion, misplaced environmentalism, and white demonization and guilt," all of which are described as promoting reproductive failure. 
 * The purpose of the white genocide conspiracy theory is to terrorize white people in countries that are diversifying and justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda. White nationalists use evidence of a declining birth rate in support of their extremist views and calls to violence. White supremacists are successfully constructing false narratives of terrorization by genocide to incite violence at an increasing rate. At the national level, the movement preys on white men who feel displaced and economically defeated, using them as expendable foot soldiers to accelerate violence and serve the political purposes of corrupt elites. The rate at which such radicalization and violence is entering the mainstream should be cause for alarm. Literature propounding the white genocide conspiracy theory has incited violence; The Turner Diaries, for instance, is responsible for inciting many violent crimes, including those of Timothy McVeigh. The US Republican Party as led by Donald Trump has repeatedly and openly courted white supremacists and endorsed the falsehoods they promote, including those of white genocide. 

Are there any objections to that specific two paragraph inclusion? EllenCT (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If we're being generous, maybe ten percent of this suggested addition is actually about the subject of the article.  G M G  talk  16:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which parts do you think are not, and why? All of them specifically refer to the white genocide conspiracy theory. EllenCT (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The bits that are broad commentary on white supremacy in general, and not this conspiracy theory in particular.   G M G  talk  17:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which bits are those? EllenCT (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of what EllenCT wrote above is NOT based upon the white genocide conspiracy theory, but rather on EllenCT's purposeful distortion of the white genocide conspiracy theory.

To list a few of the places where EllenCT's basic error caused them to suggest wording that is only supported by their WP:OR:


 * "White supremacist men are threatened by women's choices to forgo childbearing for careers, use birth control..."

Wrong. White supremacist men like it when black women forgo childbearing for careers or use birth control. In fact, they advocate sterilization of blacks while also advocating denying birth control to white women. This is easy to find in their lierature.


 * "White nationalists use evidence of a declining birth rate in support of their extremist views and calls to violence."

Completely wrong. The source that EllenCT chose clearly says what the white nationalists say that "the much smaller proportion of immigrant-born women are having more children". More, not less. They, of course, get their facts wrong, but that is their position, and EllenCT is ignoring what the source say.


 * "The US Republican Party as led by Donald Trump has repeatedly and openly courted white supremacists and endorsed the falsehoods they promote, including those of white genocide."

Repeatedly and openly? So the opening paragraph of our Racial views of Donald Trump article is wrong when it says that Trump has denied accusations of racism, saying, "I am not a racist. I'm the least racist person you will ever interview"? Even Trumps harshest critics and worst enemies claim that he is secretly a racist while claiming not to be one. There is zero evidence for this "repeatedly and openly" claim.


 * "The purpose of the white genocide conspiracy theory is to terrorize white people"

Nonsense. They aim to scare white people with false claims that the white people are being terrorized by those who want to eliminate the white race. Not the same thing.


 * "the movement preys on white men who feel displaced and economically defeated, using them as expendable foot soldiers to accelerate violence and serve the political purposes of corrupt elites."

Not supported by the evidence. Most white nationalists appear to know exactly what they are doing and what their goals are. You don't have to trick racists into being racists.


 * "Literature propounding the white genocide conspiracy theory has incited violence; "The Turner Diaries," for instance, is responsible for inciting many violent crimes, including those of Timothy McVeigh."

Clearly EllenCT has never read our article on The Turner Diaries. Yes, that book has incited violence, but the book does not describe genocide against whites. Just the opposite, actually: "[In the book] all groups opposed by the author, such as Jews, non-whites, 'liberal actors' and politicians are exterminated." EllenCT is confusing a book that describes genocide against non-whites and says that this would be a good thing with a conspiracy theory that imagines a mythical genocide against whites and says that this is a bad thing. They are both racist concepts, but they are not the same thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The Turner Diaries discusses both white genocide and the genocide of other races by whites, in the context of an all-out race war. I recommend the synopsis at RationalWiki to show how much of the plot our article on the book omits. EllenCT (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * ...and once again EllenCT misrepresents a source. What a shock. The RationalWiki synopsis has zero discussion of white genocide. How could it? The Turner Diaries was written in 1978. Very few people -- even white supremacists who read a lot of white supremacist literature -- knew about the white genocide conspiracy theory before David Lane popularized the concept with his White Genocide Manifesto in 1995 --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Guy, you have obviously not read the book and are just making shit up. See my detailed excerpts below. EllenCT (talk) 07:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , I sure hope that "The purpose of the white genocide conspiracy theory is to terrorize white people" was a typo, or some other kind of error. Otherwise it's inexplicable. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't hold your breath waiting for EllenCT to admit to an error... --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As I expected, they are defending the "The purpose of the white genocide conspiracy theory is to terrorize white people" claim, based upon a teaspoon full of dictionary definition of terrorism and a five gallon bucket of WP:SYNTH. Neo-nazis do a lot of evil things, and they do a lot of stupid things, but I have never seen any source that claims that they are terrorists who target white people. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've addressed this below. The statement is supported by the source cited. EllenCT (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe the intended meaning of "terrorize" here is "to motivate through fear", and is mostly overly colorful language.  G M G  talk  19:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, then there is quite a bit of "overly colo[u]rful language". The rate at which such radicalization and violence is entering the mainstream should be cause for alarm <- this is an encyclopedia, not the Daily Mail online. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait... what? You mean we are not supposed to make Wikipedia into another Daily Mail??? Oh man. I have been getting it backwards all these years... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * While it is a paraphrase from two different sections of its 2003 source, I would be glad to also cite current hate crime statistics in support of it. However, I get the feeling that you would prefer it reworded and I am more than open to suggestions. EllenCT (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Responded inline above; again, if you are convinced that someone is trying to exterminate your entire race, is that extreme fear or just a scare? EllenCT (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with others about the WP:OR issues here. Some of these statements are simple facts. For instance: WGCT's claims about white extinction are factually false. Presenting those facts in a criticism section seems to imply that they are judgements or opinions. On the other hand, parts of this section appear to be statements of opinion or judgement which should be attributed in text to someone else: whether or not we should be alarmed by rising white supremacist sentiment is really a judgement that shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice.   Nblund talk 16:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * EllenCT: I'm not sure if my comments were unclear above, but I did intend to challenge the stuff you added here and here. Statements of opinion (even if I'm personally inclined to agree with them) need to be attributed to some other speaker in text, and statements of fact (like the lack of evidence for WGCT) really shouldn't be presented as criticisms. Nblund talk 17:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources are cited for the lack of evidence (the Saslow book and Marcotte and DeVega articles), as are for all the statements in the shorter intro paragraph. How would it be re-written to indicate that? Plural "Experts say that..."? Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories says, "a number of conspiracy theories falsely asserted Obama was ... not a natural-born citizen." Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories says, "Adam Lanza, fatally shot...." Chemtrail conspiracy theory says, "There is no evidence that purported chemtrails differ from normal water-based contrails." I'm not opposed to putting it in others' voice as long as it's clear that there is unanimity among the published reliable sources which express a position on the topics. Is there a way to convey that unanimity without using Wikipedia's voice? Also, doesn't WP:FALSEBALANCE suggest that doing so is appropriate for actual opinions and not facts undisputed outside the radical fringe? EllenCT (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The statement that WGCT is false doesn't need attribution, but it shouldn't be presented in a "criticism" section because its ultimately not a criticism so much as a plain statement of fact. On the other hand, value-laden judgement about it being "rooted in hatred" or about white supremacists being "paranoid" sound unencyclopedic when stated in Wikipedia's voice, so they should be attributed or they should be toned down to sound a bit less like editorial. Nblund talk 13:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with those kinds of attributions. I attributed the roots of the myth to the journalist who described them as such in his book. For the Pannell, Brod, and Horton literature review who called the WGCT paranoid, I called them "scholars." EllenCT (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleted responses
you deleted my inline response to you, where I used the interrupt tag as per its instruction, claiming that I edited your comments. I did not edit your comments. This is the first time I've seen anyone complain about the use of that tag. Oddly, you left the interrupt templates in your text. So, I'm removing the interrupt tags to preserve the sanctity of your precious comment and pasting my earlier replies to you here:

[ Clear violation of WP:TPOC deleted. ] --Guy Macon (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in TPOC or any other policy is there an exception to the rule against editing other people's comments just because you tacked on a interrupt template, nor are you allowed to cut and past other people's comments (along with their signature) and edit the cut and pasted version. Please read WP:TPOC and follow Wikipedia's rules.


