Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Can we get a vote/poll on the inclusion of demographic change information and its contributing effects on this conspiracy theory?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There seems to be disagreement among editors whether or not we should include demographic statistics and whether or not that contributes to people holding this conspiratorial belief. In other words, a poll should be announced whether or not to include information on demographic change, statistical projections, and how immigration rates contribute or not contribute to the spread and acceptance of this conspiracy theory. Maybe that should be worded more clearly. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If there aren't any sources connecting the two, then we shouldn't have an RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If what you say is correct, then the matter can be better put to rest in an RfC. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I agree with Newimpartial. Provide some sources making the connection first, then we can discuss them, THEN we can have an RfC if necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't matter either way to me, just a suggestion. I think it would be more productive in both the short-term and long-term to have an RfC. This matter was discussed above with little consensus, and it is reasonable to assume it will be brought up numerous times to come. Put it to an RfC, put it to rest. Or not. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

In this subject area, nothing is ever "put to rest". With or without an RfC, it'll keep coming up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Consensus isn't about sheer numbers. Drive-by comments with more basis in belief in this conspiracy theory than on knowledge of policy or sources do not contribute to consensus. This is one of those topics where, even if we have an RFC, drive-by comments by believers will continue to occur. The only hypothetical benefit would be that we'd have an RFC to point to to shut down discussion after the first comment in a thread. However, the RFC would likely draw off-site coordination by white supremacists, resulting in a bunch of spam in the RFC that future drive-by accounts would point to to claim there "wasn't consensus." RFCs can be very useful in fringe topics to put up a wall that any pro-fringe regulars have to either accept or else mark themselves as disruptive if Arbitration happens. However, unlike other fringe topics, it is generally more acceptable (and a better idea) to simply block or ban someone for acting on belief in white supremacist ideas. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

An RfC doesn't mean an abandonment of requiring reliable sources, it just means an attempt to reach consensus or at least mediate dispute. I think your suggestion that an RfC will draw off-site coordination by white supremacists seems to imply an assumption of bad faith editing. My recommendation for an RfC does not make the same assumption. If we're not going to do an RfC, then why not add something in the FAQ about why inclusion of such demographic information/projections is not relevant to the article. State that no reliable sources link the two together. People are going to come here, read the article, wonder why that information is not included. And you're going to be stating the same thing over and over again. At the very least, answer what has already been answered and provide it in the FAQ? Makes it accessible, clear, and concise. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

There is, indeed, a lot of bad faith editing in this and closely related subject areas. Providing straight-forward and definitive FAQs on Fascism and Nazism hasn't stopped the same tiresome edit requests from showing up day after day. These drive-by editors don't come here to learn, they're here to push an agenda. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

What's the harm in adding it? It's not a perfect solution, but better than nothing, yes? SchizoidNightmares (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Give it up. Not going to happen without a source making the explicit connection, which you haven't provided. Stop wasting the community's time. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone else may provide it, I'm only suggesting it. If not an RfC... Then provide the answer for why in the FAQ, as I already suggested. Care to elaborate how I am "wasting the community's time?" Nobody's forcing anyone here to spend time on anything. Participation here is voluntary. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SchizoidNightmares: I do not assume bad faith from you, but it would be naive to assume no or insignificant risk of members of the alt-right cluttering the RFC. This isn't a general statement of "affiliated persons might clutter any RFC touching on subjects they're not-uninterested in" (which I can AGF in, even if the majority of such users will be utterly clueless), this is specifically because the alt-right creeps throughout as much of the internet as they can. All it takes is one of them seeing that an RFC is going on for others (or just that one over-and-over) to mob the page. "Why aren't they here now?" one might ask. The ones with enough know-how to create socks and mobilize others have enough know-how to realize that right now isn't the time to strike. Right now is the time to let the less-able members or affiliates occasionally wander in just to keep the topic on people's minds. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: An RFC in this case is wood. That would might end up being a wall but it might also end up being fuel for the fire. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I was not meaning you implied I am of bad faith, I meant exactly what you clarified (i.e. that others will come with bad faith). SchizoidNightmares (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Very good points, Ian. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

