Talk:Great Replacement conspiracy theory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

POV

This article seems very one-sided. "Conspiracy theory" is a strong word and would need strong support from reliable sources. That is currently missing. A large number of living persons are more or less accused of being racist conspiracy theorists in the article (all of it the work of one single SPA-account), in what looks like clear WP:BLP-violations. Jeppiz (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Mainstream sources treat this topic as a laughable conspiracy theory. Do you have academic sources that state otherwise? Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I imagine they call it a conspiracy theory because they read about it on Wikipedia. I doubt many of these mainstream news organizations have looked at the data about the declining white populations in Europe or have read the Camp of the Saints, Renaud Camus's work, etc. Philosophered (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Philosophered

I removed the tag seeing your reply here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move, therefore, not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The Great Replacement conspiracy theory → The Great Replacement (political theory) – I'm not convinced this is a "conspiracy theory". power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - should first finish (or rather start) the disscssion above, rather then push for a change through the backdoor. The lead sentence says The great replacement (French: le grand remplacement) is a far-right conspiracy theory with 3 sources and not "political theory" and the same at Renaud Camus#The Great Replacement conspiracy theory --Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support move to The Great Replacement. It might be prudent to keep in mind that few of the "sources" given satisfy WP:RS. In politics, we need to be careful as one can always find sources using insults against opponents. We don't call Hillary Clinton's article "Crooked Hillary" just because we can find plenty of sources doing it; these sources are from her opponents. The same applies here. For something to be named a conspiracy theory on Wikipedia, we'd need strong academic consensus for it, not just bloggs from opponents. The current title violates WP:NPOV. Jeppiz (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You will have to be specific about what sources you object to. There's several there now (and some weaker ones could be removed, given how many there are), but many of them seem like high-quality academic sources at first glance. --Aquillion (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: A quick search reveals the wide labelling of this thought as a "conspiracy theory" across multiple reliable sources, including academic sources (multiple cited in lead section), news organizations (DW, The Guardian, The Atlantic), and organizations such as Amadeu Antonio Foundation, Southern Poverty Law Center and Hope Not Hate. And this is only looking at the English sources. The article on the French wiki is filled with references to conspiracy ("du complot"), and even Marine Le Pen has distanced herself from it, calling it a "conspiracy". Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, big thanks to Al-Andalusi for a very good job on this article! We have now have a wealth of good sources calling this a conspiracy theory, meaning we should have no problems stating already in the introduction that it is a conspiracy theory. We agree on that. I still think there's a NPOV problem with using the term in the title. Even for many obvious conspiracy theories, we do state in the introduction that they are considered conspiracy theories but without naming them so in the title. Nothing would be lost by naming this article 'The Great Replacement' and then making it very clear already in the introduction that it is a conspiracy theory. Jeppiz (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Copious mainstream sourcing in the article refers to it as a conspiracy theory, including multiple peer-reviewed academic sources; nobody has produced any sources that imply any mainstream consideration of it as a valid "political theory". --Aquillion (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Move to The Great Replacement per WP:CONCISE and WP:OVERPRECISION. There is no other article titled The Great Replacement, which redirects here. That will also solve any NPOV issues regarding the title. Station1 (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose multiple reliable sources say it's a "conspiracy theory". The silence is deafening on reliable sources that describe it as a "political theory". Perspex03 (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppoae It cannot appropriatelybe dignified as a political theory. Its a conspiracy theory, as all the sources indicate DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - While demographics of a place may change over time (the part that's true as in most conspiracy theories), this article is about the conspiracy theory that this is an orchestrated coup aimed at destroying the Catholic European culture. —PaleoNeonate – 01:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I agree the sourcing is better now that this is primarily a conspiracy theory and isn't just "highly compatible with concrete conspiracy narratives", which is unquestionable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Nom has failed to provide any credible rationale for the move, and no sourcing evidence to support a move. AusLondonder (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per PaleoNeonate and Al-Andalusi. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Strange 'x' at the start of the article

I'm seeing a cross (looks like a lower case x character) floating about the lede. I'm getting this on two separate browsers, but when I go into 'edit' mode there is nothing there to remove. Does anyone know what this is and how to remove it? GirthSummit _(blether) 06:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It was caused by a 30 Sept edit at Template:Islamophobia. I fixed it there. Station1 (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, of course - should have thought of that. cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 20:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Several dubious or erroneous claims

Sorry but this article has dubious or erroneous claims, from small errors on the publication date of a book and nationality of authors; to Bidet who "first came up with 'the great replacement' formula in the early 1960s" while he died in 1957; and the omission of decisive concepts of the conspiracy theory ("replacists", "genocide by substitution".) See recent edit history for the list of corrections I did. I assume good faith or contributions from non-French-speaking editors who cannot access the academic sources in French, but it would take me hours to check every claim against the sources and redact a proper description and origins of the concept from the French WP article and their sources. Azerty82 (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Bat-Ye'or: "Swiss-Israeli"?!

"The novel, along with the theory of Eurabia developed by the Swiss-Israeli writer Bat Ye'or in 2005," She is a UK citizen, born and raised in Egypt, who has lived in Switzerland for almost her entire adult life. In what way can she be described as Israeli? -- 76.15.128.196 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Splitting the two forms of the theory?

I don't have the required political knowledge to do this accurately, but it is clear from simply reading the page in its current form that the article kind of lumping two theories together. I wouldn't necessarily advise for the page to be split, but two subsections and revised wording in the lead would definitely be called for, I think. (To be clear, this isn't an attempt to excuse the one over the other; I'm exaggerating, but take it as a "the President can't simultaneously be a lizard-person and Hitler's grandson, those are different conspiracy theories" kind of thing.)

On the one hand, the original Renaud Camus theory speaks of a passive replacement — that immigration will continue up until the point that the descendants of immigrants outnumber the long-term citizens; and that the current government of France is deliberately encouraging this process. (The French page, I see, is much more about this version, and speaks of the other one as more of a footnote; the current English page is doing the opposite.) On the other hand, there is the far more extremist idea that theorizes the planning of a "white genocide". I don't think Camus ever advocated that the latter was true, and the article as it stands kinda implies he did. Again, I don't give much credit to Camus's theory; but I feel very uneasy seeing an admittedly fringe, but essentially 'sane', theory, being lumped together with 9/11-truther-style ravings. I could imagine a reasonable, educated person coming to believe the Camus version; I can't imagine anyone in their right mind being taken in by the genocide version.

Just a humble two cents: again, I leave the decision, and logistics, to people more knowledgeable than I. Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This is NOT a conspiracy it is a real theory supported by statistics and clear evidence. Calling it a conspiracy is nutters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.166.65 (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The second form is definitely a conspiracy theory. The first, original form is more ambiguous I'll grant you, but even that has been referred to by sources Wikipedia deems reputable as a "conspiracy theory" also, so our opinion matters very little. If you can find statements in other Wikipedia-approved sources to the effect that Camus's version's status as a conspiracy theory is debated, that would be mighty nice of you, but in the meantime, repeating your opinion like that won't get you anywhere.

Any thoughts on the actual point of my message to which you replied? --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I've thought about this split also, but I'm skeptical that it would be a good idea. We already have an article for white genocide conspiracy theory, which closely overlaps. Do sources actually make a distinction between versions of this specific theory? Almost all conspiracy theories are presented as a series leading question instead of a single specific claim, so I think splitting them would be giving undue legitimacy beyond what is supported by sources. I don't necessarily think that these sources are concerned with dividing its adherents into 'intentional genocide' vs. 'accidental genocide' camps or similar, and the shared underlying premise of fear-mongering and sloppy science suggests this is still a fairly skinny spectrum. Grayfell (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about English-language sources — but as I said, I'd recommend snooping around the French page. It skews much more towards the 'first' theory in my above split, which suggests the French sources do too. And considering this is originally a French theory, one would imagine the French sources would be notably more numerous and detailed, and therefore trustworthy — though I could be misunderstanding Wikipedia policy on this point.

Actually, if I may… the fact that we specifically have a white genocide conspiracy theory page does, in fact, seem to me like kindle to the fire of reducing coverage of that side of the theory here, and focusing on the “unduly encouraging immigration for sinister purposes, but nothing more than that” that was the nucleus of Camus's original idea. We could then add a shorter paragraph linking to the main "white genocide" article, saying that many defenders of the 'great replacement' go even further.

I'm caricaturing of course, but the way we're doing it seems a little to me like if the page about 9/11 truthers was almost entirely about the Illuminati, because a number 9/11 truthers think the Illuminati are responsible for the supposed cover-up — even though that is not really the key element of that conspiracy theory, and there's a perfectly good Illuminati page elsewhere. Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... Generally, each Wikipedia sets its own standards, and we can certainly evaluate what else is going on, but we don't need to follow them. From past experience I've gotten the vague, probably incorrect impression that the French Wikipedia has significantly different standards for sources and WP:NOTNEWS than the English Wikipedia. fr:Théorie du complot du génocide blanc appears to be a stub. Incidentally, that article links to fr:Théorie du complot sioniste, which links to fr:Théorie du complot juif. Neither of these have a corollary articles in English, or at least not that have been added yet, despite the many articles on anti-Semitic conspiracy theories Wikipedia has. I think there is a lot of material to use for expansion here, or at least for reorganizing, but that's not a simple task. Talk is cheap.

I'm certainly open to trimming this article, but per the discussion below, I suspect the overlap between the two might turn out to be more significant that it first appears. I'm curious if any other editors have anything to say on this. Grayfell (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Have this article reflect most accurate as possible

Have this article reflect most accurate as possible, if you have a high dislike or like of a subject please remove yourself from editing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Death911u (talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. In addition to systemic biases, all editors have personal biases. Ignoring these biases, or dismissing perspectives based on how strongly they are felt, is not productive and will not improve the project.

