Talk:Great Replacement conspiracy theory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

theory and conspiracy

@Netoholic: regarding this edit: It seems like you're sort of just ignoring the ongoing talk page discussion that addresses this issue. In this section I included multiple cites that explicitly called this a conspiracy theory, and I haven't seen a single source that disputes this characterization. Sources 1 and 7 explicitly reference Camus as the originator of a conspiracy theory. Can you cite a single source that supports the claim that far-right groups "later" turned Camus' theory into a conspiracy theory? Or that supports distinguishing "conspiratorial" and "non-conspiratorial" variants? Nblund ^talk 17:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• note I've posted a request for additional input on this and the article name discussion on the NPOV noticeboard here, not trying to move either discussion to that page.Nblund ^talk 17:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I have returned the article to status quo ante; Netoholic needs to gain consensus for their proposed changes. Sources are fairly clear that it's a conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure, I am not sure it is a conspiracy theory, but conspiracy theories have grown up using it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Even if you don't speak French, you can use a machine translation on the French article and see how much more extensive, informative, neutral, and nuanced that it is. I trust that, as a primarily French topic, they have had a lot of these discussions and debates already. I am fairly new to this topic (finding just based on the Christchurch news items), and was kind of shocked to see the disparity in article quality between the English and French. I am absolutely sure there are conspiracy theories that have arisen out of this topic, but that is not the same thing as saying the topic is entirely a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory requires some named conspirators though, and Camus and others, based on the sources used here and others from the French article that will likely be incorporated someday, say that the "great replacement" is largely Camus' subjective opinion. Camus theorizes that immigration will endanger or replace French culture - not because there an intentional plot to do so, but a consequence. Unfortunately, in this English article, the term "conspiracy theory" has been used here for a long time as a dog-whistle term, its certainly set the dogs a-barkin' here. I would ask that you at least take a machine-translated read of the French article and consider that your passions with regards to this topic may be overblown. The former name of this article was a barrier to its improvement, and so to is the plastering of the term "conspiracy theory" across the lead. -- Netoholic @ 17:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and the current lead of the French article also describes it as a conspiracy theory and describes Camus calling it "more or less deliberate" elite policy. We have multiple reliable sources that call it a conspiracy theory without reservation, and you have provided no sources at all to support your contention that there is some distinctive non-conspiratorial version of the theory. If you can't provide sources, then what is there to discuss? Nblund ^talk 01:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: OK, now this is the second time you've said "Wikipedia isn't a reliable source" and I'm close to losing my assumption of good faith about it. Its a childish statement and shows utter disrespect to fellow editors to make it. No one is saying we cite the French Wikipedia. Clearly. The French Wikipedia article on this topic though is far more developed and we should seek to emulate its basic structure, and incorporate its sources and nuanced handling into our version. There are plenty of sources, pointed out above in the RM discussion and in the article itself, and among the sources used in the French article which discuss aspects of this topic without using the term "conspiracy theory". Of course, its easy to cherry-pick by plugging "conspiracy theory + Great Replacement" into a search engine and pretend you're doing fair research about it, so demanding that we hold your hand and point out sources which don't is unfairly asking to prove a negative - but OK I'm up for the challenge. Using Google Scholar, the number of mentions of "Great Replacement" and "Renaud Camus" which do mention "conspiracy" is ~11 but the number that do NOT mention "conspiracy" is ~15. As should be obvious, this is simply not the monolithic topic topic you think it is, and NPOV coverage of it demands that we not make over-reaching statements from the outset. If you can't get that, and if you continue to make stupid statements like above, then I anticipate you are not here to actually improve this topic at all, and prefer our version of this article to stay stunted. I'd say its pretty clear where you stand in opposition to this concept, and consider that it may be tainting your chance at a neutral approach to it. -- Netoholic @ 04:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

You're saying we should add information to the Wikipedia entry on the basis of another Wikipedia entry. If you're not suggesting that we should cite Wikipedia then you're suggesting we should plagiarize it. In either case, you're still using Wikipedia as a source, and that won't work. I'm asking you to prove a positive by providing a source that explicitly supports the claim that that Camus's version is a distinct non-conspiratorial version of this theory. If the French Wikipedia has sources for this claim, find them and cite those. Assume whatever you want, but this fairly basic stuff. Nblund ^talk 14:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to take the advice at the top of this page and deny further recognition of someone who dares to make an accusation of plagiarism against another editor of good standing as a personal attack. -- Netoholic @ 02:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but you still need to seek consensus for your proposed changes. I went ahead and posted an additional request for outside input at WP:OR/N. Please refrain from edit warring in the meantime. Nblund ^talk 12:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your options are to file an RFC or drop the stick, not edit war because others disagree with your preferred version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Since its been requested that we cite sources which do not describe the Great Replacement as a "conspiracy theory", here are four[1][2][3][4]. These also happen to be the same sources recently added by Nblund, so I'll anticipate he has no problem with the lead being a little less monolithic in its description. Thanks Nblund. -- Netoholic @ 19:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

That isn't sufficient, since we have numerous sources describing it as a conspiracy theory and none of those contradict it. More importantly, your "have developed" version implies there's a clear distinction between the two topics (a conspiracy theory, and an expression), which doesn't reflect the huge amount of sourcing that covers the entire topic as a conspiracy theory. You must find sources unambiguously making that distinction if you want to state it as fact in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Another set of requirements that is simply moving the goalposts. We have numerous sources which are very critical of the concept, but do not describe it as a conspiracy theory. Also, I've shown above that most academic sources do not describe it that way. This all demands that we not state it unequivocally as such. If you really want sources that "contradict it" as a conspiracy theory, then those will come from far-right publications which specifically endorse his views... which I for one don't look forward to delving into and of course you'll likely reject anyway, and move the goalposts again. The "conspiracy theory" dog-whistle has you all dancing, and I can't help but notice its the same people that voted "oppose" to the recent RM. Pinging other participants to get their views - Wei4Green, Wumbolo, wbm1058, Aaronfranke, Grayfell. -- Netoholic @ 20:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I asked for sources that explicitly supported the claim - this is part of WP:STICKTOSOURCE. You may have misunderstood what I was asking for, but no one's moving the goal posts. A google scholar search is not a systematic method of determining weight. Nblund ^talk 02:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• We already beat this to death in the RM. A conspiracy is a secret plan or agreement between persons (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason, especially with political motivation. So, lots of sloppy sources call this a conspiracy without bothering to identify either the secret plan or the conspirators. We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid news source. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard. If we cannot find one single reliable source that specifically identifies the conspirators and their secret plan, then we simply cannot call it a conspiracy. It's as simple as that. And it doesn't matter whether you find ten or a hundred sources that call it a conspiracy without identifying the specific conspirators and their plan. At minimum, you must find one source that does identify the conspirators and their plan. wbm1058 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• If the article is titled "The Great Replacement", it is a theory; otherwise it's about an expression. This is both obvious and the way it's used by sources. Here's a source disputing that it is necessarily a conspiracy theory:
  "This vision illustrates the front-line interpretation of the theory of the great replacement, defended internally by the party right. While rejecting the "conspiracy" dimension, according to which there would be a deliberate and organized approach to substitution of peoples, the most conservative fringe of the FN deems the "great replacement" as a factual demographic phenomenon." Le Figaro
  We should consider Marine Le Pen's statement where she basically calls this a conspiracy theory ("Le concept de grand remplacement suppose un plan établi. Je ne participe pas de cette vision complotiste." [5]) But I don't think that Le Pen is a reliable source. wumbolo ^^^ 21:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  This source also cites that same interview, and has a nice summary paragraph of Marine Le Pen's views on great replacement, which like many politicians, changes a bit based on the audience. But I do like that the author has a nuanced take on this: "she acknowledges its core precept: a great replacement is in the making, but it is not a great conspiracy". --Netoholic @ 22:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• wbm1058 I believe I already supplied sources that attribute the conspiracy to cosmopolitan elites. More importantly: WP:V doesn't say we only include things if we agree with them. Can you cite some kind of policy-based reasoning? The discussions of La Pen get a little closer, but it seems like a stretch to say that Per-Erik Nilsson is endorsing some kind of fundamental distinction - it seems like the larger point is that, while La Pen publicly claims to not believe in the "great replacement" envisioned by Riposte Laique, she more or less endorses the idea of a conspiracy in less public settings. Nblund ^talk 02:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

