Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Changes to lead (article) reverted -- discussing

The lead (and entirety of the article at present) is currently:

"The white genocide is a hypothesis that purports that immigration, integration, and race-mixing are causing the white race to go extinct.[1][2][3][4] Critics of the theory link it with white supremacy and note that this theory had been cited in British colonial racial ideology.[5]"

I changed it to:

"The white genocide is a polemical term, associated with white supremacy, for the belief that immigration, integration, and race-mixing are causing the white race to go extinct.[1][2][3][4][5]"

This was reverted by an editor with edit summary '"hypothesis" sounds neutral. "polemical" is an opinion.'. So I'll open it up here.

First, I noticed we hedge the "hypothesis" with "critics...link it with white supremacy". In fact, all of the sources about this either connect it to white supremacy or come from fringe sources. Per WP:FRINGE we need to be careful to word things in such a way that does not give undue weight to fringe ideas. It's also a polemic term, as is obvious from the word "genocide" and the nature of the term's use. Perhaps "belief" with a qualifier is better than "polemtical term", but it looks to me like a neologism. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the thrust of this change, although I would characterize it more as a political "slogan", like any of the numerous other examples of this type in the white nationalist world, e.g. Fourteen Words.--Pharos (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We should call this a hypothesis, because the census bureau have actually calculated that immigration, low birth rates, intermarriage and so on will cause whites to become a minority in the USA by 2044. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/census-whites-become-minority-in-2044-hispanic-population-twice-blacks/article/2557393. Olehal09 (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That source isn't about "The white genocide". It's about demographics. If the census were to talk about the phenomenon, they wouldn't be talking about "the white genocide" because it's a -- well, "slogan" seems pretty apt -- used by advocates of a particular narrative. What we would need for this article to be about something closer to a "hypothesis" is reliable/scholarly literature/research on the subject that uses the term "white genocide". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"The white genocide project" is a internet page about this; http://whitegenocideproject.com/white-genocide-in-usa/. They belive in this hyphotesis. Olehal09 (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not exactly a scholarly (or reliable) source. I don't mean to say nobody believes in this, but per Wikipedia's rules about covering WP:FRINGE topics, we don't present anything that some group believes exactly as they present it. But this maybe unnecessary. We should probably focus on the article subject/title below before delving into specifics. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Numbers that the hyphotesus are based on

I added the number this wikipedia subject are based on, but were removed. Shouldn't these be mentioned? It is the fact that white non-hispanics will be a minority in the USA by 2045, and that the non european british population will be 30 percent by 2050 that is the basis of this page. Olehal09 (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• The problem with this is that the sources aren't specifically about the term "white genocide" and as such, can be considered original research. The sources aren't exactly the strongest either- one is by the Daily Mail, a tabloid newspaper that is considered to be unusable by many editors on Wikipedia. The other link (GlobalPost) references an AP article where the AP makes the assertion that whites will not be the majority. (A look at the graph shows that there can be a number of interpretations.) The AP is pretty depreciated on Wikipedia since the news source has frequently made errors in their prior news reports. Basically, the rule of thumb with stuff like this is to really look hard at its source. You have to kind of be careful about including things like this because you have to look at where the sources are getting their information from, what the sources are saying, and whether or not it's entirely applicable to the article. While it seems like it'd be an obvious addition at first the addition of the statistics can come across like you're trying to back up the hypothesis and give it more authority- especially since the sources were so shaky. It's not that I don't think that statistics should never be added, just that they need to be done in an extremely careful manner and that the sources should explicitly mention this hypothesis. Now a good alternative would be to see if one of the more visible groups used census data to back up their hypothesis. If they did and the group is visible enough then you could phrase it along the lines of "(Insert name), one of the groups that espouses this hypothesis, has backed up their claims by citing census statistics from (insert time period) that they claim shows that Caucasians/whites no longer be a majority by the year (insert date)." You need to be very specific in showing that this is their hypothesis and most of all, you need to make sure that you aren't claiming it as a fact. So far all that's out there are tentative projections made by the Census Bureau, who likely did not make this with the white genocide theory in mind. I'm just going in circles now, but the basic thing here is to be very, very careful about how you cite things- especially when it comes to anything that is even remotely controversial since it can be interpreted in multiple ways, most of which are likely unintentional. There are ways to get around stuff like this, but even then those ways need to be very carefully handled. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a good source from the American census bureau: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf. Here is a page from the site "whitegenocideproejct.com": http://whitegenocideproject.com/white-genocide-in-usa/. It seem to me that they back it up with numbers from the census bureau. Olehal09 (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• If you can find wording in their article that says that they use census information, you can make mention of the census. If not then all you can do is say that they quoted statistics. Again, this sort of thing needs to be exceedingly carefully done. We can't say that they're quoting census material unless they say they are. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