The article reflects reliable sources. If you dispute this, you will need to explain exactly what the problem is. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

UN report

I can see a user trying to get a reference to the UN report on replacement migration from 2000 and it keeps getting reverted. Mélencron and Grayfell, can you please explain yourself? Surely you can't pretend the report never existed? What wording would accept for the inclusion of the report reference? 59.100.194.126 (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Uh huh. It's not about wording, it's about reliable sources. This source is not about the conspiracy theory, making this WP:SYNTH. Misrepresenting this report is also a popular talking point among the theory's advocates. Did Lauren Southern start this meme, or merely signal boost it? Regardless, it is not an accurate or proportionate summary of this obscure source to say it supports the conspiracy theory. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but if it's popularly cited by supporters of the theory, shouldn't that be worthy of note? --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

UN report is not a reliable source? It might not support the theory, but is definitely relevant. Without trying to synthesize or conclude anything, inclusion of the report in the Origins section would provide additional context. The readers can make conclusions themselves. Your namedropping is a complete non-sequitur.2406:3400:319:C860:C596:4013:44E7:C868 (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I came across this recent article from the SPLC which mentions this aspect of the conspiracy theory. It is specifically discussing the theory's widespread support by fake news outlet Infowars. According to that source, the UN study was first introduced to the fever-swamp via WorldNetDaily in 2017, 17 years after it was published.

The SPLC article is the kind of source which is needed to avoid WP:SYNTH, since it is directly linking the UN study to the conspiracy theory. The source would be used to provide context, not as an excuse to include the report as-is. The source mentions nothing about Camus, and is mainly about the New Zealand shooter and his manifesto, which is also named "The Great Replacement". The SPLC source does not imply there is any credibility to this connection, either, which is important. It's also not centrally about the UN report, it's just mentioning to contextualize a related issue.

To clarify, we do not rely on readers to make conclusions themselves when sources already say those conclusions are misleading. That is the exact opposite of what a good encyclopedia should be doing. After all, "conclusions" are almost free and you get what you pay for. If sources explain why something is relevant, we can summarize accordingly. Since this is a WP:FRINGE topic, we need to be careful to follow sources proportionally. Grayfell (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, then I guess there needs to be a link to Replacement migration one way or the other. 2406:3400:319:C860:C596:4013:44E7:C868 (talk) 05:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No, no need. This would belong only if it can be introduced in a neutral way and supported by reliable sources. Introducing an esoteric concept from demography into this conspiracy theory would be giving it undue legitimacy. If there is a connection, explain it according to reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

All of the cited documents that show that this is not a conspiracy theory are rejected because they do not support it being a conspiracy theory. Do you see the inverted logic of doing that? Of course the UN Report and the Kalergi Plan And George Soros' quotes all show this is an active driven effort not a conspiracy theory. And apparently the editors will cite any means necessary to discredit the truth of what's happening. 47.221.166.65 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Removed citation

• Sowerwine, Charles (2017). "The Far Right in a Neo-Liberal Age: Pessimism, Sexism and Racism in Modern French Thought" (PDF). French History & Civilization. Perspectives on Politics. 7. George Rudé Society: 190–203. Retrieved 24 September 2018. ...the Grand Remplacement (Great Replacement), a lunar right - or is the term now "alt right?" - conspiracy theory about a plot to effect "the progressive replacement, over a few decades, of the historic population of our country by immigrants, the vast majority of them non-European.

I've removed the above citation as being of questionable quality. French History & Civilization is an output of the George Rudé Society (https://h-france.net/rude/), but Google Scholar finds exceptionally few reciprocal citations for any articles from them, and none for the specific article in question. This is a red flag for a potentially unreliable source. The removal doesn't much affect the article. -- Netoholic @ 16:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Replacement theory

In 1962, Richard Klein (paleoanthropologist) enrolled as a graduate student at the University of Chicago to study with the Neanderthal expert, Francis Clark Howell. Of the two theories in vogue then, that Neanderthals had evolved into the Cro-Magnons of Europe or that they had been replaced by the Cro-Magnons, Klein favored the replacement theory. That term is ambiguous, and I'm disambiguating it. wbm1058 (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Centralized discussion regarding possible bad information added to this article

Please see the discussion started by User:Pudeo here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

"Nephew of nazism" > newsweek misinterpretation

As another editor Tjluimes has pointed out, the source, Newsweek, is referring to this FB post in their article: "Camus wrote on Facebook that it is not enough for Clear Line candidates to say they are not Nazis or extreme right [...] Camus then claimed the 'great replacement' is the 'nephew' of Nazism: They share the same genealogy of horror. We can not be associated with that'. " But when we read the original post in French, Camus is not labeling the "Great Replacement" the "nephew of Nazism" but—to the contrary—he is talking about the "replacist elites"!

Quant au nazisme, non seulement nous n’avons aucun rapport avec lui mais je le vois pour ma part comme le plus atroce épisode d’une histoire commencée avec la révolution industrielle, aggravée par le taylorisme et le fordisme, et qui hélas n’est pas finie : celle de l’industrialisation de l’homme, de sa déshumanisation, de sa réduction à l’état de produit, importable, délocalisable et remplaçable à merci. Le remplacisme global, l’idéologie économiste qui promeut le Grand Remplacement et tous les autres, n’est pas le fils du nazisme, mais il est son neveu. Ils participent de la même généalogie de l’horreur. Nous ne pouvons être associés à cela.

I have consequently removed the sentence until clarification or consensus for reintroduction with that correction. Azerty82 (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to Great Replacement. There are a few strands of discussion here which are more deadlocked – whether the term conspiracy theory should be included in the title, and whether the word replacement should be capitalised, which I can't see there being a consensus for. However, removing the definite article does have a consensus. I suggest that any editor who wishes to add "conspiracy theory" into the title opens a fresh RM to be discussed without prejudice to prior requests; for what it's worth, I don't see a consensus in the prior RM for removing the term. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The Great Replacement → Great Replacement – Fails WP:THE. Compare Great Depression, etc. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support Per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Move back to The Great Replacement conspiracy theory instead per the comparable language we use for similar conspiracy theories. This RM underlines the fact that the title used here is a descriptor for how it's usually covered; and it's generally covered, in reliable sources, as a conspiracy theory under the name "The Great Replacement". The previous move was closed very quickly and didn't really get enough discussion. The issue raised in this RM is caused by that careless move, which gives the impression that this is an "official" title when it is not. --Aquillion (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  Per WP:CONCISE, it doesn't need to be called "conspiracy theory" when there is nothing to disambiguate it with. For example, Roswell UFO incident does not append "conspiracy theory" despite it not being clear there was a real UFO there._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  Its also the (translated) title of Renaud Camus' book and the title of the Christchurch shooter's manifesto. Nblund ^talk 17:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Nblund: That's true, but when sources mention the "great replacement", they usually mean the broader conspiracy theory. So it seems like a valid primary topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Move to: Great Replacement (conspiracy theory) the definite article is unnecessary, but "great replacement" is too vague.Nblund ^talk 17:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In that case, either Great Replacement conspiracy theory or Great replacement conspiracy theory might be better natural disambiguation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current title with "The" is the clear WP:COMMONNAME of the subject and satisfies WP:THE, especially because it is also the English title of two infamous written works closely-associated with it. Editors suggesting to add "conspiracy theory" in any form are doing so just as an end-run around the clear consensus of the last RM on that exact subject, and probably for non-guideline reasons like wanting to, in some way, further delegitimize the concept more than it already is. As an RM, we should only be concerned with application of WP:TITLES, and not this sort of external desire. -- Netoholic @ 18:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  Are you saying you oppose the term "conspiracy theory" because it makes the conspiracy theory look too much like a conspiracy theory? It shares a name with two written works, which is why it needs disambiguation, and NPOV is also a valid consideration for article titles. Nblund ^talk 19:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  The theory is inexorably linked to the Camus book, and are covered together in a single article. If someday the two are to be separated, then the article for the theory would be called replacement theory. -- Netoholic @ 02:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  Well, its really linked to two different books by different authors. Camus himself calls it a "phenomenon", and its clearly not a "theory" in the conventional scientific sense, its a demographic conjecture from someone with no knowledge of demography. Replacement theory" refers to an actual theory about human evolutionary origins. The article is about the concept, not the book, it should be broad enough to define the scope of the article. Nblund ^talk 14:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  That the title is shared by two infamous written works closely-associated with the topic is exactly why it should be clarified. I'm also seeing problems with the consensus of the previous RM, given that at least a couple supporters of the move seemed to think the term conspiracy theory itself violates NPOV. It doesn't, if published RSes back it up. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC) (edited 05:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC))

• Move to Great replacement conspiracy theory (sentence case, omit the) as an unambiguous and neutral but descriptive title, consistent with Pizzagate conspiracy theory, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, Chemtrail conspiracy theory, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Moon landing conspiracy theories, GMO conspiracy theories, Big Pharma conspiracy theory, and especially White genocide conspiracy theory. Even without using the exact phrase, published RSes generally qualify the concept as a conspiracy theory; many were presented in the earlier move discussion.
  Per WP:THE, we generally follow published sources; if the is capitalized in running text, we include it in the title, otherwise not. I'm seeing a fair number of sources cited in the article that don't capitalize the, and that put "great replacement" (or the French equivalent grand remplacement) in quotes or italics by itself: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15].
  Sources are split on whether to capitalize Great Replacement; many of the news outlets capitalize both words, but the more academic works seem to favor a lowercase r in replacement. I think sentence case (only the first word capitalized) looks more natural in a descriptive title. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  (edit: as No such user points out, "Great Replacement" is a valid WP:POVTITLE. Changing my !vote therefore to Support the move as proposed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC))

  @Sangdeboeuf: How does the "Great replacement conspiracy theory" differ from White genocide conspiracy theory? If this article shouldn't be about Renaud Camus, then what's the difference? The history here is that a Rockypedia sock called Eurostatter (talk · contribs) added similar content to both articles. --Pudeo (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what this has to with the requested move. This article is about the concept of a right-wing conspiracy theory called the "great replacement". We generally title articles according to what published sources call them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  Each article's contents are, in part, determined by the article's title. As the article currently states: The "Great Replacement" is included in a larger white genocide conspiracy theory. It is unclear how the white replacement conspiracy theory would differ in its scope from this conspiracy theory. IMO, it would be clearer to have an article about Renaud's book and its influence, and put the rest in the other article. --Pudeo (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  Then open a discussion on merging the relevant material. Article contents are determined mainly by what published sources cover. Plenty cover the "great replacement" as a concept that transcends the book itself, as I've already indicated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Note: I've alerted members of WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Sociology to this move request. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any moving to any version recommended here, the details and evaluation should be dealt in the article's content, not the title.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC))