 * The usual way that this is handled without a WP:TPOC violation is to use this format:


 * In the comment above, Larson E. Whipsnade says "the moon is made of green cheese". I disagree. According to the moon is made of Regolith. --~ 


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Fourth try, with quoteboxes:


 * You have not produced any source that says that. The summarization is what the cited source says.


 * It says, "CDC Data on Declining US Fertility Rate Is Being Used by White Nationalists," in the title of the article.


 * That is what the source says. Sure he's denied it; so? He has a very long list of contradictions.


 * The definition of terrorize is to, "create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress." If you are convinced that someone is trying to exterminate your entire race, is that extreme fear or just a scare?


 * Again, it's not something I made up, it's what the source says. EllenCT (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You made a bunch of claims above, ended them with "Again, it's not something I made up, it's what the source says." -- but the source you cited does not directly support your claims.


 * Several of your claims are unsupported by any source. I will take just one as an example:


 * You said "The purpose of the white genocide conspiracy theory is to terrorize white people"


 * I replied with "Nonsense. They aim to scare white people with false claims that the white people are being terrorized by those who want to eliminate the white race. Not the same thing."


 * Then you said "The definition of terrorize is to, 'create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress.' If you are convinced that someone is trying to exterminate your entire race, is that extreme fear or just a scare?"


 * The problem is that the above claim is original research. You are not allowed to draw conclusions that are not directly supported by the sources. You need to find a source that directly states that the purpose of the white genocide conspiracy theory is to terrorize white people. You also need to find a reliable source that the US Republican Party as led by Donald Trump has repeatedly and openly courted white supremacists. That appears to be more original research on your part.


 * Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, (and possibly WP:V and WP:RS) and if you are still of the opinion that your claims are not original research, ask any administrator for clarification. The admin who just posted to your talk page would be a good choice, but any Wikipedia admin will be happy to explain our policies if you are genuinely confused. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "White genocide" -- the thesis that there is a grand conspiracy to wipe out as many white people as possible and/or to destroy their collective power -- is an idea that's been kicking around white nationalist circles for decades now, [Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project head Heidi] Beirich explained. Its purpose, she said, is "to strike fear in the hearts of white people in countries that are diversifying." [emphasis added] That has always been, as above, the source I cited for that statement. Does "strike fear in the hearts" not mean to terrorize? In any case, the statement included in the article says scare instead of terrorize because of your objection. EllenCT (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure that those who are still responding to you are hoping that you will somehow become self-aware and accept the fact that [A] transmogrifying "Its purpose, she said, is 'to strike fear in the hearts of white people in countries that are diversifying' " into "The purpose of the white genocide conspiracy theory is to terrorize white people" when no source directly says the later is original research and thus not allowed on Wikipedia and [B] changing "Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project head Heidi Beirich explained. 'Its purpose, she said, is...' " into "The purpose of the white genocide conspiracy theory is..." violates the basic rules on what Wikipedia is. We only change "X said that Y is true" into "Y is true" in cases where Y being true is likely to be challenged (example: the sky is blue) and even then we go back to saying who said it as soon as anyone challenges it. This is explained at length at Describing points of view, but that page is only for editors who want to understand and follow Wikipedia's rules. Like all other policy/guideline/help links it is of little use to an editor who is looking for a reason why Wikipedia's rules don't apply to them and why all of the the people who say they are violating Wikipedia's rules are wrong. For those editors we have WP:BP. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually it can be argued that 'to strike fear in the hearts of white people in countries that are diversifying' " and "The purpose of the white genocide conspiracy theory is to terrorise white people" is saying the same thing, it purpose is to cause fear, and thus a reaction. However, if it is a quote then it should be accurate, and not paraphrased.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not a quote or a paraphrase, it's a summary in my own words, per WP:V. EllenCT (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The very first sentence of the source cited for the statement on Trump to which you object says, "For months, Donald Trump and his supporters in the Republican Party ... have openly fawned, adored, and courted white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and Klansmen." The article literally has 42 sources mentioning Trump, 23 of which describe him as courting white supremacists in their titles. EllenCT (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Renamed Critics section to Criticism
Googling [white birth rates Europe] prominently shows the white nationalists' story from respectable looking sites (e.g. and ) on the first page of results, with very little indication that they are out of the mainstream, let alone extremist views. Instead of just listing critics, we should expound on their critiques, as in for example. I did a short paragraph for the intro and a somewhat longer one saying much the same thing at the head of the Criticism section, based on that recent news article about a population expert's views on the topic, but we have such a long list of critics that it seems like it should be easy to find more WP:MEDRS-grade sources.... I did find a couple of those. EllenCT (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Coatracking/Original research
I get the point you're trying to make with your edits, however none of the sources you're using mention the white genocide conspiracy theory or anything close to it. As such, you are adding material to the article that is on a separate but related topic. You are synthesizing unrelated material into the article and it's topic. We cannot do this as editors. We must rely upon reliable sources to do this for us. Those sources must be the ones to make the link between demographic changes and the topic of this article.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this opportunity to discuss your deletion of my attempts to balance the article. First, you don't seem to be interpreting policy correctly. WP:SYNTH says, "do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I certainly haven't done that. All of the statements in question simply summarize the reliable, mostly WP:MEDRS-grade sources. (Q.1) Are you claiming that some conclusion not explicitly stated by the sources was included? Moreover, WP:COATRACK is merely an essay, not a policy or guideline, but I haven't violated it either. It states that a "coatrack article ... ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." The two paragraphs in question are pertinent to the article because they refer to the fundamental premise of the conspiracy theory that a low birthrate is harmful or otherwise bad, as stated in the initial introductory paragraph. (Q.2) Is that a different subject or the same subject?
 * On the other hand, your deletion of those paragraphs violates pillar policies and an important guideline. By presenting the subject without counterpoint (other than a list of critics) your preferred version violates the WP:NPOV pillar policy by showing the reader only the assertions made by the conspiracy theorists, without any balancing critique to provide neutrality. WP:NPOV says, "Articles must not take sides.... which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (Q.3) Do you understand why deleting the opposing point of view, articulated by the WP:MEDRS sources contradicting the fundamental premise that low birth rates are bad, causes the article to take the side of the conspiracy theorists, leaving the opposing side without any representation? (Q.4) What are the societal effects that might be caused by leaving such bias for impressionable readers researching the topic? Furthermore, you have also violated the WP:UNDUE policy by serving to effectively promote an extremist WP:FRINGE point of view. (Q.5) Can you think of any reasons that readers and society at large won't be better served with a balanced article debunking the central assumption of the conspiracy theory with the most reliable sources? EllenCT (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is original research, and I believe that it is, then none of the other policies pertain and it should e deleted. Doug Weller  talk 10:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * on what is your belief based? Certainly not WP:OR, which describes it as statements without attribution to reliable sources. Do you think the statement that "Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition," should be removed from the Homeopathy article? EllenCT (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The main thing is that the sources you are using do not mention the white genocide conspiracy theory at all. WP:OR states that:
 * "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
 * "If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."
 * Examples of why this is a problem can be found at No_original_research/Examples.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * in what sense are the effects of low birthrates not directly related to the topic? You haven't shown an example of any synthesis at all. EllenCT (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Low birthrates are one piece of the conspiracy theory. It's related, but sources for this page must include material about the conspiracy theories. We should not include independent material about immigration, abortion, etc. unless the authors of the materials directly link it to the conspiracy theory.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any requirement that a sub-topic of a subject under discussion must explicitly refer to the entire subject in order to relate to the subject. I am happy to include the source making the explicit connection referred to in the RFC below if it will resolve this. EllenCT (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