To the extent that there are any kind of numbers about real demographics, I think probably the best article for them would be Majority minority.--Pharos (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Scope

This article should be about the specific conspiracy theory that "elites" are manipulating Western racial demographics, not about actual historical instances of anti-white violence. Those are a very different topic, and should perhaps belong in articles associated with Category:Anti-white racism or something.--Pharos (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"Jewish driven" in lead

Starting discussion on the lead edit warring. Kivisto & Rundblad seems RS to me given that its publisher is academic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree. The book don't state that most of these people belives that the jews are behind it, the book is from the field sociollogy and seems to be what they think and not reserch. We need secondary sources or peer reviews of this book. The person continues writing about the jews, as the center of the world, perhaps because a small population are talking about them. People beliving in conspiracy theories about them, but this is not an article about such conspiracy theories. It's about this. The book does not even claim that all or a large amount of people beliving in a white genocide think it's the jews. They do use biased terms, like whites beeing privileged (with no evidence of these privileges under the law). Suddenly they write about gender, about white male conspiracy theories etc. If this flies on wiki, I think we start using "Lord of the rings" as a source on world history.

I just don't think this is sufficient in any way. Read the book here, start at page 57: https://books.google.no/books?id=hqt1AwAAQBAJ&pg=PR4&dq=Multiculturalism+in+the+United+States&hl=no&sa=X&ei=2dehVaaIIKHnygPzgau4Ag&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Multiculturalism%20in%20the%20United%20States&f=false Olehal09 (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

For clarity:

1. "Racist publications warn that white genocide and world domination are the end goal of this Jewish conspiracy. A Thunderbolt article proclaims "they hope that our seed will vanish into the Jewish contrived "melting pot" with the negroes Puerto Ricans, Asians and Mexicans in order to create a brown skinned non-White world of the future." (Kivisto & Rundblad 2000, p. 65) (Already cited in article)
2. "According to White Power article entitled "Jews Planning White Genocide," "world Jewry's chilling Final Solution [is] the physical and spiritual genocide of the White race they despise" (Ferber 1999, p. 124)

Will add more soon. -YnysPrydein (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you find any sources that this is the majority view? If you can't, we can't write that either. If that's your logic we can go right on editing many articles. Read the feminist SCUM manifesto? Kill all men? All feminists want to kill all men? Did you know that the first green movement (protecting the enviorment) were in facist Italy and that Mussolini agreed with them? All enviormentalists are facist who want to take pover with violence. All christians want to kill people of other religions. All jews are terrorists because the jewish defence leauge commited such acts in America. Olehal09 (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Sigh... go start a discussion on WP:RSN if you think the source is unreliable. To me, it's an editor compilation of articles published by an academic outlet. Seems RS enough for me. If you want to argue FRINGE, do so, but we're gonna need more sources in general. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

PS, page xix makes it clear this is secondary. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is not indeed about all White nationalists, but for want of a better term about the "White genocide" concept and movement. According to all sources on the "White genocide" concept (and the sociology publications here appear quite regular RSes), this particular current is closely associated with Antisemitism, though no doubt there is a minority who may not subscribe.--Pharos (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the sources? There are one source which say that some people belive the jews are behind this, and thats sociologists writing about some people ascribing to this theory. They don't write that all of them belives jews are behind it, they don't write that this is the majority view. So please stop with this nonsens. If you read for example this internet page about it: http://whitegenocideproject.com/about-white-genocide/. No mention about the jews. The only people who are talking about them are the two sociologists and perhaps some neo-nazis in the late 90s. And why should a conspiracy theory about a aleged white genocide be closly conected to antisemetism? It makes no sens. Olehal09 (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If this continues I would like to make two seporate article about this subject. One who are about the jewish led conspiracy, and one simply stating unknown people are behind it. Because of what I have read on this, the minority write about the jews. Olehal09 (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I have an idea that might be to the best inerest of this article. What if we write down the sociologists viewpoint that the people who belive in this conspiracy theory is neo-nazis, facist and genocidal in a separate part of the article. Then we can keep the conspiracy theory in itself without mentioning who the allegedly perpetrators are? Since we can't say what is the majority viewpoint? Olehal09 (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"High profile white nationalists, like Bob Whitaker, do not say that any particular group has anything to do with the alleged genocide." Really? It appears all reliable secondary sources say that the "White genocide" concept is closely associated with Antisemitism, and no evidence contradicts that. While it is certainly logically possible for a given individual to believe in the "White genocide" concept but not to believe in Antisemitism (though clearly this is not the case for Bob Whitaker!), there is no notable ideological grouping that has this combination of views.--Pharos (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not antisemetism. He just says that jews hate them, and that's his opinion. Anyway, that has nothing to do with genocide and guilt alloaction. 88.91.195.181 (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Olehal09 - you're saying whitegenocideproject is a better source than an academic secondary source book? You have a clear POV that academics are wrong and that believers in white genocide are not neo-nazis and facists (despite the multiple RS that say otherwise). Please read WP:NPOV. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read the sources again. No of these books, articles etc. say anything that indicates that people who belive in this theory automaticly needs to be neo-nazis. Neither that the majority of people who belives in this conspiracy theory are neo-nazis or white supremacists. This is not logical either, if you think about it. I know you have POVs, as I understand from your behavior and profile. Olehal09 (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