and so the great failing of Wikipedia is perpetuated. It is that people wishing to put a particular slant on something which happens to coincide with the way in which the media slants attitudes overlook Wiki guidelines about neutral ledes and label something in a way which is known to be non-neutral. I am not a believer in the Great Replacement theory, not by a long chalk. But I stand by the need to present information without initial labelling. Sources such as The Guardian (whether this is one of those sources which call it a conspiracy theory or not, it might just as well be) are almost by definition going to call it a conspiracy theory. So I edited to remove the contentious word and my edit was almost immediately reverted. Ridiculous. Boscaswell talk 21:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

"Contentious" according to whom? If reliable sources say it's a conspiracy theory, but far-right neo-fascists say it's not a conspiracy theory... those two claims are not equal, and they are not entitled to equal validity or credence in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

so @NorthBySouthBaranof: you are accusing me of being a “far-right neo-fascist”. There can only be that conclusion to your statement. You need to take a good hard look at your ability to see things only in terms of black and white. Alternatively, you’re on report to the Admins. Boscaswell talk 02:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This admin sees no such accusation: stop personalizing the discussion, and stop using this talkpage as a soapbox. Acroterion (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I am making no such accusation. I am observing that your argument is a non sequitur to Wikipedia. You appear to be arguing that the mainstream reliable sources, such as The Guardian, which are describing this as a conspiracy theory, are doing so in a calculated effort to "slant attitudes... in a way which is known to be non-neutral." Assuming, arguendo, that you are correct... that is a problem we cannot solve. Foundational policy requires us to base our articles on what is published within mainstream reliable sources, weighted in accordance with the sources. If those sources are biased, our articles will be biased too. That is a risk we assume. What we cannot do is decide, unilaterally, that the sources are wrong and ignore them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You all seem to see it as being absolutely cast iron 110% essential that the theory be labelled the moment anyone reads even one sentence about it. I could say many things about that. It seems that the weight of opinion on here sees it as being necessary. This is wrong.

Take a quick look at the article Nazism. In the first paragraph of the lede, and this is the part of the article we’re discussing which I’ve been arguing about all along, there is no use of any emotive word at all. Now contrast that with the apparently essential use of the emotive term “conspiracy” in the first para of the lede here.Boscaswell talk 03:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Nazism is described as a far right ideology in the first paragraph. And as "fervently anti-Semitic", "pseudo-scientific", "racist" and as disdainful toward liberal democracy in the second. WP:NPOV does not prohibit us from using words that have a negative connotation when those terms accurately describe the subject. It actually says just the opposite. Nblund ^talk 03:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

“Far right” is not an emotive term. “Conspiracy” and “conspiracy theory” are. Please don’t confuse the issue by saying these other terms are in the second paragraph of that article (so it must be alright). My point has always been about the very first one and an apparent desire to, no, insistence, on including an emotive term in the very first sentence of the first paragraph. You’ll note also that the first sentence, which is the first paragraph, of the Nazism article doesn’t even state that it is far right, it merely makes that clear in a more subtle way by use of the phrase “other far right groups..” Perhaps everyone will be able to agree that it is exceedingly well-written, and that its avoidance of the blunderbus style which is so often prevalent is exemplary. Boscaswell talk 06:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you're defining "emotive terms". "Far right" has negative implications. Historically "ideology" has had negative implications. There's no particular policy based reason for avoiding any of those terms in the first paragraph, and it probably makes sense to be forthright about the nature of the idea. Nblund ^talk 12:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC) edit for a more direct comparison look at: Chemtrail conspiracy theory, White genocide conspiracy theory, Moon landing conspiracy theories, Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory, War against Islam conspiracy theory, Eurabia, New World Order (conspiracy theory) etc. This is really quite normal. Nblund ^talk 16:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This article retains the language calling the idea a "conspiracy theory". It isn't-- the Guardian and other leftwing sources sometimes use the term just as a term of abuse. Wikipedia uses news sources, which is a good thing, but that doesn't mean everything in a newspaper is a fact, something suitable for Wikipedia. Much of what newspapers do is opinion, even off of the opinion page.

A separate point is that we ought to be very careful with the term "conspiracy theory" even when it more clearly applies than here. It is a interpretation term, not a fact term, and it has a highly negative color to it. We could say that Marxism is a conspiracy theory because it argues that religion is a tool used by the elites to control the masses, but that wouldn't be suitable in a Wikipedia article, no matter how many rightwing newspapers say it. In the present article, rather than call this a "conspiracy theory", it would be better to, somewhere in the article, talk about how the theory believe that certain groups conspire to do this and that, if indeed that is what the theory asserts. Readers can then decide if it should be classified as a conspiracy theory.

I haven't take the words out, but I might at some future date, if I look back and don't see anyone opposed. Or did an admin step in at some point and decide this for us?

--editeur24 (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Counterarticle?

Is there a contradiction between this article and the Whiteshift one? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

As explained in the lede, the Great Replacement conspiracy theory is rooted in an exaggerated reading of immigration statistics, and founded on a racist vision of the nation since it implicitly implies that non-whites cannot be French. Alcaios (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sabotaged thread.

It is pretty obvious to any neutral observer that this thread is deliberately sabotaged. Certain people here go as far as to prevent an official UN report on demographic evolution to be posted here. We are talking about FACTS, not opinions. UN Reports being used as an argument by proponents of any ideology, does not make them invalid due to "lack of context" or any other excuse. On the other hand apparently there is no issue with dubious think tanks with no scientific credibility. Either get your acts together or I believe it is time for a legal action against dishonest members to have their rights to editing permanently removed. Ddelete013 (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Whatever concerns you may have about the article, legal threats (even meritless ones) are not acceptable. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

"White nationalist" in first sentence

While the GR outlook is plainly compatible with white nationalism, the only citation near this term does not use the term "nationalist" but "identitarian." (It also states that R. Camus "does not make it a conspiracy.") 73.71.251.64 (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC).