RFC
Should the deleted criticism of the conspiracy theory be included in the article? 17:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Include as proposer. EllenCT (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously not as an obvious WP:COATRACK.  G M G  talk  17:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If someone publishes an "Elephant overpopulation scourge" theory, would we be forbidden from including sources in its article saying that elephant populations are not growing simply because they don't have the words "overpopulation scourge" in them? Why do you consider the effects of low birth rates to be a separate subject from the conspiracy theory? EllenCT (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is, you and I don't decide what's relevant for the subject. The sources do. If this information is deeply relevant, then you should have little trouble finding sources that relate them to the subject. If you cannot, then we operate with the presumption that they are not, or are not yet. If you would like to rectify that issue, because it is somehow a failing of critical thought on the societal level, then you need to publish that information in the types of sources we cite on Wikipedia, and then we may include it here. We do not work backward from here to there.  G M G  talk  18:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the article defines the theory as contending that "low fertility rates ... are being promoted ... to deliberately replace, remove, or liquidate white populations." The source cited in support of that definition quotes a source saying, "There is a longstanding anxiety among Russia's nationalists that Russians are dying out because of falling birth rates." Do you contend that this does not relate the topic to the subject? Other sources are extremely easy to find, e.g., Would you be satisfied if the article explicitly made the connection with that source? EllenCT (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly the sort of sources we need.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Infowars article it cites is actually from the Daily Mail, naturally. EllenCT (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No. This is clearly WP:SYNTH. It's also a bit POV and racist (change "white" with some other race). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) w umbolo   ^^^  20:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. The word "white" does not appear anywhere in the deletions in question here, but it is in the title of the article. There are no corresponding conspiracy theories involving other races or ethnicities, as far as I can tell. Are you satisfied with using the Inverse source for establishing the connection? EllenCT (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Black genocide conspiracy theory has a theme about declining populations because of family planning. Like EvergreenFir said, the Inverse source is completely fine. w umbolo   ^^^  22:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No. The proposer of this RfC appears to be struggling with the concept of neutrality and seems to want to be able to write their own criticism directly into the article. Oska (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you think is my "own" -- I am being accused of OR for statements taken from MEDRS sources? EllenCT (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Clearly no - Sources which do not directly discuss a topic cannot be used as sources for that topic, as repeatedly discussed above. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No as I've explained above. The NPOV point made by Oska is ironic given the fact that EllenCT added an NPOV tag to the article. Doug Weller  talk 09:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, and EllenCT should be sanctioned for canvassing. EllenCT keeps insisting that the white genocide conspiracy theory contains the idea that low birthrates are bad. This basic error is firmly based on original research and not on what any reliable source says about the WGCT. The actual WGCT consists of the belief that low white birthrates combined with high non-white birthrates are bad, and the belief that this is a a deliberate conspiracy. Neo-nazis who hold this theory would be quite happy if the birthrate of whites went down while the birthrate of non-whites went down farther and faster. The WGCT is still an incredibly stupid and racist conspiracy theory, and there are may excellent sources that say so, but EllenCT is not helping things by misrepresenting what the white genocide conspiracy theorists actually believe. EllenCT is setting up a straw man of EllenCT's own creation, then knocking it down. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What is your source for "The actual WGCT consists of the belief that low white birthrates combined with high non-white birthrates are bad"? That is not what the sources which have been in the article for years say. EllenCT (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop asking questions. It is really annoying when you pester me with questions and never listen to the answers. If, as you claim, white supremacists who believe the white genocide conspiracy theory would like a higher birth rate among blacks, why do they call for all blacks and other "inferior" races to be sterilized? Come to think of it, don't answer that. I have zero interest in what your latest WP:OR might be. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No as it violates WP:NOR. Only sources which address the falsehoods of this conspiracy theory directly and with explicit link to the conspiracy theory should be used.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: EvergreenFir has cited WP:FALSEBALANCE below in support of this !vote. It says exactly the opposite as what he says it does. It requires that mainstream reliable-source supported points of view must be included to the possible exclusion of fringe views, not the other way around. EllenCT (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Falsebalance says: ... all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The sources used here do not discuss the WGCT topic, and thus do not belong in an article on the WCGT topic. This is entirely consistent with what EvergreenFir actually said: False balance would be adding sources which don't mention the topic to present "the other side". They certainly did not say that fringe POV should dominate over mainstream POV. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No If we find a reliable source that explicitly argues, "Low/falling fertility rates are not a problem and therefore WGCT is wrong", we can include that (keeping in mind WP:DUE and possible need for attribution). But it's not for wikipedians to sythesize such an argument. Abecedare (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Such a source would, of course, also at least have to imply that WGCT thinks that Low/falling fertility rates are a problem. Every source that mentions WGCT and fertility rates makes it crystal clear that they only care about white fertility rates compared not no-white fertility rates, not fertility rates in general. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No - Agree with the above that this is a NOR problem. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No - Came across this from Jimbo Wales talk page. Having read the material proposed to be reinstated, I can see why the author wants to include it as "debunking the theory", but the sources used have no relation to, nor do they address, the subject matter of the WGCT. If you want to include criticism of the theory, then it must come from sources that criticise the theory. Otherwise you're engaging in synthesis. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, obvious WP:SYNTH since these sources don't mention the conspiracy theory. If this really is relevant to it, it should be easy to find sources making that argument directly. --Aquillion (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mnmh, is there any reason to believe that White genocide conspiracy theory afficianados want to increase the overall population? If given the ability of increasing the white population while having a balancing decrease of the nonwhite population (through laws, social policies, sterilization, etc) for no net change in population growth, wouldn't they go for it? But anyway, I don't wish to pile on Ellen. Her heart is in the right place, and that matters, so let's not talk about "sanctioning" as one editor did above. Chill. Herostratus (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

How should the extremist fringe view that low birthrates are bad be balanced?

 * The above section heading is not neutral and should be replaced with a more neutral version. It assumes facts not in evidence, and EllenCT has been edit warring to retain it.


 * "Because threads are shared by multiple editors, no one, including the original poster, 'owns' a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc." --WP:TPOC


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There is nothing non-neural about the heading. You have been pushing the idea that the conspiracy theory involves complaints that non-white birthrates are too high, but the source in the article used to define the subject and the other sources I've been able to find say no such thing. I've repeatedly asked if you have any such sources. EllenCT (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The sources are in the article.


 * The article DOES say


 * "The conspiracy theory contends these actions are to deliberately replace, remove, or liquidate white populations, dismantle white collective power, turn the countries minority-white, and hence cause white people to become extinct through forced assimilation or violent genocide."


 * The article DOES NOT say


 * "The conspiracy theory contends these actions are to deliberately replace, remove, or liquidate all populations of all races, dismantle multiracial collective power, keep the existing minority-majority ratios, and hence cause people of all races to become extinct through forced assimilation or violent genocide."


 * All of the claims that are actually in the article are extremely well sourced. Your WP:OR alternative definition of the white genocide conspiracy theory is not.


 * Oddly enough, racists are actually racist, and don't spend a lot of time worrying about the fertility rate among blacks going down. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What source says that the conspiracy theorists think the non-white birthrate is too high? EllenCT (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Multiple sources that show them calling for sterilization of "inferior races" --Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that this addition is being called "original research":


 * Lower fertility rates are generally associated with dramatic increases in population health and longevity. Increasing populations are not necessary to maintain economic growth and social vitality because of advances in automation and workers living healthy lives much longer into old age. Declining populations require fewer scarce resources and pollute less. Fewer dependents mean that families, regions, and societies can achieve more productive uses of available resources and increase their quality of life. While there were in the past advantages to high fertility rates, that "demographic dividend" has now largely disappeared. 

It's plain that none of those statements aren't supported by the high quality sources cited.