A Jew is effectively in uniform. He is a Jew and he would therefore be very happy if all the white Goyim disappeared from the earth. The only problem is that white gentiles refuse to understand that every word Jews utter about white gentiles is a demand for our end, our genocide, our termination.

This has been true at least since a Jewish writer invented the term “Melting Pot” in the late nineteenth century. The Yankees’ Founding Mother of America, Emma Lazarus, was know as a neophyte of the most fanatical Zionists of her day, and she demanded the melting pot for the American Goyim.

Someone has have a skull made of reinforced carbon or diamond to fail to get what Jews have been saying for at a least a century and a half to white gentiles: You must go and we must be preserved.

Whitaker is claiming here that Jews as a body have been openly pursuing the goal of "White genocide" since, um, Israel Zangwill - who, by the way, was historically actually arguing for the assimilation of immigrants.--Pharos (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. He wrote that in 2012. But that don't mean that he thinks ONLY jews are guilty of this. To say that someone hates them and want them away, don't deny that others, mostly white people want that too. As I have written. You have many more people, like Jared Taylor, who don't bother mentioning them. To write that only jews want to genocide whites in the text are simply misrepresenting them. Now I made a generous offer of adding this in a "allocation of guilt" part of this page, since it's no majority opinion, but still you want to add this nonsens. Please tell me why? Olehal09 (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And to evergreen. That some of the book, not in any way all, mentions jews, we don't need to write that they are the center of this conspiracy theory. There are some people who want jews to be at the center of everything in the world, especially these things. And they should rather take of their hats and understand that they aren't the only people living on this earth. Olehal09 (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And by the way. Here you can read most of what Bob Whitaker writes: http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/. The term "anti-white" is the only one been used. Not jews. Olehal09 (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have gone through the sources and seen if they make any mention of the jews.