Renaud Camus' book makes no reference to skin color or to any other hereditary trait. Therefore the adjective "white" should be deleted. Since most people who criticize Camus have never read him, I here quote a passage from pp 19-20 of the French edition. I had to translate it myself, since I was unable to obtain any English edition. "It’s true that individuals can become part of a people, integrate into it, assimilate into it; and in France there have always been people who have done so, out of love for its language, its culture, its civilization, its landscapes, its history, its art of living, and simply out of love for France. ... But I have a friend, a young man, a Frenchman of Moroccan background, who is deeply attached to France, to its culture and to the French language, and is very grateful to our common homeland for all that it has done for him, he tells me. He is a teacher at a priority education zone in the Paris region. All [start page 20] his pupils, almost without exception, come from the other side of the Mediterranean, just like his own family. But he assures me that everything that in-nocents [this is a term that Camus invented and means more or less “French patriots”] like me say [about Arab youth in France] is not only true and relevant, but actually understates the way the adolescents who fill his classroom talk and think. I concede that they do not actually use the term “colonization“ but conquest is very much on their minds, and conquest is reflected in their attitudes and their speech, and in their eyes conquest is inevitable, it is merely a matter of time – and they eagerly look forward to it and take great pride in it. They laugh when their teacher, my friend, tells them that he is French just like them. They cannot believe for an instant that he is speaking seriously. They think he is trying to gross them out by saying such nonsense. When he actually told them that he was not only a Frenchman but a French patriot and very proud of his French homeland, they felt that he was really going too far, it was no longer funny, he should not talk like that, he was overdoing it." Strambotik (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use original research. That means we do favor professional secondary sources over your personal reading of the text, a reading that misses the entire classroom for the Uncle Tom. You even quoted the part "conquest is very much on their minds, and conquest is reflected in their attitudes and their speech, and in their eyes conquest is inevitable." White supremacists are happy to let Uncle Toms sit on the porch and act like they've been accepted for "acting white" as long as there's still anyone the white supremacists need to fool into thinking they're not anti-human. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally "white" isn't just about skin color or other hereditary traits, it's about race, which is a social construct. It doesn't matter whether or not Camus's second-hand anecdotal "Arab youth" have any particular hereditary trait. They are identified as outsiders by Camus. White supremacy discriminates against a loosely-defined outgroup based on shifting standards. Camus's dubious anecdote is fully compatible with white supremacy, even if anyone was silly enough to accept it at face value. Grayfell (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Criticism

This page is riddled with fallacy: something that is logically incoherent, even when it seems to make sense, else the "bell curve" of normal distribution would be disproportionate, with a greater amount of intelligent people globally, but data simply does not support such conclusion (see: any Bell Curve). The first cited source, “’They love death as we love life’: The ‘Muslim Question’ and the biopolitics of replacement” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7540673/), is problematic insofar as no data was cited: "Data sharing is not applicable to this paper as no new data were created or analyzed in this study", which is printed directly above the “Abstract” section, in the “Associated Data” section of that paper. What does this mean? It means that the two authors (Sarah Bracke and Luis Manuel Hernández Aguilar) read various sources that appeared to support an idea they had. Primarily, "It argues that concerns about ‘Muslim demographics’ within Europe have been entertained, mobilized, and deployed to not only construct Muslims as problems and dangers to the present and future of Europe, but also as calls to revive eugenic policies within the frame of [‘bio-power’]." It doesn’t mean that Bracke and Aguilar had a good idea that they tested according to the Scientific method; it means, rather simplistically, that Bracke and Aguilar were able to find enough printed material ‘to cite’ so as to provide a modicum of plausibility, which is significantly different from anything that thrives using the “Scientific method.” Of course, no one expects “liberal arts” majors to be good, let alone proficient, at math. The operative phrase, by Bracke and Aguilar, is “It argues…”

First, anyone can "argue." Children do it all-the-time, especially with their parents. This does not mean the "children" are right: 1) for arguing with their parents in the first place; and 2) that whatever they are arguing has merit. And like parents, Bracke and Aguilar simply command all of us children to believe that anyone who may hold an opposing argument is simply wrong, else they would have had their article peer reviewed. Most of the other cited sources used on this page suffer from the same type of logical incoherence. What does it mean when something is not peer reviewed? It means that there is little, if any, scholarly merit. After all, each of them hold a Ph.D., and, therefore, others (especially the laity) shouldn't "appeal to authority," since we're all kids and we don't know any better (see Argument from authority). This includes peers of theirs who may hold opposing viewpoints, or anyone using common sense.

Elementary schools in the Western world have been teaching such exercise to children for decades: 1) come-up with an argument, 2) cite sources to support your argument, 3) present your argument to the class. This is the very essence of cherry picking. Often there is no data to support such conclusions. It’s simply an exercise to get children prepared for continuing education. It appears that Bracke and Aguilar continue to use the same banal methodology as third graders, as their paper shows. It’s quite simply “us vs. them” or “he said she said.” It’s primarily tantamount to hearsay, which is inadmissible in any court of law in the Western world (except for Sharia, I would guess; and since this is okay for Bracke and Aguilar, my guess is just as good). Multiple similar instances plague this entire page and many of the references cited by the authors of, and contributors to, this page. Moreover, since Bracke and Aguilar's article was not peer reviewed, it has little scholarly value. Simply put, it is tantamount to an "opinion piece" found in most news publications worldwide, similar to the National Enquirer. This does not mean that such conspiracy theory as "Great Replacement" may be invalid; nor does it mean it is not a “conspiracy;” rather, it means that referencing numerous publications or cherry picking sources to support one's "argument" is simply non sequitur, whereby correlation does not imply causation. Additionally, simply applying unsupported terminology, ad hoc, as a broad generalization is simply not good form, whether by scholar, academic, professional, or laity. Children may get away with it but that’s because they’re children. Adults are held to a higher standard. Besides, how many parents teach their children logic 101? It appears Bracke and Aguilar skipped that class. It also appears the authors of, and contributors to, this page also skipped that class.

Additional problems with this article include its non-data driven correlation of the Great Replacement “narrative” across various unrelated cultures, aside from each being extant in Western culture or Western civilization. At modicum, the authors and contributors of this page simply make an erroneous assumption that the original narrative of Bracke and Aguilar’s paper, as applies to Muslims, erroneously applies to other ethnic cultures, such as Mexicans, in the U.S., for example. Again, Bracke and Aguilar admittedly provide no data to support any of their conclusions beyond incoherent and illogical anecdote, even if it makes them feel good. Moreover, none of the articles, citations, authors, or contributors polled any population of people from any of the countries listed on this page to determine what proportion of those populations, hold similar and/or dissimilar ideologies, as suggested by the Great Replacement narrative, are non-Caucasian, which would utterly destroy their thesis (e.g. if I have data that shows my assertion to be false, I cannot make the claim;…well, I can, but it wouldn’t be true, just like Bracke and Aguilar, and the authors of, and contributors to, this page). If they had, there would be less merit to their claims. For example, one hypothetical to determine would be to ascertain: What population of Mexicans living in the U.S. (whether legally or illegally) do not prefer integration with the Muslim community and vice versa? Moreover, Bracke and Aguilar do not even ask Muslims if they prefer and/or intend to integrate culturally into the societies to which they migrate (this begs the question: why it is okay for migrants to reject cultural integration into the society to which the migrate, but it’s not okay for a given society to reject those migrants who reject such cultural integration? – see begging the question). Why is it okay for one set of people but not the other? Furthermore, the same question can be applied to non-Muslim, black Americans; however, there is no data presented by any of the citations, sources, authors, or contributors of this page, beyond “It seems to make sense to us, so we’re going with it; besides, it makes us feel good. And we’re ‘social justice warriors’.” Another overlooked question in the article used as the corner stone of this page is the erroneous assumption that people integrating into a foreign society should not partake in cultural appropriation and overlook the extreme outcome of their conclusion: the majority of Islam is intent to supplant Western courts of Law, with Sharia, regardless of the country to which they migrate.