No. per comments by Newimpartial and Beyond My Ken   // Timothy :: talk  21:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Also agree. How can you have a poll without sources? O3000 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel like this Bill Nye video which has plenty of secondary sources commenting on it now (e.g. [1]) could be useful if we ever figure out what to say about demographics. EllenCT (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Neither Nye's video nor the article commenting on it discuss the "white genocide conspiracy theory", the subject of this article. This article is not about the evolutionary basis of skin color (the topic of Nye's video). This article is not a collection of sources that discuss material that some editors feel may support or weaken the claims. Sources for this article must directly discuss the white supremacist belief that there is a secretive conspiracy plotting to kill off the supposed "white race". - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"Sources for this article must directly discuss" Synthesis of published material already prevents us from using collections of sources to draw our own conclusions: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." ... "precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia." Dimadick (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I think SchizoidNightmare's points are valid. The UN released projections on future population change could be added. It would be nice to have that info. You can see that data on the wiki article: Projections_of_population_growth. Also, it's not overtly about race either, so it might be a nice, middle ground, which can only be used to support the "European population is decreasing" claim rather than the "white population is decreasing" claim - kind of takes the edge off. I think the UN is pretty reliable, so I think it's worth debating it. By the way, Ian is not joking when he says he'll ban people. He banned me once, but I won the appeal. Anyway, Ian, please don't ban me again. As I write this, I'm terrified that you will, even though I'm being quite reasonable, haha, so please don't. Have mercy on me. Nate Hooper (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

There is still no RS connecting projections of population_growth with this article. O3000 (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Right. And the population of Europe, as a topic, is in no way connected to "white genocide" as a myth or as a (highly hypothetical) reality. Newimpartial (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your points of view. This article is about a theory about WHY the white population is decreasing (that it's orchestrated) rather than the raw projected numbers, so I see where you're coming from. I just think that the projections are related enough to the theory that it should at least be mentioned. Perhaps we'll agree to disagree Nate Hooper (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's not give any credence at all to the white supremacist talking points by violating WP:SYNTH and arguing the numbers. The article already does a fine job of turning it back on them, showing how it's only racists who are talking about it, which is the whole point. No need to change. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the strongest arguments I have ever heard that you should not be editing this site. Please do not tally Binksternet's vote his whole point is to show "how it's only racists who are talking about it" oh dear! you are talking about it!68.134.63.138 (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes it must be included to be fair. I know nothing about the great replacement theory. I have know idea how you can arbitrate a "conspiracy theory". I ended up here because a video with an "expert" on the Young Turks said that discussing demographic shift is a dog whistle to white supremacists who believe in the Great Replacement Theory. Minutes later they are discussion how the Democrats will take Texas in 2030 because of demographic shift. How can you not include facts or ink to relevant facts? This is a fine sentence-- The U.S. Census Bureau has projected that the U.S. white non-Hispanic population will become a minority (that is, less than half of the total U.S. population) during the 2040s, resulting in a plurality.68.134.63.138 (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

If you know nothing about the great replacement theory - which seems convincing - then perhaps refrain from seeking editorial changes to the article on the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not include material from sources that do not directly discuss the topic of the article. Demographic data from sources that are not discussing the conspiracy theory that there is an active genocide of the mythical white race does not belong here. This is a dead issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Ex-neo nazi here. Please include demographic data that shows this theory is nonsense. People like me need to see the numbers. We need GRAPHS. We need DATA. It's not enough to just call it a 'myth' and 'conspiracy theory', it might be true but it's not convincing. White Supremacists aren't evil people, they have good intentions but have been misled. The theory is convincing simply because demographic decline is a real problem. So please add something that will let us know scientifically: How many whites are projected to be there in 2050? In 2100? Especially in White/European countries? Does this data dispel the myth? This is all the info we need. Thanks Winkzin (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)\

That is actually the point of some of the people here who say that "white genocide" is typically used to just describe the demographic "shift" away from white majorities to white minorities. A chart would just PROVE that point because numbers DO show a sort of extinction in the long run. I think the general purpose of this article now is debunking of the "conspiracy" angle of this theory. Lipsky1989 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Making the jump from a projected change from majority to plurality is a far cry from extinction. Do you have any citations from reliable sources? Frankly, I don't think redheads are going to go extinct despite speculation in the popular press, let alone caucasians. Peaceray (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