  This is a bizarre statement. Titles can't communicate all this information, but that's not to say they shouldn't even bother. The WP:THE question is a style matter anyway, so keeping or removing it really doesn't speak to "details and evaluation" at all. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  In case you referred to my statement and I understood you correctly, I did not say we should never bother, I expressed my opinion particulary for this case. However, i.e. Great Replacement Theory could be fine, indeed.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC))

  If by "details and evaluation" you mean calling it a conspiracy theory, that's a perfectly valid description to use per WP:NDESC. If you think theory alone is a better descriptor, can you provide some published sources that call it a theory (and not a conspiracy theory)? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  I see, because I did not enter to the details, I cannot answer your question recently, my opinion was formed just and only about the move and some opinions/proposed new names presented.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC))

• Neutral on the original proposal, but do not move to any variant containing "[conspiracy] theory". The current title is the name of that thing ("the" included or not), and titles are not a place for editorializing. If and when the article about the eponymous book is split (not that I advocate that), then we can discuss about disambiguation, but the current title satisfies all five WP:CRITERIA. No such user (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  It's not editorializing to call things what they are actually called according to reliable sources. It's fine to call a spade a spade. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  And wikt:editorialize defines the verb as To express one's opinion as if in an editorial, or as if it were an objective statement. I agree that this is a conspiracy theory, but not that a [widely held] opinion to that effect should be placed in the title. I do not quite understand the apparent moral panic in the recent trend of labeling conspiracy and fringe theories in the very title, but I'm opposed to it, on the long-standing policy basis: all five WP:CRITERIA about article titles favor "Spade" over "Spade (tool)" (which is what the proposed "Great Replacement conspiracy theory" amounts to). No such user (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, but that's a false equivalence. Spade (tool) is not a natural English-language description. And some "opinions" have more weight than others. If a nebulous élite remplaciste orchestrating a grand remplacement of Europeans were just a matter of opinion on which reasonable people differ, it should be easy to point out equivalent mainstream sources supporting both sides, as it were. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  Strawman. WP:POVTITLE is clear: When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name... Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title... In such cases, the prevalence of the name,... generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. WP:NDESC that you advocate is generally used when the thing does not have a common name, which is not the case here. No such user (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  Apologies if I've misconstrued your argument, but reducing the dispute to a question of opinion vs. not-opinion is somewhat glib. Apart from easily observable facts, nearly everything in science and academia could be described as someone's "opinion". There is plenty of reliable sourcing for the label conspiracy theory, whether we use it in the title or not. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support move to Great Replacement. The definite article "The" turns the article into one about something that exists or once existed – that is, an actual entity. This theory, which springs from one author, has not been proven to be a process that is underway. The definite article therefore gives the theory more legitimacy than it should be entitled to and is misleading. I would also support Great Replacement theory for the same reason. Akld guy (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose far to vague. I'd support Great Replacement conspiracy theory or one with a lower case "replacement". If we are to move it it needs to be clear that this is a conspiracy theory. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This needs to be placed on hold until Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC on the use of the term "conspiracy theory" is closed RfC withdrawn

The outcome of this RfC is likely to have a material effect on this discussion. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@BDD: what do you think? Doug Weller talk 08:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It's already been withdrawn, but I don't think the result would have affected this page much anyway. The RfC proposed "broad" and "narrow" definitions of the term conspiracy theory. There are plenty of RSes, including scholarly works, describing the "great replacement" as a conspiracy theory, and none that I can see offering any supporting evidence for it. Many were already presented in the earlier move discussion. So the use of the term here would fall under the "narrow" definition in any case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't looked again today. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lack of demographic data

Not a forum. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There seems to be a lack of demographic data to universally debunk this. It's worth noting that ethnic Europeans are projected to become minorities in certain historically majority-European countries, according to reliable sources, so this theory has at least some plausibility. We should change the article to reflect that. At this time it has an overly critical tone. White Britons are projected to become a minority in the UK, for example: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/white-britons-will-be-minority-before-2070-says-professor-8600262.html https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world Fraser Anning's predictions are supported by data from Australia's 2016 census: https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/census-2016-milestone-passed-as-australian-becomes-more-asian-than-european-20170627-gwz3ow.html Maxime Bernier's and Lindsay Shepherd's claims are supported by John Ibbitson's reporting on Statistics Canada: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-politics-of-2036-when-canada-is-as-brown-as-it-is-white/article33814437/ The president of the Dublin City University has speculated that ethnic Irish could become a minority by 2050, as reported by the Irish Times: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irish-could-be-minority-ethnic-group-here-by-2050-professor-1.424517 More generally, there is this article discussing Europe including "massive populations from Africa and the Middle East, as well as Asia", from Foreign Policy: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/25/the-end-of-an-era-for-white-males/ Peter Sutherland has actually advocated "undermining national homogeneity" in EU states. That sounds a lot like support for "Great Replacement" https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395 Finally, it is well-known that White Americans are projected to become a minority by 2045: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/ Presently, there are 4 sources debunking the Great Replacement theory as "misreading of demographic statistics". Maybe we should add a Support section, discussing demographic changes in specific countries or regions. Drbogatyr (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC) This would be WP:SYNTH. Gradual demographic change does not constitute a "great replacement".Nblund talk 14:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC) According to the intro of this article, that is literally what the Great Replacement theory is. Take a look, it says verbatim, "The Great Replacement is a... conspiracy theory which states that, with the complicity or cooperation of "replacist" elites, the white French population—as well as white European population at large—is being progressively replaced with non-European peoples." As these sources demonstrate, it is a matter of fact that several ethnic European populations are being "progressively replaced with non-European peoples". I'm not saying this theory is broadly true for ALL of Europe, but it is accurate for certain countries, and that is worth mentioning. At the very least in the sections on Australia and Canada, because there are reliable sources that support Fraser Anning's and Maxime Bernier's specific claims. Drbogatyr (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Again, you're talking about original synthesis by connecting these ideas to a "great replacement". Statistics Canada does not say anything remotely resembling "whites will become a minority". It says that if current trends continue immigrants and children with at least one immigrant parent will comprise roughly half the population by 2036. I suppose if you assume no changes to current immigration levels, and assume (falsely) that all immigrants are non-white, AND apply the one drop rule to categorize all mixed race children as "non-white" you can get close to thinking this is a plausible claim. Even then, to say that this supports "Maxime Bernier's specific claim" you would have to make the racist and pseudo-scientific assumption that only pure-bred whites can be culturally Canadian. It is possible that Bernier actually believes that non-whites can never be "real Canadians", but that's not what he says out loud. Nblund talk 19:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC) In the article you cited, Bernier said that "Our immigration policy should not aim to forcibly change the cultural character and social fabric of Canada", he does not mention race, let alone "pure-bred whites" once. You should be careful when it comes to attributing statements to people that obviously did not make them, that constitutes Libel. You are correct about what my article says, and it does support his point. If immigrants and children with at least one immigrant parent will comprise roughly half the population by 2036, that would represent a pretty drastic change to the cultural character of Canada, regardless of what race the immigrants are. Do you have anything to say about the other articles I cited? Drbogatyr (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC) You did not understand what Nblund was saying, or misrepresented it, but regardless, do not invoke "libel" as an attempt to suppress disagreement, per WP:NLT. SYNTH is SYNTH regardless of your personal understanding of the topic. Your assertion that this hypothetical outcome would be "pretty drastic" is editorializing, and is completely irrelevant to this article even if it weren't. Just because something might change, in some way, doesn't mean that this factoid must apply to this conspiracy theory because you think it is obvious. This is not factual and is not obvious and doesn't support this fringe conspiracy theory in the way that you present it. As I have already tried to explain to you elsewhere, you should not seek sources which support your prior assumptions while ignoring alternative conclusions. Sources which do not mention the "great replacement" are basically useless here, and cannot be used to imply conclusions. Yes, this really is WP:SYNTH, and is inappropriate. There is nothing else that needs to be said about these sources here. Grayfell (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC) I'm not "seeking sources which support my prior assumptions", I am literally fact checking the claims in this article. As I said earlier in this thread, "the great replacement" is defined in this Wiki article's intro as "a conspiracy theory which states that, with the complicity or cooperation of "replacist" elites, the white French population—as well as white European population at large—is being progressively replaced with non-European peoples." Are we good so far? So, I am looking for reliable sources that discuss European populations being progressively replaced with non-European peoples. As you can see, I found a number of them. So, we can reliably conclude that there ARE certain countries where "European populations [are] being progressively replaced with non-European peoples", right? Do you see how this is directly relevant to the subject in the article? Drbogatyr (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC) No, please work harder to understand the problem. "Fact checking the claims in this article" is original research. We are not interesting in finding sources which potentially challenge the underlying claims of existing, reliable sources. Wikipedia articles compile reliable sources about the topic, not tangential topics. This particular collection of sources you have compiled is useless. It cannot be used to support any particular conclusion in an article, unless that conclusion is stated in each source. These sources do not make any conclusions about "the Great Replacement". If, in your opinion, they happen to support some conclusion, that's your opinion to hold, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Further, there are an overwhelming number of sources which support a contrary conclusion. If you are not looking for those, you will not find them, but those don't belong here either. Unless they specifically discuss the great replacement, of course. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 26 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved: consensus is clear to remove the conspiracy theory part. With regards to the White genocide conspiracy theory page, a separate RM can be started. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Note: per Special:Diff/890659590, there was an edit conflict during the closure. I'm readding the tag which will add it back to the queue, please could another admin, page mover or uninvolved party determine the new consensus? Many thanks, SITH (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The Great Replacement conspiracy theory → The Great Replacement – The current name is inappropriate per WP:CRITERIA in that it is not the WP:COMMONNAME used, too wordy to be a natural search term, is overprecise, and not concise. Undoubtedly it is such, but I think it represents an inappropriate trend in titling conspiracy theory articles by essentially categorizing them in their title, rather than calling them their actual common name and allowing labels like "conspiracy theory" to be relegated to the article text. Conspiracy theories aren't a special class of topics which should be exceptions to our normal titling guidelines, and we don't do our readers or editors any service by featuring that extraneous phrase in the title. I think its also reasonable to say the phrase may also violate WP:NPOV by being pushed into the title outside of our guidelines. This title also artificially constrains the coverage we can give to this topic, in that we would be limited to talking about the conspiracy theory (that this is being done intentionally) without being able to address the broader scope, such as the origins of Camus' theory. I encourage editors to read/translate the French version of the page to see what I mean. Some numbers for comparison between these two phrases (current vs proposed): NY Times 2 vs 16, CNN 0 vs 16, BBC 0 vs 17, Google Scholar 0 vs ~53. -- Netoholic @ 09:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support: per nominator. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support, although this might require some changes in the article. The proposed title is the title of the book, the title of the manifesto, the name of the conspiracy theory, the name of the purported event, and the WP:COMMONNAME. On the other hand, I see a potential NPOV violation in the proposed title as this is a fringe theory, but the "The" mostly makes it obvious that this is about a proposed theory / proper name of a work. wumbolo ^^^ 19:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support: changing the name of the article will remove bias associated with the term "conspiracy theory", making it more objective. Theories are simply assertions of ideas, and should be presented as such, whilst readers are allowed to come to their own conclusions about them. Removing the conclusions presented in the title will enhance the educational value and academic merit readers can derive from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levan Gwerin (talk • contribs) 15:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Are you kidding? This isn't even notable enough for a page. What little information there is of value should be rolled in and merged as a subset of the other White genocide conspiracy theory. But if it's not it should be CLEARLY LABELED as a conspiracy theory in the title. 208.84.155.212 (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Noting that 208.84.155.212 has been blocked. wbm1058 (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Renaming to "The Great Replacement" would be simpler, more appropriate, and possibly more accurate. Aaronfranke (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Netoholic, you call this an "inappropriate trend" in article titles. To-may-toe to-ma-toe: I call this "a reflection of the broad consensus among editors that we should call things what they are". The facts about immigration to Europe can be discussed at the page for Immigration to Europe, but for this page we should follow the example of the pages on birtherism, Pizzagate Cultural Marxism, Chemtrails, and 9/11 "Truth" and identify the thing. Nblund ^talk 18:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nblund. Putting 'conspiracy theory' in the title of unequivocal conspiracy theories has been the standard for a long time now. Additionally, the New Zealand shooter released a document with this title, which has received considerable coverage; this introduces the possibility of confusion and, of course, makes it harder to call this the common name based on simple things like Google searches. --Aquillion (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the well-reasoned policy- and guideline-based arguments of the nominator. I wouldn't mind keeping "theory" in the title, but if exactly who is behind the theorized conspiracy and precisely the means by which they execute their plot to achieve their desired objectives cannot be clearly stated in the article body, then "conspiracy" just has to be removed from the title, as coming to a conclusion not supported by the article. See my comments in the discussion below. wbm1058 (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Hypothetically, would splitting this off so that content specific to Camus was at his article, and the rest was merged with White genocide conspiracy theory solve this naming issue? Sources generally do not seem to emphasize this as a distinct theory except as it relates to Camus. Grayfell (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing any mention of genocide in a large number of sources in this article. I'm not familiar with all of them, but enough that this is not the same (this does not need emphasis in sources to be true). This is Camus's theory, but it's a very controversial one. This article can cover the various uses of it, while Camus's article adheres to BLP standards including avoiding guilt by association where possible (esp. when he denies connection). wumbolo ^^^ 22:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