Of course, Bracke and Aguilar, make the blatantly false claim that such migration (i.e., e.g., whether Muslims migrating to any given “Western” country, or Mexicans to the U.S.) is due to “climate change.” Why they rest their argument on climate change and not other socio-economic, demographic, or geopolitical factors remains a mystery and, unless you’re an author of, and contributor to, this page, or Bracke and Aguilar. After all, they have no data to support any of their conclusions. The only possible reason imagined is that such narrative, if you buy into it, is this: since “climate change” is bad, then the reason for their migration is good, which is simply a huge resounding, major fallacy. All of which amounts to amount to a huge, sticking pile of bullshit.

Tony O'Connor (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

This page is in dire need of a criticism section. There are numerous fallacies and illogical leaps. Tony O'Connor (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You would need reliable sources that support your claims. Long rants are also not very useful, you should propose specific changes. Article talk pages are also not a discussion forum (WP:NOTFORUM). The WP:FIXBIAS essay may also be helpful, —PaleoNeonate – 02:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: nonsensically, you're basically asserting, "prove the source document is not erroneous." This is not a rant. ADditionally, the entire 'statistics' discussion at the top notes that there is no data. Yet the entire page exists? How is that possible? The source document is not credible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonymike17 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The previous discussions here and the archives may also be useful: this article is about the conspiracy theory, not specific demographics, —PaleoNeonate – 23:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

US Census Bearu Projects Dispute claim Great Replacement isn't happening, National Security Threat

Talkpages aren't fora for verbose analyses or vague complaints, they are for specific suggestions for article improvement. The article is about the conspiracy theory, not demographics
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
27% of California was not born in the US. In the US Census Bureau document, A Changing Nation: Population Projections Under Alternative Immigration Scenarios in Figure 1 "US Population Population Projections by Immigration Scenario(In millions)", the projected population of the US in 2060 has 4 projections: no, low, medium, and high immigration scenarios, which were 319.7 million, 376.2 million, 404.5 million, and 446.9 million respectively. Based on immigration policy there would be a difference of about 127.2 MILLION people between the no immigration and high immigration scenarios, and 70.7 million between high and low immigration scenarios. 127.2 is about 38% of the current US population. That's is undeniably a rapid demographic shift in one generation. We need some immigration but 70.7 million extra people is a lot of people and pollution and I would prefer my children to not to have to compete with that many extra people, even if they were all white conservatives. This has nothing to do with racism, it's just common sense that you shouldn't take on MORE 70.7 MILLION people when there is global warming, a epidemic of drugs and cartel crime, and limited resources. When does this stop, when we're the size of China? Democrats ARE exploiting the mass migration to control US politics by pandering to minority groups. By California being a Sanctuary State it gives them 2 extra US House of Representatives seats and the children of the migrants will Vote Blue (Democrat) no matter who. Currently US President Joe Biden gave illegal immigrants a 100 day deportation freeze that triggered a mass migration crisis at the US boarder where there are over 170,000 mass migrants as of March 2021, over 18,000 unaccompanied minors, packed into extremely over packed detention facilities that are 1700%+ over capacity. There are projections of up to 42 MILLION trying to flock to the US right now to get citizenship from Biden. Cartels are using the mass migrants to distribute narcotics. The cartels are charging up to $9,000 to smuggle migrants in, but typically they'll only have $1,000. To make up for the rest of the money the migrants are being used as drug mules and they're forced to sell narcotics and pay the debt, else their family may be murdered. The low birthrates are 100% true, but it's happening to all races of native-born Americans, so it's not a racist thing to be worried about, the future doesn't happen without kids. According to the National Vital Statistics Reports the birthrates of all Americans is 1.706 births per woman (BPW), down from 1.931 BPW in 2010. Replacement rate is 2.1 BPW because there is a man and woman and they need to have 2+ kids to keep up our population. In 2019, White Americans had 1.719 BPW, African Americans have a birthrate of 1.8325 BPW, Asians are 1.7945 BPW, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander are 2.0765 BPW, and Latinos have a birthrate of 2.0925 BPW. By bringing in so many immigrants while all of the people native to America have birthrates has the effect of replacing our population with the immigrant population. If our birthrate is low we're supposed to restrict immigration to protect the tax paying voter's family because rapid demographic changes brings conflicts, poverty, corruption, permanent underclasses, and wars. This creates a National security threat to the US when combined with rapid technological changes because the false information on Wikipedia can create a public perception that there is no mass demographic shift and fund cartel human and drug trafficking operations. Wikipedia can be edited by foreigners and foreigners interfere with our ability to self-govern and can be used for cyber war operations by hostile State actors like the Chinese Military non-State actors. The Chinese Communist Party has a long history of using Cultural Marxism to commit genocide and mass murder of Conservatives, and one tactic the CCP has used repeatedly is to use immigration to wipe out ethnicity with Great Replacement. They have billions of Han Chinese so they can use their size as a weapon. Russia also used this tactic to invade Crimea by flooding it with Russia immigrants then staging a coup. Mexico has been a GREAT partner, but it is a national security threat because the cartels have a MASSIVE drug smuggling operation across the border, allowing a parallel State that controls the Mexican government to take over California and Texas, who of America's wealthiest States and most vital to our national security. Rapid technological changes can be detrimental to a Country because people are humans who can't keep up with rapid change and they become susceptible to multi-national corporations who can seize power with the help of the entities like the Chinese Military who work together like a mafia with CCP-controlled companies to skirt US and EU antitrust laws so China can be the world's #1 superpower. That many people can't assimilate into our society at once. Immigrants tend to congregate in big cities and they have to compete with each other for wages with the illegal immigrants, forcing Latinos to be a permanent underclass in the US. This article causes real-world harm, violence, and mass murder through it's false claims that Great Replacement is a far-right conspiracy theory, and must be changed to accurately reflect the facts and remove all political bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfiniteSimulations (talk • contribs) 20:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC) References

Statistics

The only time the media (of which Wikipedia is a part) cites stats is in article's celebrating the inevitable reality of this "conspiracy theory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:5D80:1496:86D:C4D2:BDAB:908C (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Why are there no demographic statistics referenced on this article that highlights demographic changes?

I think a lot of the above deliberation about whether or not to label it as "conspiracy theory" can be put to rest simply by stating what population changes are happening in France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.147.63.29 (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is not about demographic shifts in France. This article is about a conspiracy theory that postulates a clandestine plan and an ulterior motive to explain demographic changes.