A deliberate destruction of an ethnically defined group of people is a genocide, the key point is intent, not likelihood of success. By your definition there never was a genocide: Jews didn't go extinct, neither did Armenians or Tutsi. Drilou (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

given that this whole concept is based on demographic shift, I think it would be relevant to include statistics on projected demographics. ideally you would want a source drawing a connection, but even without that, it may not be SYNTH. the article already refers to fears of "massive demographic changes" within the US. it seems only logical to elaborate on this with the most reliable extrapolations available. Xcalibur (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

to expand on the above, drawing conclusions from such data (ie this chart shows why the theory is wrong) would be SYNTH. however, simply including the relevant data would not be IMO. Xcalibur (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly. Just by including the data, we would be connecting the data to the topic in a novel manner, violating WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a strong, inherent connection between this topic and population projections. again, I think this would only violate SYNTH if we used said data to draw conclusions. as an aside, I presume most editors here wish to refute this theory; if so, then what better way to do so than by including the most reliable relevant stats? Xcalibur (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Bigdan201, what you'll need to do to avoid SYNTH issues is find a reliable source that discusses the "inherent connection". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What have I just read? We need transparency...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a complete strawman of everything that the alt-right has to say about whites becoming a minority in Europe. I think that a more honest discussion on this topic would be to rename the article "white replacement theory", and that there needs to be data that conveys the ethno-cultural shifts that are taking place in various parts of Europe due to mass migration. People have immigrated in large numbers before and replaced native populations, (one needs only to look at America), and it's important that we frame this narrative in a way that is entirely transparent and unbiased, because while basically nobody believes that there is a "white genocide" taking place (and while few are genuinely convinced that it's all the fault of Jews), there is reason to believe that the ethnic landscapes of formerly white-majority nations are undergoing radical changes currently. We can present the data on immigration into such nations without appearing racist or bigoted, because frankly those statistics are a major part of the discussion and actually form the core of our argument. If you're not going to address these things, then it's best not to bother writing a piece about replacement theory at all. (Also, it doesn't seem to be the place of Wikipedia to call Infowars "fake news".) VinniusCaesar (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, if what you say is true, you shouldn't have any difficulty providing reliable sources saying so.

Also, Infowars is fake news. It's not Wikipedia's place to pretend they're not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I will provide the sources and add that in. Additionally, it seems to me like the author has taken a lot of liberty here and inserted a lot of opinions, and then makes them seem like fact simply by adding a citation. If you're going to write an opinion, you should always find a quote that represents how you feel, cite the author, and quote the source directly. This becomes a glorified opinion piece by simply stating opinions and adding a citation. I had really expected more from the people who curate these articles on Wikipedia. VinniusCaesar (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't insert them into the article. Post them here.

Also, your opinions about the writing style don't (and won't) hold much weight coming from someone whose experience editing an encyclopedia consists of two edits, one of which was the removal of sourced content.

You should check the sources before you complain about their existence. If the sources support the content, your complaints are entirely without merit. And as it so happens, the sources support the content. Your advice about quotations runs directly counter to our policies, so no-one will be taking it. Our job is to summarize what reliable sources say, not to plagiarize them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Antifascism is not an opinion, it's Wikipedia's editorial line. Drilou (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that fascism is fundamentally incompatible with free speech and the open Internet which makes Wikipedia possible, one should not be surprised that fascism is generally disfavored here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's amusing how comments like this can manage to not be exactly wrong while never coming anywhere near being right. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

By "Author" are you referring to the 626 individual Wikipedia editors who have made a combined total of 2,952 contributions to this article? ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 04:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirect "White replacement conspiracy theory" to "White demographic decline"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Seems like there is constant talk about a subset of the "White genocide conspiracy theory" that refers to "White replacement conspiracy theory". This specific subtopic has been covered multiple times in mainstream sources, TNY, NYT, CNN Guardian, NyMag and considering the realities of widely available census data, it probably needs some concrete coverage distinct from the perspective "oh no it totally doesn't happen". 188.27.36.191 (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a disambiguation notice, rather? A redirect would imply that the Conspiracy Theory is true ... Newimpartial (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - the "white genocide" and "white replacement" conspiracies are the same conspiracy that whites are being deliberately replaced through the active efforts of other ethnic groups, and/or that this alleged replacement constitutes genocide. It's not a sub-topic, it's the same thing. White replacement already redirects here. White demographic decline covers the scientific topic of shifting demographics (which contrast with and consistently disprove the far-right conspiracy theory) and has a subsection discussing the exploitation of selected statistics by political actors to drive fear of the conspiracy, with links that direct back here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural close as this appears to be a WP:Redirects for discussion matter. I have an amateur's understanding of what discussion belongs where, so if I'm wrong then Oppose per Ivanvector's points and also WP:FRINGE. The white replacement conspiracy theory needs to be discussed in article dedicated to contextualizing its claims and heavily citing mainstream views, not an article about demographic trends. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification Of The Term "White"?