To clarify for future reference, etc., the Christchurch shooter named his manifesto "The Great Replacement".

Our goal is neutrality, and "guilt" or not, the association exists. Whether we mention this association or not depends on sources. Sources already discuss Camus's supposed influence on the shooter, and if Camus disputes this, it belongs here as well. All articles need to abide by BLP, including this one.

Often we end up with multiple articles for the same thing simply because sources do not always use the same terms. I think this might be another example.

One way to address this is to trim the article to be solely about Camus's theory, but this article is already fairly thin, and it seems likely it could be consolidated. If a large number of sources discuss the shooter's fear of "white genocide" without indicating that this is fundamentally different from Camus pseudoscience, well... yeah, that's for a reason. If some use the term "genocide", and some don't, that's not necessarily proof that they are discussing different things. Grayfell (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the content is thin exactly because the article was created using the "conspiracy theory" title. Even a mediocre translation from the French page would be miles ahead of the current article here, which can be better done under the proposed title, as it allows more breadth of coverage. -- Netoholic @ 00:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Netoholic, the principal issue is the title is biased. It would be better as an article about Camus with a side not linking it to the shooting, not as a conspiracy theory linked to islamophobia and white genocide. That's utterly misplaced. An article just focused on "Le Grande Replacement" would be better and avoid this mess which is clearly POV and propaganda. 47.221.166.65 (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

What's the non-conspiracy content we're missing here, exactly? The thesis that Europe is being colonized by non-white immigrants with the help of a "transnational network of uprooted and denationalized people". It's described in a number of sources a conspiracy theory, and it fits the basic mold of an un-falsifiable "grand truth" that links together a myriad of unrelated immigration and demographic trends under a nefarious plot. Nblund ^talk 00:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The lead of the article says: "The Great Replacement" (theory) states that the white Catholic French population, and white Christian European population at large, is being systematically replaced with non-European people, specifically Arab/Berber Middle Eastern, North African and Sub-Saharan African populations, through mass migration and demographic growth.

Facts which can be proven or disproven:

• France currently has a majority white and Catholic population
• Europe currently has a majority white and Christian population
• Non-European (Arab/Berber Middle Eastern, North African and Sub-Saharan African) people are migrating in large numbers to France and Europe for various reasons
  • Escaping "regime change wars" that they may have played no role in starting or fighting
  • Escaping civil wars that they may have played no role in starting or fighting
  • Escaping drought conditions, for their own survival
  • Seeking better economic opportunities than they can find in their native countries
• These migrant populations are producing children at a higher rate than the native whites

From these facts, assuming that they are all true, it may be theorized that:

• If the current trends continue, whites will eventually become a minority demograpic in Europe
  • This is a plausible theory (indeed it has also been predicted that in the United States, non-Hispanic whites will eventually become a minority demographic too)

But, it's not clear to me where the "conspiracy" is. The lead of the article says "The conspiracy theory commonly apportions blame to a global and liberal elite, such as Brussels and the European Union, which is portrayed as directing a planned and deliberate plot or scheme to carry out the replacement of European peoples." You say "The thesis that Europe is being colonized by non-white immigrants with the help of a "transnational network of uprooted and denationalized people". So which is it? Who is behind the "conspiracy"? The liberal elite or the uprooted people?

I'm troubled by seeing "replacement" via more benign means (migration to escape wars or starvation and seek a better life, and birthrate differences) equated with genocide, which literally means systematic killing of substantial numbers of people. Is this really a theory that these starving refugees from Africa and the Middle East are actively conspiring to mass-murder the native whites in Europe? wbm1058 (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that this would not constitute a genocide. However: many advocates of the great replacement conspiracy theory have made that claim, and it is closely related to White genocide conspiracy theory - which is also rooted in a misunderstanding of the term "genocide".

Camus is calling Emmanuel Macron a member of the "transnational network of uprooted and denationalized people" - he's not referencing refugees, he's referencing cosmopolitan liberal elites. He's also probably dog-whistling about Jews, but - as Foreign Affairs documents - Camus has mostly reigned in his overt antisemitism so he can't just say that. Regardless: conspiracy theories usually don't identify a clear culprit or offer a lot of logical clarity, so confusion is totally consistent with the territory.

More importantly, reliable sources call this a conspiracy theory. Lots of them. I'm open to debating the appropriate title or the content, but I don't see much debate on the question of whether this is a conspiracy theory. "Demographic change" happens all the time. Nblund ^talk 15:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

There is both a theory that the replacement is happening (due to simple immigration, birth rates, and demographic shifts) and a conspiracy theory that says it is happening due to deliberate actions (via specific policies orchestrated by governments or political elites) - key word there is "conspiracy" as in there have to be some kind of identified "conspirators", otherwise all you are left with is "theory". It is important not to conflate these aspects when interpreting sources, and important that we handle and explain these aspects clearly for readers. This topic does elicit dog-whistling, and that is true both from the proponents and the critics of the theory and the conspiracy theory. -- Netoholic @ 16:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Facts about immigration and birth rates in Europe are called the "Demographics of Europe" not Le Grand Remplacement and we usually rely on experts like demographers for those discussions, not right-wing French philosophers. The conspirators are an "ill-defined trans-national elite of globalists that Camus has referred to as the 'Davos-cracy', liberal modernists for whom people are infinitely exchangeable units unconnected from notions of 'home' or 'culture'." (source). It sounds like you're arguing that it can't be a conspiracy theory because it's vague about the conspirators. That's par for the course. Who is the supposed culprit behind chemtrails? And where are the reliable sources supporting the claim that this isn't a conspiracy theory? Nblund ^talk 16:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The second paragraph of Demographics of Europe § Total population discusses demographic trends. It says that in most European states a declining and aging population is not offset by the current immigration level. So that may indicate the theory is incorrect. We should compare the theory or theories with facts and point out where the theory is not fact-based. Demographics of Europe § Total population could link to this topic for further information.