You would need an independent reliable source discussing The Great Replacement conspiracy theory to add any material to the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You are argumenting by strawman. The claim is simply "the French population in France is losing ground to the Arab and African population in France". You are attaching the qualifiers "clandestine plan" and "ulterior motive", and use them to treat proponents as conspiracy theorists and stifle any discussion, without regard to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the original claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DegenerateWaveform (talk • contribs) 10:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Without references to what's actually going on, the article reads as if there was no population replacement happening, while reputable research says otherwise. I suggest some sort of exceprt from this Pew report is somehow included in the link.2406:3400:319:C860:7114:1D1F:523:4C63 (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The report does not discuss the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, the topic of this article. It is off topic. Including it here would be synthesis. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, why are there no demographic statistics quoted regarding a theory concerning demographic change? Seems disingenuous to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.56.182.34 (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. Sources which do not discuss the conspiracy theory are off-topic. WP:FRINGE applies. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be germane to discuss demographic shifts in a background section within the article, in order to help explain where the conspiracy theory comes from. But it shouldn't be the primary focus of the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

If there were statistics showing no demographic change, or change in the direction of greater European majority, those statistics surely would have been included in this article, and nobody would be trying to argue it's synthesis or WP:FRINGE, fact-checking features prominently in other conspiracy theory pages such as 'White genocide conspiracy theory'. I agree with Rreagan007 that a background section would be helpful for readers of this article in order to fact check specific claims made by advocates of this conspiracy theory. Lolligag9 (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I added some discussion from mainstream demographers here - in general, they reject this thesis as silly nonsense. An increase in the number of Muslims is not an "extinction level event". Nblund ^talk 18:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we could do with some actual statistics in this article. Since it's just a conspiracy theory there must be lots of statistics disproving it - can someone add some? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:987:BB00:60A0:1BA1:5CE3:4308 (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, these statistics need to be shown. Any editor who says it isn't relevant is clearly someone who just doesn't want them to be shown. I cannot think of any data more relevant since the whole theory is based on said data. Bluexepnos (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Please remember that assuming good faith is fundamental to Wikipedia. If any demographic statistics are relevant, then it should be easy to find a source explicitly connecting them to the subject of the article. Anything less would be improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Good point, let's all assume good faith. Well, recently I have looked and looked in all the reputable sources online I can think of for any statistics to back up the thrust of the article, i.e. that it's just a conspiracy theory. I can't find any statistics that show that. What do we do in a situation where every reputable source, including government statisticians, disagree with wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c7:987:bb00:505:e556:d108:2266 (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Remember that the qualifying term "conspiracy theory" is absolutely not related to the idea of demographic replacement (which could be at worst a wrong observation), but to the allegation that elites are colluding in this (alleged) process. The difference is explained by Taguieff's quote at the beginning of the article. Azerty82 (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

But as mentioned before, statistics that proved there were no demographic changes, even if completely removed from the "is it a conspiracy?" debate, would still be posted in the article to support its biased point of view. The fact that there are indeed demographical changes, with ample evidence to prove them, yet those don't get posted, does a more than sufficient job at proving there is a bias in the edition of this article. Whether it is a conspiracy or not, these demographic changes should, and WOULD be discussed in the article as important explanations and background for where the "theory" came from. Of course, that's assuming Wikipedia was still a information repository instead of a partisan mouthpiece. Just don't get shocked when you lose your credibility. Journalists publicly celebrate and advertise the ever-mounting researched evidence that whites will be a minority in their countries within 50 years, while you will keep pretending it's an arcane conspiracy theory when people get upset about it.

And to answer OP's question - they only post the evidence that supports their point. Their excuse is "This isn't about demographic changes, it's about the conspirational nature of it!", yet the article itself doubles down on bending the truth so you'll either not believe there's no demographic shift happenning, or that you'll leave it feeling happy that there is one. Opinion pieces that go "only racists would think this, second generation immigrants are French too, everyone knows national identity is in no way associated with ethnicity, right?" are used as evidence that these "conspiracy theorists" are evil, while pretty much every serious demographical study (which unanimously agree it's statistically very likely that whites will be minorities in their home countries within 50 years) doesn't even get brought up. Instead, misinterpreted points get half-made ("at the time this study was made, only 10% of France was muslim, so obviously they're not replacing anyone", for example, conveniently "forgetting" the age of the study in question, differences in fertility rates between the two groups, immigration rates, etc. Nowadays, years after that study and the "10%" figure stayed behind, France has completely stopped taking an ethnic census altogether, for some reason...) by people with no credibility. If this wasn't an ideological pamphlet, but a neutral discussion on the subject, all evidence that could explain both stances would get brought up. But ironically, in trying to tear down these "conspiracy theories" by deliberately ommitting facts to harm their points and twisting them to suit your own, you give way more credence to the idea that there is coordinated effort behind this agenda. This is Wikipedia, it's where half the world comes to get its information; of course you wouldn't want people looking at all the evidence these "conspiracy theorists" have and you don't, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantis Overlord (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It feels like some editors are playing semantic games and abusing the word of the law vs the spirit of the law to suppress actual, useful facts and statistics from making it into this article. Now after reading everything on it, it feels like I know even less than before. It’s a conspiracy theory to say the native French population is being replaced, because the people coming to replace them are just as French as the former population, which is also not happening and the fact this is happening is a good thing. What a clusterfuck this article is, and with the various political interest groups lurking for their chance to push their agenda, I don’t see a chance to redeem it. RRorg (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Add link for antisemitic canard?

The phrase "Antisemitic" is linked. Canard is not, and perhaps could use one to Antisemitic canard? Or that link for the whole thing? For general reader, i.e. me? Thanks. 69.71.12.175 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. That was a link to the wrong article. Thank you for noticing. Dimadick (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Important to include Gaddafi and Erdogan as proponents of this conspracy theory

Gaddafi: 'We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.'

Erdogan 'Go live in better neighborhoods. Drive the best cars. Live in the best houses. Make not three, but five children. Because you are the future of Europe.'

Lets bring some balance to this article that is fraught with issues.Reaper7 (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I've had to revert your addition because none of your sources mention the great replacement explicitly, and are as such WP:OR. JBchrch talk 20:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

There are many sections of the article that have sources that don't mention directly the great replacement explicitly - but describe the content of the theory as do my sources which is completely acceptable such as the section on Greece for example. So I have put them back. If you wish to revert once again - revert all the others that don't mention direct the great replacement theory. You can't have it both ways. Reaper7 (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Well precisely, this is why I removed the China section... which you have reverted, thereby re-introducing OR in a Wikipedia article. Great work. I'm absolutely planning on removing all OR from this article, but if you revert the edits I do, it's going to be difficult. JBchrch talk 21:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I will watch you delete all sections that don't explicitly mention the theory, but I would advise strongly against it. If someone believes the earth is not spherical but flat - and there are articles stating he/she/it has said this - I am afraid the humanoid can be described at a flat earther on wiki even if no article has used the specific term describing him/her/it as such. This is not classed as WP:OR. As for this great replacement theory - those describing the exact theory should be included here - whether or not the article referenced included the exact term. Let us see if you continue deleting all sections that don't specifically reference the term. I have good faith you will as you appear to me not politically motivated. As I said, I will be watching. If these sections (over half the article's content) are not deleted promptly, I will assume you realised your mistake and will put back the sections I added on Turkey and Libya.To repeat, you can't have it both ways. Reaper7 (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you as a matter of reasonable discussion and debate. But as WP:SYNTH states Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. See for instance WP:NORN § List of right-wing terrorist attacks and... well... the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination). I'm not politically motivated, and honestly I'm not even sure what the political motivation would be here. As for the promptliness, I will do my best. JBchrch talk 21:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