Should the assertion being parroted by the article that low birth rates are bad be balanced at all? If so, how? EllenCT (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No. This is an article about a conspiracy theory, not about the negative or positive effects of lower birth rates. Doug Weller  talk 17:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Black helicopter has a "Possible explanations" section. Chemtrail conspiracy theory has a "Interpretation of evidence" section summarized in the introduction. New World Order (conspiracy theory) has a nine paragraph substantive "Criticism" section summarized in the intro. Antisemitic canard explains in detail why, as the intro says, the accusations are "unfounded rumors or false allegations which are defamatory" in every section. Controversies about Opus Dei has an "Objections to critics" section with three sub-sections. 9/11 conspiracy theories has a nine paragraph substantive "Criticism" section. Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories has an "Analysis" section debunking the theories. AIDS conspiracy theories explicitly debunks each conspiracy theory in each of their sections. MMR vaccine and autism debunks the conspiracy theory in the introduction, and includes "Disease outbreaks" and "Impact on society" sections. Climate change denial has five sections on counter-point and an "Effect" section showing the problems the conspiracy theories cause.
 * Many if not most of the references used in those sections to debunk the conspiracy theories do not refer to the theories themselves. Is that wrong? EllenCT (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Chemtrails, NWO, etc. all have sources which clearly link the article topic with their related evidence/criticisms. I know, first hand, that WP:RS and WP:NOR can be tough to wrap your head around when it comes tot stuff like this. But the sources must be the ones to make any links. For this article, to include any information about demographic changes, fertility, fecundity, etc., the source must also include information directly addressing the white genocide conspiracy theory.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You skipped the black helicopters article because exactly none of the sources debunking that conspiracy theory mention it at all. It's not the only article like that. EllenCT (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * please check the edit history on Black Helicopters. 1 source did belong. If you see other articles like that, please fix them. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid reason for adding to this page though.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a misconception that we should balance the POV of a conspiracy theory with evidence that discredits the theory. That is the wrong approach, as it is not WP’s job to discredit theories.  Any discrediting needs to be attributed, so the reader knows who is saying that the evidence discredits the theory... otherwise presenting the evidence is original research. What we need is an intermediary. A source that says “here is evidence that discredits the theory”. This can be difficult, because many conspiracy theories are so obviously whacko that no one bothers to explicitly discredit them.  Yet that is indeed what is required. Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not what most of our articles on conspiracy theories do. WP:NPOV says to include "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic," and when we describe what 9/11 or chemtrail or black helicopter or Sandy Hook or AIDS or anti-vax or climate change conspiracy theorists say which is contradicted by reliable sources, we say so even when those sources don't refer to the conspiracy theories.
 * NPOV requires that false assertions be balanced by reliable sources debunking those assertions. Where is the requirement that such sources must refer to the false assertions?
 * do you believe there is any such requirement; if so, where is it stated? EllenCT (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "NPOV requires that false assertions be balanced by reliable sources debunking those assertions" is incorrect. Please see WP:FALSEBALANCE. I am rather flummoxed that a senior editor like you does not seem to understand these foundational rules. And don't ask Doug when I've already pointed out where it demonstrates this requirement.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * are you saying WP:FALSEBALANCE suggests ever removing mainstream viewpoints in favor of fringe claims? It says to omit the extreme fringe views and keep the mainstream views in. Again, is there any requirement that sources balancing incorrect views as required by NPOV have to refer to the incorrect views instead of merely presenting the mainstream view? Consider me even more flummoxed at the extent to which you are doubling down on this. EllenCT (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * False balance would be adding sources which don't mention the topic to present "the other side".  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:FALSEBALANCE says, "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Which part of that rule do you think implies that an opposing mainstream view must refer to the minority view which it balances? EllenCT (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Refusing to listen to what multiple veteran editors are telling you is not a valid argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Debunking sources which explicitly refer to the conspiracy theory
I don't understand why WP:MEDRS sources which do not refer to the conspiracy but contradict its tenets aren't preferable, but what do people think of these proposed inclusions?


 * 1) White genocide is a myth based on false science, false history, and hatred. There is no evidence that white people are dying out or will die out, or that anyone is trying to kill them as a race or ethnicity. The concept of white genocide is an insult to Jews, Rwandans, Armenians, and all actual victims of genocidal attacks. --
 * 2) Evidence that white people are in danger of being wiped out by genocide is nonexistent.  The purpose of the white genocide conspiracy theory is to terrorize white people in countries that are diversifying and justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda. "The Turner Diaries," for instance, is responsible for inciting many violent crimes, including those of Timothy McVeigh. --
 * 3) There is no evidence that white genocide is occurring. White supremacists claim that ethnic diversity is equivalent to genocide. --
 * 4) White supremacist men are threatened by women's choices to forgo childbearing for careers, use birth control, and marry nonwhite men, so they claim to be trying to save the white race by attempting to control the behavior of women, attacking interracial couples, lesbians, and feminists. White supremacists are successfully constructing false narratives of terrorization by genocide to incite violence at an increasing rate. At the national level, the movement preys on white men who feel displaced and economically defeated, using them as expendable foot soldiers to accelerate violence and serve the political purposes of corrupt elites. The rate at which such radicalization and violence is entering the mainstream should be cause for alarm. --
 * 5) The US Republican Party as led by Donald Trump has repeatedly and openly courted white supremacists and endorsed the falsehoods they promote, including those of white genocide. --
 * 6) White supremacists feel so threatened by the potential loss of power among their leaders that they fabricate paranoid claims that the very survival of whites is threatened, for example by, "individualism, celibacy, feminism and other forms of sex-role confusion, misplaced environmentalism, and white demonization and guilt," all of which are described as promoting reproductive failure. --

Are there any objections to those? EllenCT (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I strongly object. You keep claiming things like "...which do not refer to the conspiracy but contradict its tenets", but you have completely misidentified their tenets. You believe -- with zero evidence to back up your belief -- that the white genocide conspiracy theorists think that low birthrates are bad. They actually believe that low white birthrates combined with high non-white birthrates are bad, and would be quite happy if the birthrate of whites went down while the birthrate of non-whites went down farther and faster. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article says that the white genocide conspiracy theory is, in part, that, "low fertility rates ... are being promoted ... to deliberately replace, remove, or liquidate white populations." The source cited in support of that definition quotes a source saying, "There is a longstanding anxiety among Russia's nationalists that Russians are dying out because of falling birth rates." There are no sources in the article or that you have provided saying anything about "low white birthrates combined with high non-white birthrates" -- do you have any sources saying anything like that? Moreover none of the six proposed inclusions above say anything about birthrates. EllenCT (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So in your fantasy world the white genocide conspiracy theorist are really concerned about worldwide low fertility rates -- that they are oh so very concerned about there not being enough blacks, jews and asians in the world -- and that the whole idea of "white genocide" isn't something that the neonazis have been talking about for decades? Go ahead and pull the other one. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source supporting your assertion, or are you asking that we synthesize it from other statements? EllenCT (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your objection to this last point and these sources. In this case is asking if there are objections to using sources that explicitly address the fallacies of the white genocide theory. If those sources are mischaracterizing the theory, perhaps other sources can be found to make that point, but that wouldn't mean these sources can't be used. -Darouet (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * EllenCT's sources do not in any way establish that the white genocide conspiracy theorists think that all low birthrates are bad. All of the sources clearly establish that they actually believe that low white birthrates combined with high non-white birthrates are bad. That's what the white genocide conspiracy theory is. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the six proposed inclusions above have anything to do with birthrates. EllenCT (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if they established that, it would still be WP:SYNTH. "These people believe X.[cite to source establishing they say it]  In reality, Y.[cite to unrelated source establishing Y]" is textbook WP:SYNTH.  In order to rebut or critique a belief, you have to use a source that directly references that belief, fullstop.  You can't assemble an implication or underlying chain of logic on your own, not even something as simple as that.  Doing that sort of synthesis can contain unintended assumptions about the applicability or nature of the conspiracy theory; it also gives the impression that the conspiracy theory is taken more seriously than it actually is (ie. someone skimming the article and not checking the sources would mistakenly believe that these high-quality sources take it at least partially seriously, whereas the sources are generally clear that it is flatly unsupported nonsense cobbled together out of generations of racist tropes rather than anything remotely approximating reality.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. If some fringe theory says 1+1=3, you can balance it with a mainstream source that says 1+1=2. The reliable source doesn't also have to say 1+1≠3. There has never been any policy, guideline, or even an essay that says anything like that requirement. Those claiming there is have had ample time to quote such a rule and have been unable to do so. EllenCT (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unanimously editors (all experienced) have called this OR/SYNTH. WP:OR has been quoted repeatedly. If the aren't clear, I'd recommend proposing edits at WT:OR or WP:VPP to added text that would help you and others in the future understand it easier.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not listening does not constitute a counter argument.  G M G  talk  14:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