• Kaplan, Jeffrey (2000). Encyclopedia of White Power: A Sourcebook on the Radical Racist Right. AltaMira Press. p. 539. ISBN 9780742503403. Retrieved 1 May 2015. - No mention
• Kivisto, Peter; Rundblad, Georganne (2000). Multiculturalism in the United States: Current Issues, Contemporary Voices. SAGE Knowledge. pp. 57–60. ISBN 9780761986485. Retrieved 1 May 2015. - Mentiones jews, but not in context. From book: "Throughout this discource, the realm of abjecture includes a number of figures, the mixed race individual and the Jew, as well as the feminized male and the masculinized female described by Butler. These figures are produced to safeguard white male hegemony."
• Capehart, Jonathan. "A petition to ‘stop white genocide’?". Washington Post. Retrieved 1 May 2015. - Not any mention of Jews. They did mention anti-white.
• "'White Genocide' Billboard Removed". NBC News. Retrieved 1 May 2015. - Not any mention of Jews.
• Sexton, Jared (2008). Amalgamation Schemes: Antiblackness and the Critique of Multiracialism. Univ Of Minnesota Press. pp. 207–208. ISBN 0816651043. Retrieved 1 May 2015. - No mention of any Jews.
• Perry, Barbara. "‘White Genocide’: White Supremacists and the Politics of Reproduction." Home-grown hate: Gender and organized racism (2001): 75-85. - Mentiones ZOG, as something some white supremacists think exist, but not in context. Mentiones a lot about that "white nationalists" want to controll white female sexuality, because they want to controll birthrates. A cartoon (is it reprecentative?) they've found says: "Most abortonists are Jews or non-white, and that the pro-abortion movement is headed by unfeminine feminists." The authors belive white male hegemony will be challanged if non-whites becomes are mathematically majority. The Author writes that jews [no mention of Jews in the texts they quote] and "mud-people" that beeing people of collor, are below Aryans (a term used for caucasians historically, but here European)acording to the people they write about. Conclusion: the authors mentiones Jews, but not not as beeing the perporators of the alleged genocide or in context.
• Eager, Paige Whaley (2013). From Freedom Fighters to Terrorists: Women and Political Violence. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 90. ISBN 9781409498575. - Not any mention of Jews, nor anything relevant to the article [conspiracy theory white genocide].
• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/billboard-white-genocide-group-ala-article-1.2074126. - Not any mention of Jews.Mentiones anti-white.
• http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2014/06/where_does_that_billboard_phra.html - No mention of Jews.
• Jackson, Paul (1 May 2015). "'White genocide': Postwar fascism and the ideologcal value of evoking existential conflicts". In Cathie Carmichael, Richard C. Maguire. The Routledge History of Genocide. Routledge. pp. 207–226. ISBN 9781317514848. - Mentiones neo-nazis after WWII. Relevant? Are everyone who subscribe to such a theory automatically nazis? Mentiones Anders B. Breivik, neither is this man a nazi (maybe he is fascist, he want to take power with violence) or did he write about Jews. Slogans written down does not say anything about Jews. Wrote something about David Lane, a neo-pagan and maybe wanted supremacy of white people, does not seem to ascribe to nazi ideas about the inferiority of Russians, Ukrainians etc. I don't know if he hated Jews, but he at lest belived Western countries are occupied by Zionists, which want to intermix its inhabitants with other peoples. David Duke seem to ascribe this genocide to liberals [And many Jews! I didn't read closely enough], with other words people who are mostly white, to this alleged genocide. Acording to this book, jews and liberals [because of liberal policies] are belived to cause this.

Is this sufficient to edit the article. I think you will agree if you read the the books, articles etc. Olehal09 (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You should probably take a closer look because Jews are mentioned at various points in Kaplan (2000). The explicit link is made in quoting George Lincoln Rockwell's writing In Hoc Signo Vinces (see p. 444-445). There's also no ambiguity over Jewish involvement according to Kivisto & Rundblad (2000, p. 63-65). It says on p. 63 "Jews are the imagined masterminds behind this grand plot to race-mix the white race out of existence. Jews are constructed as the ultimate enemy". Continuing on p. 65 "The breakdown of natural, racial boundaries is depicted as leading inevitably to interracial sexuality, part of the Jewish plan to exterminate the white race" and then further down on the right hand side: "Racist publications warn that white genocide and world domination are the end goal of this Jewish conspiracy."

We shouldn't expect news sources i.e. Washington Post, NBC, Al.com and NY Daily to explain the ideology in full so it's not really that surprising if they don't mention Jews. They're basically just reporting on what happened - distribution of leaflets and a stop white genocide banner. P.S I missed out on the title-change discussion, I think it should revert back to "The white genocide".-YnysPrydein (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You missed that they are writing about the New Order. An old "neo-Nazi" group. It's not strange that they mentiones Jews then, because they seemengly belive the Jews to be a master race (in a negative light) who are their mortal enemies. It's important to differ between the different groups of people ascribing to this conspiracy theory. You might have the old "neo-Nazi" groups who focuses on Jews, but then you have others who don't talk so much about them. Examples are Whitaker, which you can read about in the link I made above. You have also people like Jarred Taylor who don't speak about the Jews at all. The other part, which isn't such a fringe group just use the term "anti-white". As in most of the texts we have used as sources. So to conclude, I think we should write down something about the neo-Nazis, but in a own section about allocation of guilt. Because now the article only represent the ones viewing Jews as their mortal enemies. Olehal09 (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the sources Olehal09 provided, the "Jewish-driven" part should be moved down into the body of the article as it appears to be an important part, but not a defining one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I had to rewrite the part about David Duke over. He wrote that he though liberals, liberal policies and many Jews are the cause. Do you still agree that jewish-led shold be moved down in the body? Olehal09 (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir The omission of Jews in some texts does NOT mean that the author(s) disagree or are uncertain about the cause of the phenomena. Making these assumptions is a violation of WP:NOR. We have numerous sources (stated above) which explicitly state that Jews are the driving force. -YnysPrydein (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no. David Duke states that liberals and some jews are behind it. Jared Taylor are no antisemite. And Robert whitaker has stated that there are many different people behind. He call them anti-white. Now the only people represented are antisemites. I will also call it a violation of WP:NOR to claim that everyone thinks the jews are behind it when just a few sources claim some people are blaiming only the Jews. That's original original reserch. From olehal09. 194.248.100.142 (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Original research is making claims that isn't/cannot be directly supported by a given source i.e. you implying that the omission of Jews in some texts shows that the Jewish connection is a fringe view. Also it's dishonest to continue pretending that people like David Duke and Whittaker have not particular views on the involvement of Jews when I've already provided quotes/sources to show otherwise. I am simply stating what's in the source, and based on the ones available it can be reasonably assumed that Jews are seen as a driving force. If you want to add 'liberals' or other parties to the list then fine, but you seem to be intent on simply removing the Jewish reference. -YnysPrydein (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