As stated, I am sure your actions, the first you have engaged on concerning this article, were not politically motivated. For someone to be politically motivated in answer to your question - I would guess it would be someone who deletes important and noted muslim premiers spelling out the theory in quotes because it goes against their belief that this theory only has evil Western proponents. The same would be the other way round, if only muslim examples were given and not Western examples. I attempted to add balance to an article fraught with problems by using to very famous examples of non-westener leaders spelling out the theory and showing their support for it. This gives much needed context and balance and most importantly represents a WP:NPOV. The question will be there as your claim of WP:OR is dubious in this case in my opinion. However I assume good faith as stated, I will be satisfied if you delete over half the article that doesn't use references that utilise the exact phrase in the title that you demand to be included. As stated, I will be watching. Reaper7 (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I have now checked 80% of the source for the § Europe section, and removed the SYNTH sources I could find. JBchrch talk 22:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Reaper7, what is the source for the Gaddafi quote? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Here. Doesn't matter though. Although he is literally describing the definition of The Great Replacement, there is no journalist that states that he is describing the conspiracy..(they are more interested in Western leaders sadly) so the reader of the article will never know that this conspiracy exists in the muslim world which alas is a problem with wikipedia itself. Reaper7 (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

|}

WP:NOTFORUM Dronebogus (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Problem with Gaddafi: Immigrants to the EU from Muslim countries keep an appearance of being faithful because of social pressure, but very many of them are gamblers, drinkers, drugs users, womanizers, porn users, so I really doubt that they would vote for Sharia. It's like that spy film wherein they say: "The Serpent has tasted of Paradise." I.e. the Soviet agent got accustomed to the Western way of life, and this rendered him unfit for governing the Soviet Union. Problem with Erdogan: That's not even a conspiracy theory, that's empty promise, like Baron Munchausen pulls himself out of a mire by his own hair. "You are the future of Europe" does not even suggest they should take over European countries.tgeorgescu (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu "Immigrants to the EU from Muslim countries keep an appearance of being faithful because of social pressure, but very many of them are gamblers, drinkers, drugs users, womanizers, porn users, so I really doubt that they would vote for Sharia". Are you expressing your opinion here? I don't quite get what you're trying to say. JBchrch talk 22:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Well, I don't deny that Gaddafi said that, but it is not a remotely plausible scenario. He bragged too much. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu Can I ask you to clarify once again: in this comment above, have you expressed your personal opinion that "Immigrants to the EU from Muslim countries keep an appearance of being faithful because of social pressure"? JBchrch talk 04:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

If you want to quote those two as proponents of the conspiracy theory, you need reliable sources connecting them with it. Just using quotes from them and making the connection yourself is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. That is enough to not include it, and there is no need for discussion about immigrants.

Also, there is no requirement that bad content can only be removed if other bad content is also removed. See Tu quoque. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

user:Reaper7, you are wasting your time here. You have not provided any reliable third-party or even secondary sources and until you do nobody is going to listen to you. Repeating your arguments over and over is WP:BLUDGEONING and can be sanctioned Dronebogus (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)}}

People are listening to me because I have provided sources and there are plenty more. This was widely reported. If you read through thread you will notice the sources are not the problem. It is that the words “great replacement” are not used. It is like an engineer describing his car and someone stating everything he has said is redundant because he did not specifically use the word car and the article is labelled “car”.. There have been many heroic attempts to stop any mention of Gadaffi and Erdogan's quotes on this talk page, quotes which are widely sourced and not the issue. There needs to be less anger, less threats of sanctions and more acceptance of reality. They said these things and should not keep anyone awake at night in anger that these things were said or reported on. Are they suitable for this article? Of course, they describe the very concept.Reaper7 (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Who is listening? The silent majority that we all know doesn’t exist? Dronebogus (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Again.. we all know the silent majority doesn't exist? Lol Who is we? You? Either way please argue the facts. Wiki is not popularity contest. The references are there and solid, instead of threatening and acting aggressive, just be calm and explain why you think it is unsuitable despite the references and move on. No need to attempt and fail at controlling a debate. Just put your 2 cents in and be happy. Ypir input is appreciated. To repeat, this is of no threat to you. There is no edit war going on on the actual page. We are just trying to discuss this here like adults in acalm fashion. Reaper7 (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that you are not listening. As long as no reliable source connects the dots the same way you are doing, you have no leg to stand on. The references are not "there and solid". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, you are not understanding what a “reference” even is. Primary quotes do not count. And yes, you do have to find a source that EXPLICITLY calls it “GREAT REPLACEMENT and says GADDAFI and/or ERDOGAN “ARE PROPONENTS OF THIS” or something very similar. Those are the rules, which you are completely unwilling to listen to. I’m “attempting to control the debate” because there’s nothing seemingly anyone can do to change your mind and Im trying to prevent more disruptive bludgeoning without dragging you to WP:ANI where you will likely face sanctions. Consider this a warning. Dronebogus (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Deletion justified by the argument that ethnic substitution is irrelevant to the topic of ethnic substitution

On the 2nd of April 2022 I inserted the following text in the Britain section, but it was reverted by one mvbaron only 54 minutes later: "In 2006 David Coleman, a professor of demography at Oxford University, published an article called "Immigration and Ethnic Change in Low-Fertility Countries", in which he wrote: "This article explores the implications of the recent trends and projections of the ethnic or foreign-origin populations of selected European countries. It suggests that if the composition of these European populations continues to change as projected, the resulting ethnic and social transformation should be regarded as a "third demographic transition." On conservative assumptions, the foreign-origin proportions of these populations are projected to rise to between 15 percent and over 30 percent by mid-century with almost linear rates of change." Source: Immigration and Ethnic Change in Low-Fertility Countries: A Third Demographic Transition, by David Coleman, in Population and Development Review, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Sep., 2006), pp. 401-446 (46 pages), published by the Population Council https://www.jstor.org/stable/20058898". mvbaron claimed it was "irrelevant". I don't understand how an article about ethnic substitution can be irrelevant to the topic of ethnic substitution. I tried to reinsert the text, but in vain.Banderswipe (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The topic of this article is not "ethnic substitution". The topic of the article is a conspiracy theory about ethnic substitution. Since Coleman says nothing about that, the source is not relevant here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The topic of the article is not ethnic substitution, but a conspiracy theory that only a lunatic would believe in. Demographic rates have nothing to do with faith in the unreal. Dimadick (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Time to revisit article title?

Following up on this discussion, I would like to suggest that it may be time to revisit the earlier consensus on the article's title. Just over three years ago, the title was changed from The Great Replacement conspiracy theory to Great Replacement as the result of an RfC. In that RfC, it seems that the primary argument against using "conspiracy theory" in the article title was WP:COMMONNAME. Since that time, however, it seems that a preponderance of reliable sources have shifted their usage, and that "Great Replacement conspiracy theory" or some very close approximation is now the norm. Some examples:

• News: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
• Academic: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]
• Advocacy: [20][21][22]

Thoughts? If necessary I would be happy to write up a brief RfC question. Pinging Valjean, who suggested this on Doug Weller's talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Also: courtesy pinging Netoholic who launched the RfC about switching to the current title back in 2019. Generalrelative (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Since the discussion below is already turning into a de facto RfC move request, I'll complete the process below. Pinging Tryptofish, VibrantThumpcake and Wickey in case they'd like to make their !votes more explicit. Generalrelative (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Great Replacement theory, originally a far right, now a mainstream Republican conspiracy theory

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

---

Great Replacement theory Newbloom1 (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Republicans now support the Great Replacement conspiracy theory either means that the Great Replacement conspiracy theory is no longer far-right, or that Republicans are now far-right. I think it's the latter. PBZE (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Bingo! After 2016, the GOP has slid far to the right and mainstreamed extremist values, and they are still extreme right-wing values, so it is the party that has moved much further from center. See Overton window. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to be a downer but how does this thread contribute to improving the article or the encyclopedia? WP:NOTFORUM. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2022

There is a duplicate the in the article, specifically in the line 'Camus has also compared the Great Replacement and the so-called "genocide by substitution" of the European peoples to the the Holocaust.'