Maybe it's better to treat this topic in a similar fashion to Vaccine hesitancy, which although {{Alternative medicine sidebar}} lists it under "Conspiracy theories", doesn't frame the phenomenon as a theory but simply as a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or to have one's children vaccinated. Anti-vaccine conspiracy theories redirects there. Since the "theory" is so vague in defining the conspirators and their motivations, it may be better to focus on the reluctance to welcome mass immigration from Africa and the Middle East, rather than the theory behind the reluctance. There are likely multiple reasons for the reluctance, not just one single "conspiracy theory". Or focus more on what Camus himself says, if he is that significant a writer to be the prime source of the theory and this article shares the same title as his book. If the book is so central to this, then make it mostly about the book and the conspiracy theory proposed by the book. The article as it currently stands doesn't clearly explain the conspiracy the book supposedly espouses. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"Vaccine Hesitancy" is a term that is defined by the World Health Organization. Reasons for hesitancy include complacency and inconvenience, alongside mistaken beliefs about vaccine safety - it's not framed as a conspiracy theory because it isn't one. An analogous entry might be opposition to immigration. This entry, however, does not deal with general opposition to immigration. It deals with an idea that the New York Times describes as "a racist conspiracy theory... which was popularized by a right-wing French philosopher." Editors have provided multiple reputable news organizations and academic texts that offer the same description. I have not found a single source that disputes that characterization. Reasonable people can disagree about article titles, but unless you can find a reliable source that explicitly contests the description of this as a "conspiracy theory" then there's no sense debating that characterization. Nblund ^talk 19:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. The Times uses the term "conspiracy" once in that article, and they don't bother to explain what exactly the "conspiracy" is. Reading between the lines, I'd say they mean that feminist white women are conspiring not to have babies. That's yet a third culprit, after "the elites" and "the migrants". That's the trouble with this "conspiracy theory". It's not just one theory. It's like three or more theories. The Times is just a news source; that story is not based on any academic work. We can say that the Times and other news sources call this a "conspiracy theory" of some ill-defined nature, but we shouldn't call it that in our own voice if we can't find any sources that more definitively define the conspiracy. I'd say the blame is misplaced. These young women are paying off six-figure student loans. They might be facing six-figure maternity hospital bills. And they might be trying to pay for all that on sub-$15/hr salaries. If you want to increase the birthrate, offer them free college, Medicare for all and a $15/hr minimum wage. The culprits behind this are the medical-industrial complex, college administrators, legislatures cutting funding to public colleges, and the too-big-to-fail banks. Go Bernie. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not women per se, but Korte and Wendt actually document this thread of the the conspiracy theory in a chapter from their book. In addition to that academic work there are references in other academic books , journal articles , and numerous other news outlets, which describe this as a conspiracy theory involving a plot by elites to systematically replace white Europeans. I've included a non-exhaustive list (with the relevant quotes) in the section below just in case there's any doubt - but there shouldn't be any question at this point. Nblund ^talk 22:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The New Yorker wrote a piece that never used the word "conspiracy".

In Camus’s view, Emmanuel Macron, the centrist liberal who handily defeated Le Pen in a runoff, is synonymous with the “forces of remplacement.” Macron, he noted acidly, “went to Germany to compliment Mme. Merkel on the marvellous work she did by taking in one million migrants.” Camus derides Macron, a former banker, as a representative of “direct Davos-cracy”—someone who thinks of people as “interchangeable” units within a larger social whole. “This is a very low conception of what being human is,” he said. “People are not just things. They come with their history, their culture, their language, with their looks, with their preferences.” He sees immigration as one aspect of a nefarious global process that renders obsolete everything from cuisine to landscapes. “The very essence of modernity is the fact that everything—and really everything—can be replaced by something else, which is absolutely monstrous,” he said.

"Synonymous with the forces of remplacement" doesn't mean "conspiracy". "Nefarious global process" doesn't mean "conspiracy". It's not a theory that Macron "conspired" with Merkel to let Muslim refugees into their countries. It's a fact. These elite world leaders may simply have empathy for the plight of these escapees from war and starvation that Camus seems to lack. So I suppose he also thinks it's "absolutely monstrous" that cell phones have replaced a lot of landlines and that some nefarious forces conspired to make this happen. Just because a lot of "reliable" news sources claim that this is a conspiracy theory doesn't necessarily make it so. Most of the media have been saying for months that Trump conspired with the Russians, but then Mueller didn't find that he did. Trump may be corrupt and may have done some illegal things (Southern District of NY is still investigating), but he didn't need to conspire with the Russians to do any of that stuff. Hah, maybe he conspired to employ illegal Mexican maids in his hotels (because they're cheap labor) while at the same time advocating to build the wall and close down the border (because that plays his base to win him votes). wbm1058 (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Accepting Muslim refugees is not a "great replacement". You need sources that explicitly support the claim that this is not a conspiracy theory. Nblund ^talk 14:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to prove a negative. These liberal-media sources (controlled by the elites) are using the term "conspiracy theory" as an epithet (i.e. an abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrase) to delegitimize the concerns of Camus and his followers. You should be able to cite a primary source (Camus or one of his notable followers) actually using the word "conspiracy", and not just ranting about "forces of replacement" or "nefarious global processes". Playing a bit of a devil's advocate role now.

What's the conspiracy supposed to be again? How about this? The elites want a low wage source of labor. So they go bomb Libya and topple their government, for committing the sin of trying to sell their oil for some currency that's not US dollars (which is a threat to the American economy and Empire). This has the intended side effect of creating a lot of refugees who conveniently flee across the Mediterranean to supply the needed supply of low-wage labor. Or is it that Macron is an undercover Muslim who is intentionally conspiring with the refugees to turn France into a Muslim country? Are the conspirators forcing these Muslims to have sex? I understand the concerns with "forces of replacement" and "nefarious global processes". I just don't see where he has formed a theory that these forces and processes are coordinated and planned in a systematic way that makes them a conspiracy. wbm1058 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you think we go around hunting for crackpots like David Icke to use the term "conspiracy theory" before we can call them conspiracy theorists? I shouldn't have to cite this, but read WP:RS. I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to prove a positive by providing a single source that disputes the characterization. Unless you can do this, you're wasting talk page space playing devils advocate and sharing your personal opinions. Nblund ^talk 16:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with David Icke and didn't know that there even was such an occupation as "professional conspiracy theorist". Again, I cited The New Yorker which didn't say he was one. What do you expect them to say? "Camus has spent most of his career as a critic, novelist, diarist, and travel essayist. He is not a plumber, pharmacist, accountant, scientist, or musician. Nor is he a conspiracy theorist. If he were a songwriter, you would expect a source to be able to cite at least one song he wrote. wbm1058 (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

References for Conspiracy theory

References

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Note I thought the move was to "Conspiracy Theory and not away from it. So my support, as it was, was for calling this conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory. Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No move after reviewing all three RMs. There are a few things to consider. For one thing, as was pointed out in the discussion and previous ones, there is no requirement or preference for appending "conspiracy theory" to articles on conspiracy theories. While this is done in some articles for various reasons, in general the naming convention is to use the WP:COMMONNAME where available. This was the consensus in the March 2019 RM, and there's been no evidence that something other than "Great Replacement" is more common. Additionally, while it was reasonably argued that the present title may be confusing, no other articles with ambiguous names were identified. Over all, I find the !votes arguing for the present title across the three RMs more persuasive, and find a consensus not to move the article. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Great Replacement → Great replacement conspiracy theory – Moving to "conspiracy theory" is more consistent with the WP:CRITERIA on:

1. Consistency: there is an undeniable widespread convention of identifying conspiracy theories in the titles of articles. Birtherism, Cultural marxism, White genocide conspiracy theory etc. Many of the editors who favored removing "conspiracy theory" in the previous discussion even noted that they were going against the common practice on other pages, and no one has made an argument for why we would deviate here.
2. Precision: This is not an article about the phenomenon of the "great replacement". We spend almost no time discussing the substance of Camus's theory. Instead, we focus on the effects of the "great replacement conspiracy theory". By the same token: we don't have an article on The faking of the moon landing, because that would invite WP:FRINGE content. Instead, we have an article exploring the cultural impact of moon landing conspiracy theories. Our article on Pizzagate conspiracy theory is not substantially about the allegations made by Pizzagate supporters. It is about their impact on the world. Nblund ^talk 22:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 11:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Strong oppose - "identifying conspiracy theories in the titles of articles" is not part of WP:TITLES policy, and is a bogus agenda on its face. This proposed move is nowhere close to being the WP:COMMONNAME for this subject, which is identified most often as The Great Replacement based on the translated title of the Camus book. I'll point out that this is just a sour-grapes rehash of the very recent #Requested move 26 March 2019, which removed the extraneous labeling from the title. Speedy close as already handled recently. -- Netoholic @ 13:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this article about the book? If you're confused about why I opened a new discussion, you should read the close of the most recent RM. Nblund ^talk 14:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I am contesting that close currently. Yes, this article is about a book and the ideas presented within it, which is why the best title is the proper name of the book. -- Netoholic @ 20:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That might be your preference, but it clearly isn't how the article is currently written. The opening line defines it as a conspiracy theory rather than a book, and there's very little detail on Camus' work itself. Many sources, like this Washington Post article, only mention Camus' book in passing when they discuss the idea. Nblund ^talk 22:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• In the last RM, I changed my !vote to Great Replacement, since the discussion seemed to be trending that way, and I wanted to avoid a "no consensus" result if possible for the sake of adherence to WP:THE. However, I still support the proposed title here as the best choice for descriptiveness and consistency, especially vis-a-vis the closely related White genocide conspiracy theory. I remain agnostic on whether to capitalize "replacement". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin: This discussion is an effort to break the deadlock of the immediately preceding RM, and should be read together with that discussion to determine consensus. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per points made by Netoholic. Its WP:COMMONNAME is simply "Great Replacement", and whether or not it's a conspiarcy theory can be discussed in the body, it does not need to be identified as such in the title.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose there is no other "Great Replacement" to disambiguate it from, as there is for Reptilian conspiracy theory._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Came here from FT/N. WP:NPOV is a central pillar of Wikipedia and we should make plain when a conspiracy theory is such (so, to counter some arguments above, we have Chemtrail conspiracy theory and Big Pharma conspiracy theory). Since this is a conspiracy theory (/racist myth), we need to be up-front about that per WP:PSCI. Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support – (Came here from NPOVN.) I think it’s important to specify conspiracy theory in the title when there are many adherents and particularly when the theory makes accusations against living people, as in Pizzagate, or are racist in nature, as in this article. As for a guideline, WP:TITLES states that the title is about the article. This article is about the conspiracy theory, not about replacement. O3000 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose If it is or is not a conspiracy theory is irrelevant, page titles should reflect common usage, its not as if there is another great replacement readers will get confused about.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I've gone back and forth on this. I think Nblund makes a good argument for precision. This isn't about Camus' book with this name, it's not about the manifesto with this name, and we're not just talking about their ideas; it's about the broader conspiracy theory and how it exists in culture. That said, most of the other examples of when we use "conspiracy theory" add it to a name we already cover on Wikipedia (at least ostensibly a disambiguator). It may be worth discussing this at some more central location like the talk page for WP:TITLE or WP:FRINGE to talk about how to handle titles for fringe theories regardless of disambiguation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per NPOV and the fact that the article itself is about the conspiracy theory, the title should be explicit. As it stands it is likely to confuse people. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Calling it a conspiracy theory adds Wikipedia POV; Wikipedia should remain NPOV. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC).
• Kinda support. There is no "great replacement", and the article title should really reflect it, but whether conspiracy theory is the correct term, rather than, say, white supremacist narrative, I would not like to say, and I think an RfC might be an idea. Guy (help!) 21:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - It comes down to the issues of POV as per User:Xxanthippe and Disambiguation - no other Great Replacement article so no need to distinguish it. 04:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ingratis (talk • contribs)
• Support It's a conspiracy theory out of the fever dream of bigots. We should be clear from the title that we're not dealing with a real phenomenon. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I would prefer those who believe in conspiracy theories to read the WP articles and eventually change their mind, rather than having them not being exposed to contrary views because they think WP is not neutral, in that case due to its titles policy. Azerty82 (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Regarding WP:COMMONNAME: There's no clear favorite among the various forms of capitalization, but all lower casing appears somewhat more common. Most sources specify that it is a conspiracy theory in some way, and nearly all of them use scare quotes around the term for at least the first mention of the term:

List of RS mentions of great replacement

• New York Times the El Paso gunman’s manifesto mentioned the “great replacement,” a conspiracy theory that warns of white genocide.
• Washington Post The unifying thread, analysts say, is the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory,
• Newsweek Renaud Camus, the French philosopher who popularized the racist "great replacement" conspiracy theory...
• The Guardian Researchers have found that organised far-right networks are pushing a conspiracy known as the “great replacement” theory
• Al JazeeraThe term is associated with a racist conspiracy theory popular in far-right circles, known as the "great replacement".
• The Independent It refers to the so-called “Great Replacement”, a white supremacist conspiracy theory
• Haaretz[Brenton Tarrant] was fearful of “the great replacement” – a conspiracy theory revolving around the alleged replacement of whites by nonwhites.
• Telegraph Renaud Camus has expounded on the “great replacement” theory
• Time The so-called ‘Great Replacement’ theory argues that white populations are being replaced at an ethnic and cultural level...
• The Hill we also need to confront the so-called “great replacement” theory

If anything, the most common name is "great replacement" (with scare quotes included). Obviously that won't work for a title, but, unlike real historic events like the Great depression, reliable sources take steps to ensure that readers are not given the impression that it references a real phenomenon. This is also true in the sources cited in the previous RM. Nblund ^talk 22:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a valuable point; the "common name" actually includes the scare quotes used by most RSes – not just news outlets, but scholarly works such as Far-Right Politics in Europe by Jean-Yves Camus and Nicolas Lebourg, Heroism as a Global Phenomenon in Contemporary Culture, and The Oxford Handbook of the Radical Right, The quotation marks tell the reader that these authors are distancing themselves from the phrase because it's attached to an unsupported conspiracy theory, or as another author puts it, a "paranoid fantasy".

More crucially, in light of WP:NPOV, the phrase itself is a piece of propaganda, especially since it's become a white-supremacist terrorist meme. Our best option therefore is to use a neutrally-worded descriptive title that contextualizes it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• ZXCVBNM: Cultural Marxism and Chemtrails are not labeled "conspiracy theories" for disambiguation purposes as far as I can tell. I can see reasons why editors might believe that the common practice is inappropriate, but I don't quite see why editors would choose to deviate from the convention for this specific article. If we're going to title conspiracy theories as if they are real phenomena then why not move Reptilian conspiracy theory to Draconian domination of earth and Pizzagate conspiracy theory to D.C. ritualized child rape? Nblund ^talk 19:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Titles are not about distinguishing between fictional and real. Anyone can read whether it's fictonal on the page itself. Death Star is not Death Star (fictional space station). Lightsaber is not Lightsaber (fictional energy weapon)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• But surely you would acknowledge that we generally do make this distinction when dealing with conspiracy theories, correct? So why would we do something different here? If we just don't agree with the common practice, then we should be having a wider community discussion about the titling conventions for conspiracy theories.

Ultimately, it's not about "labeling" things as fiction, it's a question of article scope. I think a better analog for this entry would be something like Witchcraft accusations against children in Africa: that article does not concern itself with a detailed discussion of how "witchcraft" supposedly works. Instead, the article is about how the belief in witchcraft has impacted society. Adolescent witchcraft in Africa would not be a good description of the scope of the entry. Nblund ^talk 21:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That's because the alternative would be an POV title. "Great Replacement" does not strike me as particularly POV. Wikipedia is not endorsing the fact that there is a "Great Replacement". We don't have to clarify something like Legend of Atlantis rather than just Atlantis._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It stands out as particularly POV given that similar articles use the term "conspiracy theory" in their title. It gives the impression that this conspiracy theory is more credible than closely related conspiracy theories like White genocide conspiracy theory. I've seen no evidence to support that view. Do you just generally object to the Wikipedia convention of using the term "conspiracy theory" in conspiracy related titles? Because if that's the case, then I think it should be addressed with a far broader discussion among editors rather than arbitrarily applied to this page alone on the basis of a poorly attended move discussion. Nblund ^talk 00:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: How is "(The) Great Replacement" not POV? It posits a demographic "replacement" that reliable sources say is not happening, and adds the adjective "great" for dramatic effect. The entire utterance is propaganda. –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Is the whole article about a conspiracy theory? I have just glanced at the top two topics on this talk page, headed "Statistics" and "Splitting the two forms of the theory?", as well as the earlier page move discussions, where is a suggestion that "This page is about a [Renaud Camus] book". Well the page title is the (translated) title of the book, although it would be better with "The" restored. In the "Splitting ..." topic it is suggested that there is firstly a theory set out in the book that the make-up of the population of France (and perhaps by extension Europe) is changing - a theory which can be tested by statistics. And secondly there is the conspiracy theory which says that these changes are being deliberately engineered by some human or non human entity somewhere on the planet = which can't be tested in that way.

Furthermore, the page White genocide conspiracy theory gives in the lead an alternative name white replacement conspiracy theory. So that page already claims to cover the replacement conspiracy theory. Perhaps this page should be scaled back to discuss the theory as originally outlined in Camus' book, and conspiracy -related material should be moved into that other page. In general (WP:CONTENTFORK) Wikipedia does not like multiple pages covering the same ground. Sussexonian (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"White genocide" is generally covered as a separate (but closely related) conspiracy theory. The "testable" portion of Camus' theory is generally considered nonsensical by demographers. If your argument is "actually, this isn't a conspiracy theory", I think you're wasting your time here. The sources overwhelmingly indicate that it is. The only question is whether we are going to properly indicate that in the title of the entry. Nblund ^talk 00:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Note I've listed this RFC at WP:NPOVN and WP:FRINGEN in the hopes of getting additional participants. Nblund ^talk 16:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• We have to be wary of seeming overly needy in our "desperation" to lead our readers into knowing this is a load of old dingoes kidneys. If we are seen to be pushing a POV (not matter how correct that POV maybe) it will have the opposite effect to what we would want.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  Funny, but I don't see "Be careful not to look desperate" stated anywhere at WP:NPOV. "Describe fringe theories accurately" is, however. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Describe, we do that, but it has to be done in depth, explain why it is and how. But that description is not helped if we say "conspiracy theory" every 15 words. We can achieve this "describe it as a conspiracy theory) and leave the page title unchanged.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

But that doesn't address the problems of consistency or precision. Calling it a "conspiracy theory" is not really a POV, it is an apt description of the status of the claim and the scope of the article, similar to Woody Allen sexual assault allegation or Balloon boy hoax. Also: "conspiracy theory" is added to articles that do not need to be disambiguated. I think that convention got started with Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which isn't a disambiguation at all. Nblund ^talk 18:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

All of which I would change, but wp:otherstuff is not a very good argument, it just means they should be changed. Our job is to inform, having a title that will turn off many readers before they even get to the text is not achieving that. And someone who does not read out article will go elsewhere for their information, a place that may not be as instructive as us. It is down to use to counter fake science, not for the dedicated true believers but for the unsure, the ones who do not like (or need) to have it rammed into their faces with all the subtly of wrapping it round half a house brick.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think spinning titles so as produce some desired effect in the (presumed dumber than us) minds of imagined "many readers" is a bad road to go down. NPOV is core policy and WP:PSCI requires us to be upfront about the dodgy nature of dodgy topics. Being plain in the article title is an excellent place to start. Alexbrn (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this really seems like a speculative argument. WP:OTHER does not say "never mention other articles". "Consistency" is one of the five article naming criteria, and it pretty clearly calls for us to consider titles of similar articles. Again: if you want to change common practice, then you should start a centralized discussion rather than trying to arbitrarily deviate from a titling convention that appears to reflect a fairly broad consensus. Nblund ^talk 14:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Ingratis: I don't think anyone really cited disambiguation as a reason. I'm confused about the reasoning on WP:NPOV: lot of reliable sources indicate that this is a conspiracy theory, no one has cited a reliable source that disputes that characterization, and the first line of the entry calls this a conspiracy theory. There's not really any serious question here about what this is, so I don't see how it would be non-neutral to describe it that way in the title. Nblund ^talk 16:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reality

It's not a "conspiracy theory", but empirical and well documented reality: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/ageing/replacement-migration.asp --105.12.2.219 (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracists?

I see this called a conspiracy theory but I don't see who the espousers think is conspiring. Is it some great plot? Are there international bankers or Lizard people behind this? Or is it just racists are mad because other people are migrating where they don't want them to? Are we just using the informal definition of conspiracy theory to mean kooky theory that supposedly explains stuff that happens? 50.27.72.253 (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't decide what to call things - we follow the sources. If the reliable sources call it a conspiracy theory (just did a quick spot check - they do) then that's what we call it. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 01:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

could not find a proper academic source in the article, so I've added one myself (Taguieff). As said in the edit history: "We should avoid using journalistic sources in controversial articles (unless necessary), and rely instead on academics" Azerty82 (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Then where is your academic source for calling this a conspiracy? Fefil14 (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Pierre-André Taguieff's quote in the /definition/ section. Azerty82 (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Intentionality

Suggested edit to the lead - where it reads "is being progressively replaced by", should we add 'intentionally', to read "progressively and intentionally"?