OK can we have a quote from one of these sources supporting the edit? Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * it's not clear which specific edit you are referring to here. EllenCT (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I should have said claim. I just assumed that the way the question was worded applied to an edit. I shall rephrase it. OK can we have a quote from one any of these sources explicitly backing the contention?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but again, I can't figure out which specific question and contention you are asking about. EllenCT (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a specific one, but the general point. I am also asking both sides of this, what do RS say? I am trying to ascertain what support there is for RS for both sides (I also have to admit to not even being sure what some of the objections are, what in fact is the dispute about?, it looks like to me two sides talking past each other, I am not sure there is a real dispute here).Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Directly supporting the edit. Not "doesn't actually mention the white genocide conspiracy theory but kind of sort of supports the edit after we pour on some WP:OR secret sauce and interpret the source properly". I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

New paper on whitegenocide.info
This paper for the May 2019 "WWW" conference to be held in San Francisco indicates that http://whitegenocide.info/ is a representative anti-immigration site, using their Twitter account for statistical studies of white genocide theorists in the context of Google News personalization bubbles. Ordinarily these would serve as suitable external links, but adding them as such doesn't feel right. I'd like to ask other editors how to handle this situation. EllenCT (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC) if you have an opinion, I would love to read it. EllenCT (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Obviously an article about an opinion, idea, or belief should cite and link notable proponents of that belief. The problem is that the first paper isn't actually a secondary source about the white genocide beliefs; it's someone's science experiment as they try to outwit the Google Gods to try to see how the company is manipulating their search results.  So the link they chose to harvest links for their sock puppet from is something that sounds obvious to someone doing a computer software test, but not necessarily exceptional in anything but its name. Wnt (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Being "representative" is contextual. Is it Representative of views, of search hits, of visits? I note they do nit call it "representativ" they say "popular". So what is it you want to use it for?Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * True, and it's not really comprehensive, compared to some of its peers. I wish we could include this NYT op-ed from a few days ago as an EL. It makes the same birthrates argument I wanted to include. EllenCT (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It does not appear that The Great Replacement conspiracy theory and the White genocide conspiracy theory are the same thing -- even if the writer of one editorial thinks they are -- but they are clearly related and similar. One is a French far-right conspiracy theory, the other is a U.S. white supremacist conspiracy theory. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The "conclusion" that white genocide is a "myth" cannot be drawn from references 6, 11, 12, 13 and 14
I have gone through these "sources" and they are opinion pieces, not factual articles in any way. One of them is talking about how Donald Trump tweeting about the farm killings in South Africa is a "false racist conspiracy theory", which is a completely insane thing to say. The rest are just opinion pieces.

This entire section of the article:

"White genocide is a myth, said by journalist Eli Saslow to be based on false science, false history, and hatred.[11] There is no evidence that white people are dying out or that they will die out, or that anyone is trying to exterminate them as a race.[6][12] The purpose of the conspiracy theory is to scare white people[6] and justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda[13] in support of increasingly successful calls to violence.[14]"

Aswell as:

"White genocide is a myth, said by journalist Eli Saslow to be based on false science, false history, and hatred.[11] There is no evidence that white people are dying out or will die out, or that anyone is trying to kill them as a race or ethnicity.[11][6][12] White supremacists claim that ethnic diversity is equivalent to white genocide.[12] Scholars describe white supremacists as fabricating paranoid claims that their survival as a race is threatened, for example by, "individualism, celibacy, feminism and other forms of sex-role confusion, misplaced environmentalism, and white demonization and guilt," all of which are claimed to promote reproductive failure.[153]"

Should all be removed, as they are clearly not based on any factual research into the subject of white genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.248.184.152 (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The summary is originally from the Saslow book, as indicated above, but there is no shortage of sources for the statement:
 * "The Myth of White Genocide" Harper's March 2019
 * "hard to overstate how common the South African genocide myth is in white supremacist and white nationalist circles" Reveal August 2018
 * "The South Africans pushing the 'white genocide' myth" CNN November 2018
 * "The dangerous myth of 'white genocide'" SPLC August 2018
 * "despite long-running international efforts to debunk the idea of a “white genocide,” Facebook was still selling advertisers the ability to market to those with an interest in that myth just days after the bloodshed." The Intercept November 2018
 * "The deadly myth of 'White Genocide'" Australian Broadcasting Corporation March 2019
 * Including two other sources which were already in the article using the term in open access articles on the internet, now added to the clause. EllenCT (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Anti-white sources to prove that white genocide is a myth... Why not quote the Turkish government to prove that the Armenian genocide never happened while you're at it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilterOppossumWhatever (talk • contribs) 00:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Those sources are almost all if not all by white authors. See WP:RS for how we generally evaluate the quality of sources. What do you think is the most reliable source suggesting that white genocide is occurring? EllenCT (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a tricky question, because this article mixes several different claims into one unified grand conspiracy theory. On one hand people simply stating facts about demography projections (and their disconent with it) are taken as proponents of the theory and at other points in the article the theory is described as a plot by some group to intentionally cause the extinction of white people. Will a speech by Joe Biden be sufficient for some of the claims at least: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtIi8QR5Mzs ? FilterOppossumWhatever (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A speech which states that diversity is a strength of American society is not suggesting that "white people will go extinct." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You lack reading comprehension. The speech states that whites are intentionally made into a minority and it's stated by the vice president. Numerous examples are listed as proponents of the conspiracy theory for stating that same thing with a disapproving instead of an approving tone. FilterOppossumWhatever (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's what you took away from the speech, it's evident that your views on cultural, ethnic and racial diversity are outside the mainstream. That your fringe beliefs are not reflected in this article is a feature of Wikipedia, not a bug. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If Joe Biden had dropped the "not" in "That's not a bad thing." he would be in this article as promoting the conspiracy theory. FilterOppossumWhatever (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Lauren Southern, Sky News
Minor quibble. The NYT source cited for the bit about Southern's Sky News interview never mentions Sky news or uses the quoted phrase, "white genocide of South Africa". Looks like the wrong source is used, or the right source got misplaced? I also don't see a Sky News interview in which Southern used that phrase. But if it's presented as a literal quote, blah blah blah, you get it. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the sixth paragraph from the end. The resulting documentary tones down the rhetoric substantially, explicitly stating that no white genocide is occurring or has occurred, just that it's a risk if civil war were to break out. Then we learn later that whites aren't stockpiling weapons, just hydroponics and first aid kits. I can't find the mass graves, blood splatters, security camera footage, or dead bodies shown in the trailer. EllenCT (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. So that sounds like what I'd expected, but that quote never appears in either the NYT piece or the documentary. This article currently states, "Sky News interviewed her regarding her documentary Farmlands, introduced as what Southern describes as the 'white genocide of South Africa...'" The problem there is the quotation marks. That is stating, in Wikipedia's voice, "Laura Southern said exactly this on camera." And that isn't true. By the way, I'm not saying to paint Southern in a better light, or to not mention this. And I'm absolutely not claiming that we're misrepresenting her views or anything. Just, if it's not actually a quote from Southern, it should not be presented as a quote, or the quote should be changed to something she actually said. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. The quote is not in the cited source and certainly should be removed. I took out the whole sentence because the finished documentary doesn't use the tagline, nor is there anything like it on the associated web site and press release. EllenCT (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: I've removed the descriptor "Canadian racist provocateur" which was used to describe Southern. We can say "Southern has been described as racist by XYZ" and cite reliable sources but it isn't our place to pass character judgement without citations, especially on a BLP.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   10:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't actually think it's a character judgement, but the definition of "racist" is pretty hotly contested. I think "far right" or "alt-right" would be more useful/common descriptors here. Nblund talk 14:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , agreed. I wouldn't even mind "who has been described as racist by XYZ", but far-right seems better.    SITH   (talk)   15:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2019
Title should be changed to "White genocide (theory)". Neutrality of this article is disputed. Wolltcraig (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Accuracy is neutral, in this case. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of article
1. It is attempting to make out that all rhetoric that does not support mass immigration is neo-Nazi or at least far right.