May somebody please replace this with 'Camus has also compared the Great Replacement and the so-called "genocide by substitution" of the European peoples to the Holocaust.'? ShyAndroid (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing this out. Generalrelative (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Due to the excessive number of unactionable edit requests and outright trolling from IPs, I've semi-protected this talkpage for a few days. Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson

I recall a section in this p. about the Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson's advocacy of the GRT. Was it removed and if so why? Just read NYT series about Carlson and the undercurrent of the entire piece which is his advocacy of white replacement by brown immigrants who have been IMPORTED by Democrats and the "ruling class" of "liberal elites." And why, Carlson asks his viewers night after night, is this liberal ruling class importing brown ppl to our shores? Because they will be obedient and vote Democratic. You could say, we'll this is just fringe wacko conspiracy theory. Yes, precisely. But Carlson is the most popular Fox News primetime host with an audience of 3 M. And he's backed by the billionaire owners of FNC, Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch (Australians), in his beliefs. Anyone going to pursue this to strengthen the section on the U.S.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talk • contribs) 05:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no contradiction between just fringe wacko conspiracy theory and popular Fox News primetime host with an audience of 3 M. A positive correlation, maybe, but not a contradiction. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The entire section of Great_Replacement#United_States shows severe bias problems. In it, for example, it accuses Carlson of promoting the "Great Replacement" theory in talking about Joe Biden. In the source article, it clearly states: At the time, Biden lauded the "unrelenting stream of immigration" to the US that began in the 1700s, and said it's not a "bad thing" that it's projected white people in the US will eventually be a minority.

So, if Carlson says it, he's a conspiracy theorist. If Biden says it, Biden is promoting "diversity", not promoting a conspiracy theory. This is a double standard and is a problem with bias in this article. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to read the source you link to? Its first paragraph says: Fox News host Tucker Carlson unabashedly pushed the white supremacist "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory on his show Wednesday night as he baselessly accused President Joe Biden of "eugenics" and allowing migrants to flood into the US in order to "change the racial mix of the country."

The source from Business Insider supports the treatment in the article and says the opposite of your claim that Tucker Carlson's screed is reasonable and is supported by the source. NightHeron (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

For the full context of the cherry-picked quote:

Carlson was taking remarks made by Biden as vice president during a 2015 summit on terrorism out of context.

At the time, Biden lauded the "unrelenting stream of immigration" to the US that began in the 1700s, and said it's not a "bad thing" that it's projected white people in the US will eventually be a minority. Biden was touting diversity, and the immigrant tradition in the US, as a source of American strength.

Carlson misconstrued Biden's words, and falsely said, "[Biden] said that non-White DNA is the, quote, source of our strength. Imagine saying that this is the language of eugenics. It's horrifying." Biden never said this.

Your comment does the exact thing the article is noting that Carlson is doing: Taking quotes out of context. Politanvm ^talk 21:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I did not cherry-pick or quote the source out of context. I quoted the whole lead paragraph of the source, which expands upon the source's title: Tucker Carlson peddled a white supremacist conspiracy theory while attacking Biden over the Haitian migrant crisis. Please don't make false charges against other editors.

My point was that the source clearly supports the treatment currently in the article, not the POV of the editor who linked to it earlier in this thread. NightHeron (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry - I was replying to Sloppyjoes7 (hence same indent level as your comment). Politanvm ^talk 02:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you responded to me, as I never accused anyone here of taking things out of context, or made false accusations against any editor. I simply made the assertion that the article in question is biased, violating Wikipedia guidelines on neutral points of view. For that, I was accused of taking things out of context, and I was accused of not reading the article I quoted. So, you seemingly responded to the wrong editor. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Sloppyjoes7, I just need some clarification. I may have missed something, so I'm not certain what you mean by "the article in question is biased, violating Wikipedia guidelines on neutral points of view." Which article? This article or the source article you quoted? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The article quoted (and linked), which is then used in the article (Business Insider), is biased. It is then used in the Wikipedia article, which therefore includes this bias and repeats it as a matter of fact. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

NPOV specifically allows the use of biased sources (whether they are biased is a matter of opinion and applies to most RS), and editors are not allowed to neuter that bias. Be neutral by presenting them as they are. I suggest you read my essay on how to use biased sources: Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear, so I'll attempt to clarify: I am saying that the article is biased, its conclusions are biased, and the source (businessinsider.com) should be questioned. I did not contest the quotes or specific facts laid out in the article, but instead the conclusions and interpretations drawn by its author. I think it violates Wikipedia standards regarding WP:NPOV and thus the conclusions drawn should be questioned, or even better, removed until/if a better source is provided. Also, I was going to get into source reliability, but User:Animalparty already beat me to this, regarding the consensus on the reliability of Insider.com on this subject. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll just mention that there is currently no consensus on the reliability of Insider.com (aka Business Insider) per WP:BI, outside of "culture" reporting (see 2020 discussion). I think in an extremely controversial social and political issue, we should be striving at all times for the best possible sources to avoid inadvertent editorial bias and provide appropriate weight and balance of views (by balance I do not mean 50-50). I'm not saying we should or shouldn't use BI in this case, but if better sources are available we might replace it. If on the other hand, nearly every other reliable source frames and characterizes the issue in the same manner, then it's fine. (and please, don't anyone accuse me of trying to white-wash Tucker Carlson's statements or defend any part of this conspiracy theory). --Animalparty! (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Have no fear. You are definitely a good faith editor. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Now Tucker Carlson backtracks after peddling a conspiracy theory cited by NY mass shooting suspect: "Carlson now insists that he does not know what the conspiracy is and that “the left” is responsible for pushing it." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

That article says "Fox News host Tucker Carlson has pushed the racist “great replacement theory” on television more than 400 times." I don't think that's accurate. Carlson regularly talks about the changing demographic of the USA and how it is projected to affect political support. Is that the Great Replacement theory? If it is, then are these articles also considered racist? Article from Podesta's CAP, Pew Researc. Carlson also played several clips on his show of prominent Democrats like Pelosi and Biden making comments about how the ongoing demographic change could help them politically. So I think we need to be careful about what the actual "conspiracy theory" is, vs what is an easily proven fact that American demographics are changing. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

This is actually something that reliable sources are clear about. Here's the NY Times: No public figure has promoted replacement theory more loudly or relentlessly than the Fox host Tucker Carlson, who has made elite-led demographic change a central theme of his show since joining Fox’s prime-time lineup in 2016. A Times investigation published this month showed that in more than 400 episodes of his show, Mr. Carlson has amplified the notion that Democratic politicians and other assorted elites want to force demographic change through immigration, and his producers sometimes scoured his show’s raw material from the same dark corners of the internet that the Buffalo suspect did. [23] We need to be careful to follow the RS and not inject our own fears about how we might be perceived into the equation. Generalrelative (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources are very clear in linking Carlson directly to the Great Replacement as a racist conspiracy theory. See, for example:

• "Tucker Carlson feigned ignorance over ‘great replacement theory,’ despite talking about it often", PolitiFact
• "No public figure has promoted replacement theory more loudly or relentlessly than the Fox host Tucker Carlson", New York Times
• "The suspect... allegedly wrote a document endorsing 'great replacement theory,' a once-fringe racist idea that became a popular refrain among media figures such as Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham of Fox News", Washington Post

So to the extent that we understand and follow WP:NPOV and reliable sources, there isn't really a question here. Of course, since approximately half of US Republicans believe in the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory to be true, it's not surprising that editors here are minimizing or mainstreaming it, but doing so is inconsistent with site policy. That said, if you find reliable sources indicating that Pelosi or Biden support this conspiracy theory, then by all means those should be added to the relevant biographies. MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