Can we clarify the term "White" in the article? What do we mean by "White Genocide"? Plenty of fair skinned people in history have been targeted for Genocide, can those be classified as "White Genocides"? Such as the genocides against the Circassians, Aardakhs, European Jews, Ethnic Poles, Greeks, Serbians, Assyrians, Yazidis, Romanis, Bosnians, Croats, Crimeans, Kurds, etc. All of whom could be argued, or atleast a large subset of them have fair skin, which could be classified as "White". So, what do we mean when we say, "White"? Can we address the genocides of these fair skinned people, and why or why not they're not classified as "White"?Chantern15 (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

The peoples you list were targeted at various times because of their ethnicity, not race. Apples & oranges. ValarianB (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

So who are the members of the "White Race"? Is this definition present in the article?Chantern15 (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Have we adequately explained the difference between race and ethnicity in this article?Chantern15 (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Is it just Anglo-Saxon Protestants in US and UK?Chantern15 (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

we have to write that white genocide is said to be conducted by the free market capitalism and movement of factories from West to Asian countries, by capitalist cheap labor replacement and support of free capitalism for imported small business owners from 3rd world, also here is evidence as number of whites is reduced 24% in USA by free market capitalists and small business owners from 2000 to 2020. accelerating to 2% each year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Hispanic_or_Latino_whites 5.43.185.254 (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Politanvm ^talk 21:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Political incitement to kill white farmers

Political leaders of South Africa have on numerous occasions incited their followers to kill white farmers 1, 2, 3 amongst many other publications, so I don’t know how this can be classed as conspiracy theories. Equine-man (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Could you please explain how is someone singing "Dubul' ibhunu" proves the existence of "a deliberate plot, often blamed on Jews, to promote miscegenation, interracial marriage, mass non-white immigration, racial integration, low fertility rates, abortion, governmental land-confiscation from whites, organised violence, and eliminationism in white-founded countries in order to cause the extinction of whites through forced assimilation, mass immigration, and violent genocide"?
• Your claims about "political leaders" (note the plural) and "numerous occasions" also seem rather baseless; all your links relate to the same incident and the same person: Julius Malema. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

“muslims” is not ethnoreligous like jewish,hindu islam is worldwide religion there’s many white muslims

islam is religion not ethinicity, there’s many white muslims like albanians,bosinian,russians as will islam is worldwide religion anyone can be muslims it has nothing to do with any race! it should to delete! Asax547 (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2021

I believe the Nazi Germany section should be edited to include Hitler writing "The Jews were responsible for bringing negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate." in Mein Kampf (page 265, chapter 11), as this is almost a word-for-word repetition of the white genocide conspiracy theory. 80.208.67.15 (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specifically, we need a reliable secondary source making the connection between Hitler's comment and the conspiracy theory. Firefangledfeathers 02:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

FAQ Q.3 -- add demographics explainer video?

Regarding this deletion of my recent addition to the end of the FAQ, there is a discussion of the Bill Nye video in the archives with mixed opinions on inclusion. While I agree that TikTok is not usually a reliable source, the video in question has secondary source commentary e.g. [2], and at least three of the recent edit requests here appear to be about demographic trends. I suggest it, or perhaps something like it, will help. There is also a YouTube version, but it seems to have ads while the TikTok version does not, currently.

I intend to replace it without reasons that it might not be helpful. Does everyone agree that the most frequent questions here over the past year have been on demographic trends? Is the video a good way to try to forestall those? 71.204.166.188 (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

As there were no objections in a month and a half, replaced. 71.204.166.188 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

...and reverted without discussion. Any pros or cons? 71.204.166.188 (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

without discussion, but not without reasons: 1. tiktok is not a reliable source, 2. demographics are not the subject of the article, 3. no consensus per the previous discussion. also, are you EllenCT? Mvbaron (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