First of all: your source say that Duke belives liberals, white or not, are doing this and some Jews. Whitaker wrote one article in 2012 claiming some Jews hate whites and want them genocided. This is condradics what he usually writes about, namely just anti-whites. People who dislike white people or Europeans. There is a few sources, by no means all, who write about this theory about Jews, uasually regarding neo-Nazis, who have dvindeling adherents. This does not mean that everyone thinks this, or that it is the majority view. This is a violation of the guidelines about no original reserch. You claim something no one else are claiming. You also ascribe Whitaker with views which contradicts what he writes today. As you can read on his wesite and the comunity he belongs to. I would advice you to add the theory about liberals, anti-whites and find more people to use as examples. Steve Good are in the community who writes about this subject, a friend of Whitaker. Read his site, white genocide project. He never write about Jews. He have also organized the white mans march. From olehal09. Mobile.2.150.82.60 (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Which source are you referring to? The one I used in the article (Bridges 1994) said: "Duke believed Jews were engaged in a conspiracy to weaken the white race by using the media to promote integration and race mixing… race mixing, Duke believed, meant white genocide" It's pretty clear isn't it? Nothing about attributing the blame on liberals or other parties. Also I don't see how Whittaker's current writing contradicts his previous statements - can't 'Jews' be included within the category of 'anti-white'? If you want to interpret this to mean that he attributes other parties then go ahead and add 'liberals' etc to the article (provided that you have a reliable source). Finally, I don't know why you keep mentioning Nazis/Neo-Nazi - I've never used the term in this discussion. It's one thing to argue that the sources aren't representative of the wider movement. But what you're doing is misrepresenting the existing sources to suggest that the sources are ambiguous on the topic of Jewish involvement when in fact the connection has been explicitly stated on numerous occasions with quotes and all. -YnysPrydein (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The one you use. In their quote of David Duke he is noted blaiming liberals and some Jews. Yes, Whitaker probably think many Jews can be put in the term anti-white, just as many non-Jewish whites are anti-white. The sources you use are about neo-Nazis. It's you who don't use the term. You are arguing that these people are representative for a wider movement. This makes it a violation of the "no original reserch" guideline. You have concluded this without any sources saying this. Olehal09. Mobile. 84.48.84.86 (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

So it looks like Olehal09 has resorted to fabricating quotes. This edit summary is a blatant lie - the term "liberal" does not appear at all on page 23 of Bridges (1994). Olehal09 tried to sneak in the phrase "...believes liberals, liberal policies and some Jews" into a direct quote, which does not appear in the original text.-YnysPrydein (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