2. Many of the examples from the various countries given, whilst may be contemptuous are not part of a linked worldwide conspiracy theory created by David Lane, an actual far-right extremist. These include Germany - Cologne, UK - Katy Hopkins, USA - Trump and Canada - Lauren Southern. These views are Conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.130.141 (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. This article used to falsely accuse just a couple of US persons of supporting it. Now it is definitely too much to handle, the article is a load of WP:Libel. w umbolo   ^^^  00:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Once your block has expired, specifics would be helpful. Which examples do you feel are not verifiable and why. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is a load of crap to be honest --101.177.161.244 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * IP user: That you don't like the article doesn't tell us much of anything. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not whether I like it or not, saying something is a load of crap isn't a personal statement. When you have multiple credible sources that deny the fact that a white genocide is occurring it says that this article is a load of crap and really should be deleted because it does nothing for anyone... other than promoting hate of course. --101.177.161.244 (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory?
Why is this article titled a conspiracy theory when the ongoing white genocide is a reality?47.137.189.77 (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Another dubious edit
So now EllenCT has glomed on to the fact that someone writing about the Rhodesian front Party vs. the "If you see a creature with two legs and it is white, kill it" Zimbabwe African peoples Union used the term "White Genocide". She then added it the the Origin and development section, despite zero evidence that any of the people who developed the white genocide conspiracy theory had ever read the rather obscure periodical where the phrase was used or had ever made any reference to Rhodesia. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." --WP:SYNTH.

I am now convinced that we need to go to ANI with this. The behavior is too disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The 1966 source is the earliest use of the term "white genocide" I could find, and says that Ian Smith persuaded whites in Rhodesia that it was the alternative to his party's war policy. The article has discussed at length the same theory used in the same way in Zimbabwe, modern-day Rhodesia, going back years. EllenCT (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You both have a point, but I am not sure this is actionable. It is the earliest use (and in america too), but there is no clear link between it and the modern concept (but does there have to be, it is not claiming this originated the concept, just that it is the earliest reference to the phrase).Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The source the article has been using for Zimbabwe ties its 1960s WGCT directly to American white supremacists, mentioning Smith's Bush War specifically. Its author, User:Dan Murphy, has written a great deal about social dynamics on Wikipedia. EllenCT (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Then I think we can expand it a bit with this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The reporter (J.L. Cefkin) is using the phrase "white genocide" here. It doesn't appear to be a quote from Smith himself, and there's no indication that David Lane picked up the term from Smith or that other scholars attribute WGCT to Smith himself. It may be the earliest use of the phrase, or maybe not - I honestly have no idea and that's why we need to rely on secondary sources here.
 * Unrelated to the WP:SYNTH issues: the Unz review is a white nationalist online publication, and I really doubt they have legit rights to the archives for this magazine - so I removed that URL.  Nblund talk 15:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I didn't say it was the first use, especially in the article; only that it was the earliest I could find. And whatever you may say about California Republican politician Ron Unz and The Unz Review, he is a millionaire known for a number of million-plus dollar donations to various causes and would be particularly vulnerable to copyright infringement lawsuits. The Unz Review masthead says, "The articles and columns that appear here are under legal copyright and the authors or their representatives have merely granted The Unz Review the right to publish them." So, I am restoring the URL. And in any case, John Leo Cefkin was an ardent Democratic Party supporter. EllenCT (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously? What does Cefkin's party affiliation have to do with the question of whether Unz has the ability to host scanned copies of decades of periodicals and books that it clearly doesn't own the copyright for? Do you think that Cefkin's granted Unz Review the right to publish his articles a decade after he died? Read WP:ELNEVER. Feel free to raise the issue at a relevant noticeboard, but please consider whether or not its worthwhile to open a dispute over a URL. Nblund talk 18:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you think Cefkin's estate would own the copyright and not The Reporter which has since merged with Harper's? The copyright statement is "© 1966 by The Reporter Magazine Company." That their entire 20 year run owned by an ongoing concern is hosted on unz.com along with hundreds of other works all marked with the licensing statement in red at the bottom of every page without any paywall or advertising convinces me, but the three sentence quote in the reference is sufficient context for the use. EllenCT (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Asked on this at WP:ELN EllenCT (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

...and, as usual, every fucking detail turns into a big fight and a wall of text, all of which could be avoided by this simple thought: "Gosh, everyone is against this. Should I go along with the consensus, or should I argue on and on, despite the fact that in every previous case where I argued on and on I failed to get my way? What to do? What to do?"

Related: The Most Important Thing Possible, Megalomaniacal point of view

I can't take this any longer. I am unsubscribing from this and all related pages. I wish the rest of you the best of luck in dealing with this dumpster fire. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Jewish plot?
I don't think they consider it exclusively a Jewish plot. It's Jewish partly because majority of media is Jewish owned, but it's also non-Jewish plot. So I think this should be changed because they consider white liberals also part of the problem because they are going along with mainstream ideas. Plot of the left wingers, or something similar would be more correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yerachmiel Coinblatt (talk • contribs) 23:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * To be fair, in South Africa, I don't think there are many jews. I think this article makes too many assumptions, even though white genocide as most people think of it, is a baseless claim not really based in reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stryker Genesis (talk • contribs) 06:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Not agreeing that there exist white genocide conspiracy, but this article is seriously one of most biased I have ever seen on wikipedia, wikipedia is clearly becoming more biased, to start with this is only one variation of the conspiracy theory to assert that it is a Jewish plot, probably not even the most prominent one, several other variations are that it is a Muslim plot, non-white plot, leftist plot etc. Also I think the first three 'white genocide, white extinction, or white replacement conspiracy theory' are three separate conspiracy theories - where in white genocide the aim is to exterminate white, in white replacement the aim is not necessarily to fully exterminate whites but to replace them as majority in white majority countries, and white extinction proposes that whites are going extinct, yet then the article goes on and talks about them as one single conspiracy theory, and doubles down on this by further outlining only one variation of it as encompassing them all. 78.84.1.94 (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If any of you would like to exert leverage on this article, you'll have to point folks to a reliable published source which puts forward such views. Merely stating your disagreement is not enough – it's not going to have any effect on the many sources describing the Jewish aspect of this conspiracy theory. Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's of any use for me to waste time researching links, the article is locked and I believe controlled by people not interested in unbiased article, I think it just clearly misstates and conflates the various conspiracy theories - I do not support them, I just don't like the inaccuracy of this article, as the other user noted in South Africa the white genocide conspiracy theory there is clearly not connected to Jews. I think the previous intro was much more encompassing. What the current article does is takes various conspiracy theories and compresses them into one single variation of one of these conspiracy theories. 78.84.1.94 (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I’m not particularly a subscriber of this theory but this has got to be the most obviously biased article with the most skewed tone I’ve seen on Wikipedia. And I don’t need a source to confirm this, I just read it.--FollowTheSigns (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * IIf you want changes, provide sources, not complaints or accusations.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, as per wikipedia guidelines talk pages are also meant for discussion, not just providing sources, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines quote ″Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article.″ So what I am doing is proposing improvements to the article via discussion. Others might come up with sources, or some obvious flaws corrected. 78.84.1.94 (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Also from TPG: "Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject." "Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material." Bring sources and specific suggestions.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Although I almost always disagree with how wikipedia mods handle literally every topic related to right wing ideas n people, (the extreme level of bias is disgusting), in this case I have to side with them. The most popular version, and original one, states it is indeed a Jewish plot. The other conspiracies mentioned also fall easily into the same camp, meaning besides small variations, it's all the same conspiracy.