White genocide and muslims

"Muslims" is not ethnic-religious like Jews Islam is a global religion. There are Muslims in Europe who are indigenous white people such as Albanians, Russians, Chechens, Bosnians, and even in Germany and Britain (indigenous people) I will modify the word Muslims for Asians because the waves of immigration from Iraq, Afghanistan, Eritrea and Nigeria have nothing to do with Islam. Blacks and whites are white and Asians are Asians, no matter what their religion is, no one cares so afghans and iraqis people are considered asians and nigerians& Eritreans considered black not muslims! as will not all refugess from asia and africa are muslims some of them are atheist or even christian Saxsd12 (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly explained to you, the term "white genocide" is used by proponents as a blanket term to broadly encompass immigration to Europe and population growth by all who are not of Christian European origin. You are attempting to assign logic to a prejudice which has no logical consistency. This is becoming disruptive. Please accept other editors' advice. Acroterion (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

And please stick to one account. Acroterion (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Saxsd12, to add to Acroterion's message, the same thing has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors: Wikipedia summarizes what is written in reliable sources, without editorializing or original research. We all understand what you're saying, that white genocide conspiracists mistake race, ethnicity, and religion. Do you understand what Acroterion, Mvbaron, and I have been saying? Please take some time to read through these two policies, and let us know if you have any questions about them: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Restating your point the same way multiple times isn't working. It just makes it seem like you aren't understanding what others are saying to you. It isn't expected that you'll know every Wikipedia policy and guideline, but when people share them with you and explain them to you, please take a moment to read them. Ignoring others can be seen as a type of disruptive editing. Politanvm ^talk 22:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Convenience link to an extended discussion on this topic on my talk page: User_talk:Mvbaron/Archive_1#White_genocide_and_“muslims” --Mvbaron (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

"Talk:White genocide theory" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Talk:White genocide theory and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 31#Talk:White genocide theory until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dronebogus (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Salon is not considered RS

and yet, it is used prominently in this article. The references should be removed or changed to more reputable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:5635:E185:4293:C4C0 (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

No, there has been no consensus on Salon. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The article [Trump's "white genocide" rhetoric: A dangerous escalation of racism] says nothing about "White people are not dying out or facing extermination", you should remove the 'not dying" part. Katya72918 (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is a direct quote from that article: "Obviously, the real-world evidence that white people are in danger of being wiped out by genocide is nonexistent. So white nationalists rely on conspiracy theories, such as the one about South African farmers, to scare people." That seems to support the sentence reasonably well. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Objective rationalization for removal of real data?

Can someone please explain why clear mathematical demographic data is irrelevant to this article? Why is this article prohibited from including factual information about this subject? ClairelyClaire (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yup: your edit was reverted because no original research is a core policy. Generalrelative (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• The Daily Mail, as it itself said, published its own "edited" version of Coleman 2016, and one can see that it did things like change "White British" to "White British-born" and left out things like "All these ethnic categories are self-assigned in the UK census and surveys.", "Note that the ONS itself does not make projections of ethnic groups.", and an entire paragraph and a half dealing with the ifs and buts, and the projections made by other demographers coming to different conclusions. Using a source that outright tells one that it's an edited and distorted cut-down version of the original is not really a good idea. Uncle G (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Coleman, David (2016-05-24). "Uncontrolled Immigration Means Finis Britanniae". Standpoint. Archived from the original on 2021-06-21.

  This is really a very minor point considering the entire edit was obvious WP:SYNTH, which violates a core policy. And even if one did want to interrogate the source here, we do not cite WP:DAILYMAIL per widespread consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• you gotta have a RS. try this https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/567360-white-population-declines-for-first-time-in-us/ The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C42:7D00:18D:753A:D3D7:4149:4904 (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2022

Add 1804 Haiti massacre to == See also == section. 92.34.246.254 (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The Haitian Revolution is already linked in the article body. Unclear what adding 1804 Haiti massacre to "See also" would add other than inadvertently lending credence to the conspiracy theory. Generalrelative (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Who's talking about credence? If it's already discussed in the article that's only further reason to add it to the See also section. 92.34.246.254 (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Who's talking about credence? Me, obviously. And please refer to WP:SEEALSO: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. Folks who are interested in the Haitian Revolution can click through and learn about the 1804 Haiti massacre. Generalrelative (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Oklahoma bombing and Columbine massacre

Why are these attacks listed as white supremacist mass murders and terrorist attacks? The sources don't say they are. Some of the attackers may have been white supremacists but the motive for the attacks wasn't white supremacy, let alone white genocide, unlike the other attacks listed. Plus half the perpetrators of of these attacks (Terry Nichols & Dylan Klebold) haven't been described as white supremacists. The paragraph on Eric Harris doesn't even mention white genocide and the paragraph on McVeigh doesn't even allege that his attack had anything to do with white genocide. Just that the Turner Diaries, he was influenced by, later influenced the white genocide conspiracy theory. These attacks should be removed from the table because their inclusion is original research. 82.132.218.123 (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I am completely perplexed by your complaint. These events and people are listed under "INFLUENCE on far-right terrorism." The article well-explains that these crimes were committed by avowed white nationalists and subscribers to this conspiracy theory, while not necessarily being directly carried out in the name of racism. Further, the article explains the connection between McVeigh and The Turner Diaries, the connection between Klebold and Turner, and the connection between The Turner Diaries and the spread of this conspiracy theory.