There's no RS on the planet that's going to write a story that says Pelosi or Biden support the conspiracy theory. There's no doubt they both think the changing demographics of the country will help the Democratic political party, so is the conspiracy just whether or not they are encouraging it? I am not familiar with what that particular conspiracy theory is, because this article is about a theory by Renaud Camus concerning White Europeans being replaced by Muslims. That is not what Carlson's show is referring to. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as I understand it, the "conspiracy theory" element is not the fact of changing demographics, but rather that the changing demographics are being orchestrated by, and for the benefit of, some group (Democrats, Jews, etc.). It's not a conspiracy theory to say that car accidents happen, but it would be to say they are mostly caused by lawyers to drum up business. Dumuzid (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

No RS would say that Pelosi or Biden support conspiracy theories for a very simple reason: they don't, so RS won't say that they do. The fact that demographic shifts might affect voting patterns does not mean that the demographic shifts are being orchestrated. The claim that they are being orchestrated is the conspiracy theory. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Most of the article is not about "The Great Replacement"

I observe that the bulk of the article is not about Camus' "The Great Replacement" itself. Rather, it is either about groups who use the term as a hat rack for their own ideology (notably the White genocide conspiracy theory, of which TGR is in fact a variant, or the term "Great replacement" is mentioned as being the source of inspiration and justication for some act or policy (notably in the context of immigration policy or anti-islam rhetoric). What is the sense of the enumeration of an endless number of events where TGR is mentioned as a source of inspiration (e.g. in Great Replacement#Political influence? Nearly all in last mentioned section is fully irrelevant in the context of TGR. The same is true for the next 'terrorism' chapter.

IMO, there is one, and only one, overarching theme in the original "Great Replacement" of Camus and that is 'mass immigration'. Secondly, the current article is largely about TGR as a concept or theory. I conclude

1. The correct title would be The Great Replacement for the theory of Renaud Camus, or Replacement theory for all theories similar to, and including TGR.
2. The article should be written around a few themes rather than by country, as the same themes are repeated in all countries: anti-immigrants, anti-islam, racism. I note that antisemitism is not a major item in this context and should not be mentioned in the intro. --Wickey (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Your argument in fact supports the above proposal to change the name to Great Replacement conspiracy theory, since the article deals with the issue that's much more important that Camus' original book or his original version of the theory, namely the way it's been weaponized by racist extremists and terrorists who go far beyond what Camus says he intended (and, among other things, are often antisemitic, blaming Jews for immigration). NightHeron (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion is that there should be made a choice between sticking to the The Great Replacement as it is (and therefore sticking to the name Camus used, or otherwise an article about 'replacement theories' in general and change the title accordantly.

The qualifier 'conspiracy' is a non-neutral appreciation and therefore POV. --Wickey (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Wickey, would this formulation, with the quotes, make it clearer? "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory

Also, what's the problem with the use of the "non-neutral" word? (I'm not sure what you mean by "appreciation" here.) NPOV expressly and specifically allows use of non-neutral words and sources. Instead, NPOV applies primarily to editorial neutrality while editing, not word or source neutrality, IOW, editors must not get in the way of what RS say. Our job is to document what RS say without censorship, neutering, or undue manipulation that alters meaning, such as not using a word because we, as editors, think it is not neutral (which is what you seem to be doing, which is an NPOV violation.) Don't be afraid of using non-neutral words found in sources. In fact, that is what you should usually do, and you'd do it with the fully blessing of the NPOV policy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

My answer above. My point is only that the title should be neutral.

Furthermore this item is actually about the scope of the article, which has consequenses for the title. The article should IMO be split into one article about The Great Replacement and one about Replacement theories. I hope it will be more clear now. --Wickey (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wickey policy doesn't require that the title be "neutral" and we shouldn't have an article on TGR without the current context. And that wouldn't work anyway. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I think you meant to ping Wickey as I fully agree with you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

A title should reflect the subject, not contain POVs about the subject.--Wickey (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a fact not an opinion that the "Great Replacement" is a conspiracy theory. We follow RS, and that's what RS say. NightHeron (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Wickey, we don't usually split these articles in that manner as that would be a forbidden WP:POV fork. We do not allow a fringe topic to be covered separately from what RS say about it. That's why this article, and others like it, usually have titles that describe the full content of the article, otherwise the title suggests the conspiracy theory might be true. This article is not only about the conspiracy theory but also the reception described by RS, and that makes the inclusion of "conspiracy theory" in the title essential. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not talking about a fork; I am talking about an overall article about Replacement theories. I am not a newbie. --Wickey (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

People might erroneously think you're a newbie because you don't seem to know what a POV fork is; you should read WP:POVFORK. NightHeron (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

May be, you should read it. This article has a WP:COATRACK problem. All kinds of theories are hung up on the coatrack Grand Remplacement. There is a bulk of bullshit in it. Wickey (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

If it doesn't mention Great replacement, then it may not belong here. If it does, even remotely, it likely does belong here. The article is about the topic of great replacement. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

If the topic were great replacement, it should not be written with capitals. Wickey (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That can be fixed, but you need to tell the media that also when they use upper case. Doug Weller talk 11:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

And the article would also not present it as an original theory of Renaud Camus. White genocide conspiracy theory is dated to early 20th-century and Eurabia is also older. --Wickey (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, a good example of an article using "conspiracy theory" in the title Doug Weller talk 13:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

So, you got it. "Great Replacement" is not about "conspiracy theory". Wickey (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wickey WP:DEADHORSE. Doug Weller talk 11:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

long history of replacement threat in antisemitism in USA

The USA section jumps into antisemitism at the 2017, Charlottesville rally--the slogan was "the Jews will not replace us" . This needs historical context --it goes back over a century. The history of antisemitism in US stretches back into the late 19th century when some people highlighted the supposed threat of Jews and other immigrants replacing native Americans. See Andrew S. Winston, "'Jews will not replace us!': Antisemitism, Interbreeding and Immigration in Historical Context." American Jewish History 105.1 (2021): 1-24. Rjensen (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The first paragraph of that section actually does refer to earlier antisemitism and anti-Catholic hysteria in US history. Detailed treatment of the history of antisemitism would be WP:UNDUE, and it would take us too far off topic to go into the similar history of anti-Catholic, anti-Hispanic-immigrant, and anti-Asian-immigrant hysteria, motivated in part by a false narrative seeing immigration as an invasion and replacement. NightHeron (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

"the supposed threat of Jews and other immigrants replacing native Americans." The hypocrisy of those expressing this fear of being replaced! They have no concern or shame for their actions in replacing/genocide of the original Native Americans. The fear of replacement is a white supremacist European, racist fear brought to America by the Founding Fathers and their descendants. It was okay for them to steal land and replace the Native Americans, but not for others to threaten their stolen status. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the crux of the issue -- power only flows in a top-down manner, never the other way around.

From the article on white supremacy: "In the view of philosopher Jason Stanley, white supremacy in the United States is an example of the fascist politics of hierarchy, in that it 'demands and implies a perpetual hierarchy' in which whites dominate and control non-whites."

What happens when this power structure is challenged, even if perhaps based solely on rumor? The results aren't pretty. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Valjean and IP 98.155.8.5: Please remember that this is not a WP:FORUM. Generalrelative (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. Apologies for the off-topic. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)