That said, it could possibly be worth mentioning the big exception of South Africa. Their version ignores the jewish angle entirely. Still, that's an outlier. (I used the ADL, geopolitica, Breitbart News, and the BBC for a comprehensive list of sources covering all political sides, to get a better picture. Figured in this case, it'd be good idea, since conspiracy theories hinge on an agreed upon "wrong", sans evidence). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

What's true
It seems to me a little strange that the article doesn't mention the one little nub of truth in amongst all the hateful fantasies -- namely that in the United States, Jewish groups generally supported the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (and considered that they had every right to do so, since the earlier Immigration Act of 1924 had directly led to the deaths of many European Jews in the Holocaust). The 1965 law is a bogeyman of many right-wingers (of course, it was not originally intended by those who passed it in Congress to lead to a large increase in third-world immigration)... See "The 1965 Law That Gave the Republican Party Its Race Problem", "Publication of A Nation of Immigrants was a project of the Anti-Defamation league of B'nai B'rith" etc. -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Lots of ethnic and racial minority groups have supported reduced restrictions on immigration. This does not lend any credence to a bonkers conspiracy theory about Jews plotting to wipe out the white race. Including this sort of claim in the article would be WP:OR. Nblund talk 15:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's "original research", but I don't feel like wading through analyses of neo-Nazi rhetoric to try to track down its role in perfervid conspiracy theories. I thought I would just raise the subject here in case anyone more knowledgeable or industrious could source it and include it in the article... AnonMoos (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

for EUROSTATTER 11:09, 24 June 2019‎ Eurostatter →‎Origins and development: Kalergi plan
Hi Eurostatter, I read your contribution written on: White_genocide_conspiracy_theory, from yesterday. "11:09, 24 June 2019‎ Eurostatter →‎Origins and development: Kalergi plan"

in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory

1970s propaganda by Austrian neo-nazi Gerd Honsik, which distorted the writings of Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, was used over the course of decades to begin a myth called the Kalergi plan. A 1925 book by Coudenhove-Kalergi entitled Praktischer Idealismus (practical idealism) has been widely cited by proponents of the Kalergi plan conspiracy theory and wider white genocide narrative throughout the 20th century.[39]

i have read you [39] https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Out-of-the-Shadows-Conspiracy-thinking-on-immigration.pdf

BAT!!!

The document (.pdf) you mention [39] does not contain the word "Gerd Honsik" and not even the 70s. I checked it all 5 minutes ago. So find a valid encyclopedic document. (!) No propaganda. There are also 2 errors, both an error in attribution to the person, and of dates. In the new book on Kalergi (-2019 Luca Micheli- THE CASTEL RONSPERG MODEL THE PIANO KALERGI LABORATORY, 311 pages, with more than 200 photos and documents - on Amazon-) is all demonstrated with documents, photos, dates and names. The "Kalergi Plan" is attributed to Gerd Honsik, but he is not the first. Both the 70s date is false! Honsik wrote the book on Kalergi Plan, in 2004 not in the 70s. Then he is not the first to write on "Kalergi Plan" using the word "PLAN". Any boy can find images in google: photos of a text written in 1955 by Arthur Rogers in London. It's called "Warburg and the Kalergi Plan", so it's not Honsik. (!) But Arthur Rogers is not the first to write about Kalergi Plan. In the book it is shown, that the first to write about Piano Kalergi was already in 1927, in the book "Der nordiche Gedanke" by Hans Friedriche, Karl Gunther, Germanic doctor and university professor. Then before Gerd Honsik wrote of "Piano Kalergi" in 1984 Wolfgang Seeger. And many others before Honsik. Honsik arrives very very late, perhaps the 7th in order of dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.101.0.30 (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Black Genocide vs White Genocide
There is an article about Black genocide where nobody doubt any of the things that are said there. But as soon as you go to this article, everything is about conspiracy, supremacism, etc. So the Black Genocide is not a black supremacist thing, eh?, or conspiracy? How impartial, isn't it? 109.246.78.12 (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to read the article on False equivalence.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We have articles on Guinea pig and Porky Pig. Rather than trying to harmonize these two different things, we report what independent reliable sources say about each topic. If fans of Porky Pig want to describe him as "furry" and "frequently kept as a pet" because guinea pigs are described that way, they are reading the wrong page.
 * Wikipedia says the white genocide conspiracy theory "is a white supremacist, white nationalist, white separatist,[6][7] belief that there is a deliberate Jewish plot[6][7] to promote miscegenation, mass immigration, racial integration, low fertility rates, abortion, governmental land-confiscation from whites, organised violence,[8] and eliminationism in supposedly white-founded countries[6][7] in order to cause the extinction of whites[6][7] through forced assimilation[8] and violent genocide.[9][10]" because independent reliable sources say that's what it is. Despite fringe theories to the contrary, Wikipedia also says NASA astronauts landed on the Moon, the Earth is spherical, HIV causes AIDS, etc. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny, this is another false equivalence. Did you even read your own link? 121.44.63.135 (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not take things from one subject and assume they must be true about similarly titled topics. Independent reliable sources say what they say and Wikipedia summarizes it. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Vox and Southern Poverty Law Center as reliable sources of President Trump promoting white supremacy?
This article is reeling of bias and is hardly neutral64.134.145.35 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Tone
This article seems to be suffering from a desperate lack of nuance. No matter how despicable an ideological belief may be, editors are required to approach and speak about it from a nonpartisan, purely encyclopedic perspective. Certain parts of this article, especially the introduction, show perhaps that certain editors may have written from a very emotional point of view. This is shown most clearly with the line, "white genocide is a myth." While I do personally find this to be true, the way it was written is totally unacceptable for a Wikipedia article - such a declarative statement cannot be claimed without a multitude of authoritative sources (it quotes Vox and Southern Poverty Law Center, both of whom have an inconsistent reputation.) I simply want to clarify why I added a "tone" tag and the major shortcomings (of which, impressively, there are very few) of this article. Please check WP:TONE for further information. Esmost  let's talk   09:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The paragraph has nine sources, with many more available in the body. White genocide is a myth, not a reality. This is a basic statement and should be presented in plain language. To be blunt, we are not concerned with whether or not you personally find this to be a myth. Sources find it to be myth, and they find this over and over. Adding nuance for nuance's sake would be false balance. There is no encyclopedic benefit to pandering to those who think it is real. As for how "emotional" people are being, this is presumptuous and, I think, a mistake. This conspiracy theory is shocking for both how wrong it is, and how offensive it is. Any accurate article will also be somewhat shocking, and somewhat offensive. Trying to downplay this to make the article superficially more formal would necessarily make the article less neutral. If the article prompts an emotional reaction, so be it. It isn't a flaw in the article. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This article is absolutely hilarious and politically biased. Whilst I don't condone white supremacism, I clicked on the first link of your "sources" which led to a partisan anti-Trump news article. I didn't bother to click on any more sources after that knowing that the bar has been set so low. Since when did opinionated news article ever form evidence in any form of objective science, or has political science now deteriorated to this level? If sources like this somehow pass as evidence, then I don't know what else to say. This entire article reflects poorly on Wikipedia itself, along with the quality of the sources in it. I came here since I wanted to see different viewpoints about something I observed. As someone concerned against violence against all races, including white people, I wanted to find objective discussion about something: No news articles published in any mainstream newspaper within the last 20 years has mentioned the race of a criminal unless they are white. You can go ahead and do a Google search and find for yourself whether this is true. As someone that's concerned that there seems to be an attempt by at least someone within the mainstream media to incite a race war within the United States, or a general hatred of white people, I was hoping for some objective discussion of concerns such as this one. I'd do the same for black people or Jewish people if they were targeted, and have defended such groups in extremist forums. I don't believe any race deserves to be targeted unfairly in the mainstream media or elsewhere. Thus, I was hoping for some objective discussion about this observation here. Instead all I saw from the leading paragraph was that this entire article appears to be partisan garbage. There's no doubt that any form of supremacism is bad, but the introduction sets the tone that this article was written by radical left-wing anarcists, an evil on the other side of the coin. Rather than being objective, this article appears to be adopting an extreme and emotional tone to combat another extreme and emotional viewpoint, two evils fighting one another. It's definitely not written in a standard befitting an Encyclopedia anywhere. In the very least the original, emotional and partisan editors of this article should excuse themselves from it completely due to their apparent lack of impartiality. Esmost is absolutely correct when he stated that the article is suffering from a lack of naunce. It's also suffering from a lack of objective discussion. But perhaps that is the accepted norm now and no longer subject to debate. Is debate itself now prohibited? My apologies for asking since I've only ever edited the occasional scientific article years ago and am not familiar with the etiquette of how political discourse is done on this site. But this article looks absolutely frightening to me as a free thinking person hoping to find some objective discussion followed by disproof but instead came across a promotional pamphlet for Dear Leader. 202.137.112.101 (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove Second-From-Top paragraph?
The entirety of the second paragraph is a clear violation of Wikipedia's 'Editing Rule 9'. The edit was probably, but not certainly, made from a biased viewpoint. Another potential reason is that it was made by a troll or a hacker. Either way, if we're going to maintain neutrality, it's of utmost importance that we remove, or at least change the second paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireDragon157 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't a violation. White genocide is a myth, per many reliable sources. You are free to call it "biased" if you want, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Jewish Plot? 'White supremacist' belief?
While it is true that some theorists believe the Jews are behind it, most- or at least some- do not. It would be reasonable to change it to just 'plot' and take out the 'Jewish' part.