As I understand it, one of the key tenets of the conspiracy theory is not only that this "Great Replacement" is happening, it is being done *deliberately* by some shadowy cabal of Jews and self-hating white gentiles to weaken white power and Western civilization. In other words, that the demographic change is organized and purposeful, not just that it exists. Thoughts? Ganesha811 (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we get at this point by saying that it is taking place "with the complicity of 'replacist' elites". Nblund ^talk 15:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I agree that that phrase is useful, but I'm not sure "complicity" fully covers the belief of the conspiracy theory. To me, it connotes that the 'elites' in question are allowing it to happen, not causing it to happen. I understand this is a matter of opinion and phrasing, but just my two cents. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the phrasing should be "either with the complicity or intent of 'replacist elites'"? I see your point, but I think the advocates of the theory are vague on the precise role played by elites. The Camp of the Saints/Eurabia version of the conspiracy implies that the elites are feckless and the real conspirators are the migrants themselves. Nblund ^talk 19:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I think that phrasing works! Do you want to implement it in the article? Ganesha811 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I implemented as "complicity or cooperation", feel free to change to "intent" if that sounds better ("cooperation" sounded more natural, but maybe I just like alliteration). Nblund ^talk 15:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me, that if the specific intent is not an inherent part of the theory, how it would be a 'conspiracy'? Other than claiming intentionality, the 'theory' is just a description of current demographic trends, no? Judging certain parties to be 'complicit' in events is entirely subjective, so that can't be justification for the label either. This article is a mess, in my opinion. It does note that the French author claims that this is intentional on the part of policy makers, but then proceeds to associate various other people and their remarks with it, while those don't clearly align with the author's theory at all. Enchanted Bunny (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The Great Replacement is not an accurate description of "current demographic trends", and this underlying false assumption should not go unchallenged. The article currently explains this. The article is about a theory which is, itself, a mess, but that's a feature, not a bug. Expecting a crisp, coherent summary of an incoherent theory is not realistic. If there is some specific line which causes confusion, please point it out.

Camus's proposal is slightly less messy, but the article is about the whole thing, not just this one version. Like all conspiracy theories, it is vague by design. Who gets the blame is always shifting, always vague, and always unproven. What form that blame takes is also always nebulous. There are always outsiders who can be called "elites", and their activity can be described however is most convenient to casting them as the villain. None of this, by itself, makes the theory any more likely to be true. Perhaps "elites" supposedly do this via complacency, perhaps it's by setting national policies, perhaps it's by, I dunno, "cultural Marxism" in popular music. If claims don't align with the author's theory, that may possibly be because the theory is vague garbage, not necessarily for any less mundane reason. Grayfell (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I wrote the /definition/ and /origin/ sections. I would have liked to expand the /definition/ part to better describe how Camus develops the theme of intentionality, but I've been accused in the past of giving voice to far-right people in WP articles by quoting them or describing their theories too extensively. If he just have said "the ethnic structure of said country is being modified in the long term by migrations and a drop in the birth rate", this article wouldn't exist and nobody would have called it a conspiracy theory, but at worst a very bad prediction. That said, another issue with Camus' writings is the use of strong words like 'Occupiers', 'Colonisers' or 'genocide by substitution', conspiracy theory or not. Azerty82 (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Phrasing "Scholars, widely, generally, agree" contested

I toned down the generalization at the beginning of the paragraph. The phrasing "Scholars, widely, generally, agree" is unwarranted. User:Rhododendrites reverted my change. From the cited support: Nicolas Vincour is not a scholar, he is a journalist, and he's describes *himself* as focusing on "far-right politics". Relying on his neutrality is disingenuous. Cecil Jenkins and Landis MacKellar admit to a biased method, as I show in what follows:

The health ministry organism AFDPHE published their criteria for sickle-cell testing, which boils down to "both parents african or arab, or one african or arab and the other unknown" . The AFDPHE also published the amount of newborns it tested in 2016: 39% of births. Therefore, one can conclude that 39% of newborns don't seem to have *even one* european parent. After these report circulated widely, the AFDPHE was summarily shuttered.

You'll have to admit that if enough black children are born in France, they may be French, but the original non-black population has been replaced. The moral perceptions or intentions you may want to impute on "conspiracy theorists" are irrelevant.

Demographs are counters, and authors Cecil Jenkins and Landis MacKellar indicate, in the cited snippets, that they does not count children of immigrants as agents of "replacement", while we have just seen that they are. They use a citizenship status or a religious affiliation to disguise the changes in "demos", yet they are cited as a "Demo"graphers. Their criticism is therefore demonstrably ideological, and does not support the charged phrasing "scholars" "widely accept". Furthermore "scholarly" research on this subject is strongly discouraged without regard to its accuracy or inaccuracy. I maintain that the phrasing is misleading. I do not have to prove conclusively that the paragraph is false, I only have to prove it's unwarranted: at best out of place, and at worse misleading. DegenerateWaveform (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Nicholas Vinocur is not a reliable source (I removed him from the references). From his biography on Politico: "Nick Vinocur is a Technology Editor for POLITICO in France (...) In Paris, where he spent the last five, he focused on far-right politics, terrorism and radicalism as well as union and labor issues. He also tried his hand as a fashion reporter." So Vinocur is either a polymath or a fraud. That said, you need to find SCHOLARLY sources that contest the "great replacement as being rooted in a misreading of immigration statistics and unscientific, racially prejudiced views". Azerty82 (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for re-visiting the presentation of the subject

I've hesitated for a while before writing this suggestion. I think the approach of this article is wrong, and that it should be re-visited. First of all, it should be approached like the sensitive and polarizing issue it is. In full disclosure: I believe a historic population replacement is taking place in France; I cannot be neutral towards it because I feel on the losing side of the phenomenon, and I must admit it. However, it is tiresome to see editors such as SummerPhDv2.0 policing the article, implying not only their own neutrality, but self-evident morality.

The article repeatedly uses the terms "white nationalistic", "conspiracy theory", "fantasme", "far right", "unscientific", "racist". These qualifiers would be laughed out of any other article describing sociological and historical facts, as unnecessary and biased. Significantly, they are routinely used (legitimately or illegitimately) as insults. This is a disservice to the tried and true Wikipedia policy "just the facts". I believe this comes partly from an incidental or intentional confusion, which is reflected here in the talk page. To try to untangle the concepts, avoid their moral charge, and go back to "just the facts", I propose three distinct articles:

1) Historic population replacement: the well-documented (if scientifically active) pre-historic and historic phenomenon that includes the neanderthal replacement by cro-magnon. Constructive debate can be had about Amerindians replaced in America, etc. Constructive debate can potentially be had about unprecedented contemporary migratory and reproductive pressures in every region, including, yes, Europe. Statistics, when they exist, go here.

2) Population replacement as a theoretical demographic concept, an analytical tool: any living population has three and only three possibilities:

 a) it can either produce enough offspring to replace the aging population,
 b) it can shrink, or 
 c) it can import functional replacements to take the place of the aging population.

If functional replacements have been imported, the moral or ethical implications must not push us to try to sneak a new definition of "replacement" or "population" that's so narrow as to lose its meaning. Constructive debate can be had about the 2000 UN proposal for the third possibility, or Japan's refusal of it and their attempt to turn the second into the first.

3) The observation, reception, and critique of these two concepts as related to contemporary phenomena. "Far right" framing, such as the one attributed to Renaud Camus, "The Great Replacement" (capitalized) can be described objectively. Their "conspiracy theory" aspects can be supported, and contemporary critique can be included. This article would include "far left" framing as well, which are well-documented to include celebratory claims of its inevitabily "n'ayez pas peur de quelque chose que va se passer" --Leonora Milano, 2006: Prix Louis-Guilloux, 2006: Montalembert Prize, 2006: Bernard Palissy Prize, 2006: René Fallet Prize, 2013: Prix Fémina. Statistics only go here as verifiable support or refutation of verifiable claims.

This is not the case in the current article, which reads like a mud-flinging party, and cites Mediapart, Libé, Zemmour, Buzzfeed, politicians quips, &c. &c. DegenerateWaveform (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Great Replacement is a white nationalist, far-right conspiracy theory. You appear to be simply talking about natural changes in demographics. And frankly, comments like: I cannot be neutral towards it because I feel on the losing side of the phenomenon are troublesome. O3000 (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

troublesome regardless of your feelings, full disclosure is a good-faith attempt to invite honesty and good faith from other editors.DegenerateWaveform (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, you illustrate the confusion that I'm addressing: population replacement is a concept, which describes a set of phenomena (real or imagined!). You slap capital letters to it, and attach the branded phrase to a person or group you discredit. This does not render all discussion of the phenomenon closed! I maintain that it is useful to separate "population replacement" into three ideas, and I tired to make them clear in my three entries. That being said: while I'm a scientist, I'm not a demographer. I welcome any *relevant* discussion.DegenerateWaveform (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

DegenerateWaveform, if you truly cannot be neutral about a subject, it might not be a good idea not to write about it here. By all means, write a blog about it, or get involved in activism if that's what floats your boat, but we are required to be neutral about things here, and to reflect what sources say about it without letting our personal opinions get in the way. Thanks for your good-faith disclosure, which I take in the spirit in which it was intended; please also assume that other editors such as SummerPhDv2.0 are acting in good faith, trying to keep the article aligned with the best sources rather than to inject a particular point of view. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stick to the substance of the proposal.DegenerateWaveform (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

We didn't "slap capital letters on it". Great Replacement is a thing documented by reliable sources, and this article is about that thing. O3000 (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

DegenerateWaveform, no. If you open a discussion with a comment about another editor's neutrality/morality, you cannot expect other editors to overlook that. I make no comment on the substance of your proposal, but I do ask that you assume good faith of others just as you ask others to assume it of you. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Many contributors are unfortunately confusing 'demographic replacement' (which is not the subject of this article) with the 'Great Replacement. The quote from Taguieff I had translated from French perfectly defines the difference. I would have made it red and blinking in the article if I could:

To [the theory of a replacement through mass immigration], that claims itself to be an observation or a description, is added in the "anti-replacist" vision a conspiracy theory which attributes to the "replacist" elites the desire to achieve the "Great Replacement". From the ideas of "peopling colonisation" and "mass immigration", "anti-replacists" went to that of a genocide by ethnic, racial and cultural substitution, involving the completion of a programme or an action plan.