I cannot tell if you did not carefully read the article, did not look at the sources, or if you're just trolling. 2603:7081:A00:8D8D:2DFE:95E2:9A45:581C (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Made by an editor with just over 300 edits and just page blocked from an article. Should this be removed? Doug Weller talk 16:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I almost reverted it when I saw it was added, but AGF'd since not all of their edits were terrible when I checked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

AGF is not relevant here; what is relevant is that they haven't made significant contributions to the article. Per WP:GANI, Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination, which has not been done, so I've removed the nomination as out-of-process. Given the extent of the edits to the article of subsequent to its nomination, it seems unlikely that it was actually ready for nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Antisemitism navbox

As I said in my recent edit summary: antisemitism is certainly a big part of it, but this conspiracy theory is broad enough that I think prominently displaying the Antisemitism navbox puts undue focus on that one aspect. If Sonny J. Deluca would like to add this content, I ask them to engage here and try to build a consensus for inclusion. I am certainly open to being persuaded. Generalrelative (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the bigotry present in the white supremacy movement is more general than this. The less specific discrimination navbox found at Racism is more apt. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I think there may be a bias towards certain versions of this form of conspiracy in the article (or at least the lead) as it stands. In Europe, this type of conspiratorial thinking is overwhelmingly dominated by demographic displacement theories fed by fears around contrasting birth rates - a meme dated to 1886 in France in the current background section. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s been a long time since I have been on Wikipedia, and when I saw this page I certainly thought it would be interesting to add the antisemitism navbox because White Genocide from what I’ve seen, seems to put more of a blame on the Jews. It’s The Great Replacement however that is more targeted on the nonwhite immigrants, or as white supremacists call, the “replacers”, including Latinos, Middle Easterners/Muslims, Indians, etc. I was a little baffled that that you would remove it however as other wiki pages related to topics like this has very little to do with antisemitism, such as 8chan. If you go to the 8chan Wikipedia page, or Gab, you will notice that the antisemitism navbox is displayed, which doesn’t make much sense to me considering those sites weren’t meant to be specifically for antisemites. Sure they’re the primary users due to the sites’ freedom of speech rules which gives them more vocality, but the sites really aren’t at fault for that. However, I do think that this page suits more with the discrimination sidebar which you have added instead. Although it’s targeted a lot towards the Jews, I understand that non-whites are the ones that are really being attacked and more deadly attacks have been perpetrated on them over the years. Which is why I think it’s best we leave it at that, thank you for the note. Sonny J. Deluca (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2023

Add Black genocide to see also section. 5.182.37.93 (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Blumenbach and Bernier

The whole introductory paragraph to the history section seems somewhat irrelevant, beyond conveying the fact that the idea of "races" was only current in Western science for a couple of hundred years. Also, modern genetic genealogy as linked there is not really a replacement for racial theories at all. Pharos (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

La France juive (1886)

I don't see the strong relationship here, as although the book does indeed concern a claim of a Jewish plot to destroy Europe, it doesn't seem to be particularly focused on, as we currently state, a Jewish plot to destroy Europe through miscegenation. Pharos (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

add attached source

The attached link/article states the following: “What we are wanting to do is to have Black people start migrating back to these states. If we migrate 40 million Black people back to these sates, we can control the economy, the education and the politics of these states, and we can do this without the need to fire one bullet,” said Omowale. “And once Black people move in, white people will move out.” = Is it Time for Black People to Reconsider a Black Nation Within a Nation and Armed Self-Defense? = Posted byBy David Love | Published on: July 17, 2016 | Updated on July 18, 2016 https://atlantablackstar.com/2016/07/17/is-it-time-for-black-people-to-reconsider-a-black-nation-within-a-nation-and-armed-self-defense/ Jlbnt1 (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)