Also, while it is true that quite a lot of white supremacists believe this, the belief itself isn't inherently so- just like 'The 14 words'. It would, therefore, be at least a bit more believable and understandable to take out this part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireDragon157 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This conspiracy theory, and the Fourteen Words are both inherently white supremacist, even if not every single proponent defines themselves using that term. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not original research, and not public relations. Grayfell (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"According to..."
There are far too many "According to..." type statements cluttering up this article. These are a violation of WP:PSTS since the sources are citing themselves, and are WP:Appeals to authority. They make their argument look weaker than a standalone statement would. Example: "Professor Ivorytower states that some white males are fragile." Either something is the consensus, in which case it doesn't need a professor's name, or it isn't in which case it shouldn't be in the article. Please remove these "According to"s. Abductive (reasoning) 21:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is, if you remove the "according to", it's almost inevitable that someone will tag the statement with a "who" tag. Also, controversial statements should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice, hence the "according to."  If the phrase itself is used too often, and get monotonous, then re-phrasing -- "in the view of", "wrote X", etc. -- is nt a bad idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody will add a who tag if there is a reference. Maybe I was too kind in expressing my distaste for bad writing. I will be removing the filthy garbage from the article. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's my experience that they will, and they'll take it to the talk page, they'll do multiple things in order to get rid of it. In any case, saying something controversial in Wikipedia's voice is not reccommended. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Including see also section links
These articles seems wrote in one side, at least let add these links that summarize in figures the alledgally white replacement in that countries that once were a wide majority countries and they are reduces in lesser percentages. they summarize in figures that the alledgally white genocide supporters claim.--BrugesFR (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Demography of the United States
 * Demographics of Europe
 * Demographics of Australia
 * Demographics of New Zealand


 * What? Since I do not understand what you are saying, I will instead explain why I don't think these belong.
 * These linked articles explain (or should explain) broad facts, with some reliably supported and attributed commentary about possible future trends. None of these articles are going to address this conspiracy theory, for obvious reasons. This conspiracy theory is not based in sober fact, it is based on fear-mongering and cherry-picking. White genocide conspiracy theorists frequently cite misleading statistics to imply something which is not supported by the larger picture. Linking to tangentially related articles, like these, is not providing more context, it is instead providing more raw data and less context. All conspiracy theories can pick-and-choose from isolated factoids to suggest legitimacy. That is how conspiracy theories work.
 * Instead of assuming that this article is connected to demographics, we should explain the connection in the body with reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * These articles mention very low fertility rates that reduce the white population, also mentions that before they had much higher fertility rates, they mention the very advanced age of the population, low birth rates, which obviously all lead to reducing the population, also in Demography of the United States it says by several figures that his sources have that whites would be the minority in 20 years. In Demographics of Europe it mentions that for a long time, the European population when it is understood that it was almost entirely white, had between 22-28% of the world population, now it is only 9% of the world population. I do not mean to mention that clearly there is going to be a possible exctintion, but it mention the causes of the claims of this theory, these articles attest to a clear reduction of the white population in these regions.--BrugesFR (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly why back in March I said we should include this:
 * White nationalists use evidence of a declining birth rate in support of their extremist views and calls to violence. Lower fertility rates are generally associated with dramatic increases in population health and longevity. Increasing populations are not necessary to maintain economic growth and social vitality because of advances in automation and workers living healthy lives much longer into old age. Declining populations require fewer scarce resources and pollute less. Fewer dependents mean that families, regions, and societies can achieve more productive uses of available resources and increase their quality of life. While there were in the past advantages to high fertility rates, that "demographic dividend" has now largely disappeared. 

EllenCT (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What was the objection to adding that sourced and relevant information? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In March other editors explained why this was a bad idea, and I will strongly support that explanation. Repeatedly dredging-up old proposals is tendentious.
 * As was explained at the time, we should not use sources which are not directly about this theory to imply legitimacy, even subtly. This article is not about "demographic changes", it is about the abuse of statistics to support a racist conspiracy theory. We do not cherry-pick obscure sources to validate WP:FRINGE nonsense, even if those sources might otherwise be reliable in different contexts. Citing sources which are not about this theory would be, assuming good faith, a very serious mistake. Grayfell (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:COATRACK, mostly; nobody mentioned WP:FRINGE in the 12-to-1 against RFC (which was in the context of another argument about whether The Turner Diaries included the conspiracy theory, which is clearly does. since the proponents perennially bring up demographic changes in support of the conspiracy theory, why shouldn't we address those points directly? I don't see how you can say it's not directly about it when it's always there as an argument in support. EllenCT (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am mentioning FRINGE now, regardless of whether or not it was brought up before. I assume you agree that FRINGE applies to this conspiracy theory. If reliable sources address those objections directly, cite them. Otherwise, this is a very messy approach, and seems like WP:SYNTH.
 * For one thing, the conspiracy theory presumes validity to a definition of race which is poorly defined and unscientific. We cannot allow pseudoscience to slide and then expect the facts to speak for themselves. For another, by conflating demographic changes with this conspiracy theory, we are muddying the definition of the theory, which is precisely opposite to what an article should be doing. By falsely treating the underlying premise as valid, even to challenge it, we are throwing wood on the fire. The theory ("white genocide") is incoherent at its core, and trying to map this onto different concepts ("demographic changes" or "sub-replacement fertility") which are superficially related, is a trap. If sources explain how these things are connected, use them without editorializing. Most of the sources you've cited do not connect these things to the theory.
 * Again, if sources address these objections directly, let's see them. Otherwise, this information you, as an editor, have compiled to make a point which isn't made by any sources alone. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The first source cited addresses it in depth. The arguments don't have to be coherent to be perennial, strongly associated with the conspiracy theory, or, sadly, persuasive to huge numbers of people. I maintain that the reader is better served with counterpoint to these very common and persistent arguments than not. EllenCT (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What context is supported by reliable sources? The first source specifically says that this misrepresents data. The source cites an expert (Charles Gallagher) as saying demographic research is "[taken] entirely out of context. People use it, they manipulate it, they massage it, they misinterpret it, for their own ideological purposes." Another expert describes how the CDC's lack of context left this specifically vulnerable to misuse. Conspiracy theories are built on this kind of thing. The other sources are not usable for this, because they are also "out of context". Even if we could use WP:OR to refute conspiracy theories, it's playing whack-a-mole. Just like how telling people to "calm down" rarely makes them calmer, we cannot assuage people's anxieties by telling them they're wrong to be anxious. Using the other sources as supplemental sources could, potentially, work, but this is too far. Use the context provided by this source, and nothing else. Grayfell (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)