— Pierre-André Taguieff, 2015.

Azerty82 (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

This could be explained by the fact that the article talks about the theory (capitalized) and texts only in passing ! It is peppered with value judgments such as "myth", "fantasme", "extremist". These words make a strong, moral, ideological statement about the reality outside of the theory. It then offers every politician's opinion on how there is no "population replacement" (lowercase), and the standard of proof for the contrary is legally impossible to achieveDegenerateWaveform (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I wrote the sections #definition and #origin, so I cannot be accused of being biased towards far-right theories. But other contributors are also paradoxically turning more people into right-wing extremists by their condescending manners and unwillingness to hear contradictory opinions. I try to remove any unreliable source. A rock star was even used as a source in the article a couple of months ago. Azerty82 (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

"I try to remove any unreliable source". No, yes, I've seen that, and I respect your work. Given the nature of the subject, and the fact that everyone has an opinion on it, I imagine it's a lot of work, and the fact that the article is as objective as it is is a credit to you. I maintain that a true encyclopedia article would limit itself to the theory, and disambiguate to quasi-homonymic concepts. However, we're ideological beings, and even if I convince you, I can't convince the thousands of contributors which I won't criticize here. Have a good day sincerely. I'm checking out of the discussion permanently.DegenerateWaveform (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

What I tried to show is that the Great Replacement shares themes and concepts with older far-rights theories. Before those edits, the article displayed a "quasi-genetic" relationship from Drumont up to the Nazis and Camus. Which is not what reliable sources state (and by reliable, I mean a specialist of the far-right. Any other source should be avoided if possible). As I said, I'm open to the discussion and try to be as neutral as possible. You shouldn't quit the conversation and instead provide reliable sources in order to improve the article. Azerty82 (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, the disambiguation links to more crazy nazis, while good faith disambiguation would point to my entries 1 and 2: the historical phenomenon, and the legitimate theoretical conceptDegenerateWaveform (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be missing the point. This article is about the unscientific, racist theory named Great Replacement. O3000 (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@DegenerateWaveform: disambiguation by its nature links to articles, but you haven't specified any articles. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Note:the editor responded to this but on my talk page with a personal attack, which I've deleted. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'd quit the discussion, and I'm not interested in chatting. I'm only here one last time because I don't want your falsehood on my record. I did not "personally attack" anyone. I pointed out that your "disambiguation by its nature links to articles, but you haven't specified any articles." is a non-sequitur. The "but" in the sentence is misleading and the fragments it links are not incompatible between them. I stated that you imply I omitted something, and by its placement, you fling mud at the discussion without addressing the substance. DegenerateWaveform (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

DegenerateWaveform, therein lies the personal attack. Accusing Doug Weller of flinging mud at the discussion is indeed an attack on his motivations, another failure to assume good faith of other editors. I think that your decision to leave this discussion is indeed for the best, since you seem to be having difficulty in engaging constructively with others. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a a white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory. I am quite biased here, in that I believe the article should discuss what independent reliable sources say about the topic. In-universe sources discussing evidence that they think supports the theory are not independent sources (and typically aren't particularly reliable).

This article does not and should not present all of the evidence and let the reader decide. That is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia does not present evidence and leave it to readers to decide if HIV causes AIDS or not, the Earth is flat or spherical, the Holocaust killed millions of people or not, etc. Based on independent reliable sources, Wikipedia says quite directly that HIV causes AIDS, the Earth is spherical, the Holocaust was a genocide that murdered six million Jews and the Great Replacement is a white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory.

Yes, changing demographics are a piece of the claim. Saying the population is becoming more heterogeneous is likely true, but does not demonstrate or imply that there is an active occult conspiracy controlling the world any more than saying the Earth is not a perfect sphere demonstrates or implies the Earth is flat. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE

Not here to build an encyclopedia.

This Article is Far Left and the Series Converges This article starts off with a citation from a New York Times Opinion article in the Technology section. Mediafactcheck.com rates New YorK Times as having a Left bias, and their not rates as having a very high factual reporting level. The way that birth rates work is that each woman needs to have 2.1 children in order for their genetics to be not be replaced. This isn't sexist, it's not racist, it's just how genes work. If you don't reproduce at replacement rates you go extinct, like the Dodo. In Calc 3 there is a concept of an infinite series Sigma ((W/2.1)*X), where W is the Birthrate (but we use W for the weights in neural net). You divide W by 2.1 to make normalize the birthrate where 2.1 is the birth replacement rate given there is 1 man and 1 woman and they need to have 2.1 children per women so the population doesn't collapse. We normalize the birthrate by dividing it by 2.1 because 2.1/women birthrate is the same as multiply the Sum by 1.0 (i.e. it doesn't change, it stays the same) because in a Harmonic Series if W < 1.0 than it converges, and it's a Sigma because you can factor it out (I'm an engineer but please check my math). Look up the Harmonic Series on Wikipedia and you'll see that the Series converges if 0 >= W < 2.1. According to the New York Times, it's sexist that there is a minimum birthrate that you get replaced if you fall under. This is LUNATIC! Sounds like the SPLC and Fem Magazine wrote this article. I hate to have to be the one to tell you about the birds and the bees, GENES ARE NOT SEXIST! They reproduce or they die by not reproducing if they don't have an advantage over the other genes. According to the US Census Beuro, a source a lot more legit than the New York Times, white people are projected to be a minority in the US by the year 2045. The only advantage the immigrants have are they aren't feminist; it's not a good reason for them to take over, that's not actually a genetic advantage and it's not natural. When your birthrate is below the replacement rate, by the very definition of the words you are replaced. The other problem with this article and the sources it cites are that it claims this to be a "Far-right" conspiracy theory, is these claims are coming from a Country, France, where Free Speech is banned, and they call it "hate speech" there and they'll lock you up. I'm in America where hate speech isn't banned, but this article is making claims that are only try in Europe where hate speech is banned. In America, the only people who think this is a "far-right" theory are people who read this Wikipedia article or another article from someone who did. Until someone comes up with some non-biased citations, this article is required to have the false citations removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KabukiStarship (talk • contribs) 23:11, April 18, 2020 (UTC) References Negative. Whatever bias is or isn't, is decided by consensus of the contributors. Somehow, I doubt you will be able to gain that consensus to your interpertation, not least because this is neither a forum nor a soapbox. El_C 03:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC) And not just by consensus but consensus based on professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, which all note that pretty much only neo-Nazis and other other fascist white supremacists who are too stupid/weak/dishonest to admit they're neo-Nazis are the only ones claiming that the Great Replacement is something to be worried about (unlike general population drift, which people who aren't Nazis just accept is not a big deal). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC) I had tried to replace as many journalistic sources as I could with academic sources. I have just checked, the use of newspapers as sources in the three first sections is quite limited: either they are supported by a complementary academic reference, or directly quoting Camus. The first NYT quote is now also complemented with an academic source. Regards, Azerty82 (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC) The New York Times is an independent reliable source (please see WP:RS/P). The article, in the Tech section, is not in the Ed/Op section. Information from the article is verifiable. It is not a "false citation" and should not be removed. Whatever calculations you would like to make based on data you wish to use to support theories from a third source are probably great material for your blog. Here they are synthesis and have no value. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC) KabukiStarship has been indefinitely blocked as [[WP:NOTHERE|not here to build an encyclopedia. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Le Grand Remplacement et discours d'Orange - couverture.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

A little too biased?

That’s coming from a left-leaning French person who has always identified with our Socialist Party and recently even more to the left and who is totally pro-immigration and all but... honestly... this has got to be the most unbalanced and biased Wikipedia article I’ve read, and even if it’s biased to the “side” I have always been in, it’s so blatantly non-neutral that I think it does more harm than good. It completely alienates centrists and moderate right-wing people who come to it trying to see both sides of the debate and makes them sure that the article has been “kidnapped” by one side. Most people who speak of a “grand replacement” in France, which includes way more people than the article would make one think by treating it as simply a far-right conspiracy theory, are normal people who simply observe that nowadays about 10% of the French population were not born in France. Most of us, like myself, don’t see a problem with the fact that the population is changing, on the contrary, but it is undeniable that it is changing, and that’s what the ordinary French understands by “replacement”.

The vast majority of people who speak of it definitely do not claim it’s something premeditatedly done by elites and all the conspiracy claims made in the article introduction. So, honestly, the article has gone to such great lengths to take a very clear position against the movement that I fear it ends up having the opposite effect... “Great replacement” is simply a theory according to which the “Traditional” (white and catholic) population of France is being gradually replaced, and that’s it. The conspiracy theories should definitely be mentioned and a neutral article could serve a purpose to make average French people understand what both sides actually claim and see why the replacement is not happening as fast as one thinks nor is it a bad thing, but as it is now, the introduction already puts off anyone wanting to learn about it as a very clearly biased, non-encyclopedic text. 2A01:CB01:302B:C400:B8BD:5DE6:6365:6469 (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget the percentage of newborns to parents from outside France. Then the real demographic view will arise. Anyways, your observations are mostly correct.--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

User Objective3000 states including the fact of demographic shift requires discussion

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 beleive in the Great Replacement Theory. Minutes later they are discussion how the Democrats will take Texas in 2030 because of demographic shift. I realize this page claims to be about the french far right theory but did they generalize their theory to America? Is this conspiracy theory larger than just a "French" theory? THe post that was removed by user Objective3000 is 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.

There are a few problems. First, what does the population of Texas have to do with Europe? Secondly, what does an organic change in population have to do with a theory that elitists are purposely orchestration a demographic shift. Thirdly, posting government statistics suggesting that they are related to this theory is original research using a primary source, which we don't do here. We just document what reliable secondary sources say. O3000 (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia merely summarizes what reliable sources say about a subject. A source that is not directly discussing the "Great Replacement Theory" does not say anything about the subject for us to summarize. Including it would be synthesis. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

References