In this source David Duke states that liberals and Jews are behind it here: https://books.google.no/books?id=v7nlCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT245&lpg=PT245&dq=%27White+genocide%27:+Postwar+fascism+and+the+ideological+value+of+evoking+existential+conflicts%22.+In+Cathie+Carmichael,+Richard+C.+Maguire.+The+Routledge+History+of+Genocide.&source=bl&ots=nQ6j_gaaRH&sig=8lb0pDjvNJR9jcQJ0711gIF-acQ&hl=no&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAWoVChMIqYnAxebhxgIVgUo-Ch14Dg7V#v=onepage&q&f=false. In this source: Jackson, Paul (1 May 2015). "'White genocide': Postwar fascism and the ideologcal value of evoking existential conflicts". In Cathie Carmichael, Richard C. Maguire. The Routledge History of Genocide. Routledge. pp. 207–226. ISBN 9781317514848. Olehal09 (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I will also say that Whitaker never claims Jews are particulary behind this alleged genocide as you've written. Jews are some of the people. He says Jews aggrigated hates white people and want them gone. But he do not hate the Jews for doing so and are using Hitler and Nazism as a means, but hates the trators. Olehal09 (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I have now reviewed this source again: Kivisto & Rundblad (2000). The New Order, one group of people belives Jews are the mastermind in the plot to mix races of men. Again I will state this; that the order thinks this, don't mean everyone does. To claim must be based on original reserch or on a mistake on your part. On Kapland (2000) there is no mention of a white genocide by the Jews, but a conspiracy theory about the Jews being in a mortal battle against whites & to rule the world. Olehal09 (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You fabricated the quote - as there is no mention of 'liberals' on page 23 of Bridges (1994). I've integrated the new Jackson (2015) reference into the sentence regarding Duke's views on the matter. -YnysPrydein (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I added another source, which states that Duke belives liberals and Jews are behind it. I thought your source was Jacksons, but it wasn't. Then I added the other. Read the book: https://books.google.no/books?id=v7nlCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT245&lpg=PT245&dq=%27White+genocide%27:+Postwar+fascism+and+the+ideological+value+of+evoking+existential+conflicts%22.+In+Cathie+Carmichael,+Richard+C.+Maguire.+The+Routledge+History+of+Genocide.&source=bl&ots=nQ6j_gaaRH&sig=8lb0pDjvNJR9jcQJ0711gIF-acQ&hl=no&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAWoVChMIqYnAxebhxgIVgUo-Ch14Dg7V#v=onepage&q&f=false. Olehal09 (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

That something is poorly worded or vage, do not make it right to remove information. I don't understand why it's so important for you that Jews should be the only ones pinpointed. What's your agenda? Olehal09 (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Also it's misleading to argue that only neo-Nazis subscribe to the theory that Jews are behind the genocide, when the sources state that this view is held within White Nationalist circles.-YnysPrydein (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If you read who they are quoting, they are usually the neo-Nazi organizations. One source claims that white nationalist organizations usually are anti-semetic, but don't define what white nationalism is. Based on nationalism and whites, I don't se any ideological reasons for these groups to hate Jews, and are usually the typical neo-Nazis. Which loves conspiracies about them. Olehal09 (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Compromise? I've added liberals to the sentence.-YnysPrydein (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Liberals and anti-whites

They aren't mentioned in Beyond Hate: White Power and Popular Culture. Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

And I reverted to the wrong version. Ok, typical. Need to make sure text accurately reflects the sources. 20:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Liberals are mentioned in this article: Jackson, Paul (1 May 2015). "'White genocide': Postwar fascism and the ideologcal value of evoking existential conflicts". David Dukes states that liberals and Jews have made policies that propetuates this. When it comes to anti-whites, it simply means people who hates white people. That people who want white gone hate whites goes without saying. When it comes to most of the sources mentioning special groups who makes this happen, they are writing about neo-Nazsis. This might be because they have for a long time been a sociaologists interest. The articles also use the terms neo-Nazi, white nationalism, neo-Facism and white supremacism interchangable, this might be due to a lack of good defentions. Still there are definitions of these terms in the dictonary, but it seems they don't adhere to them. There are multiple sources stating that Whitaker is a prominent white nationalist, and that he uses the term anti-white for people who want this alleged genocide. So I think this holds water, but can of corse be suplimented. Olehal09 (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This book, The Routledge History of Genocide, also used as source, on page 215, white genocide and anti-white are used. Because the author have read a man write: "Why are anti-whites so evil". Olehal09 (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Quick explanation for Doug Weller: my original version of the text read "Jews are cited as an instigator of white genocide" which is directly supported by all three sources. However, Olehal09 was adamant with the inclusion of 'liberal' and 'anti-white' into the opening sentence. Given that the term 'liberal' is supported in the following sentence regarding Duke's view on the matter, I later changed the text to "Jewish influence, along with liberals are cited as factors leading to a white genocide" as an attempt to compromise. It's not supported by the Beyond Hate article, but this can be corrected simply by adding the Jackson (2015) reference. The current version of the article is a mess and is factually incorrect/misleading. -YnysPrydein (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

And need to be worked out here now. You were both editwarring. Not a good idea, usually ends in tears. My personal opinion is 'liberal' needs to be sourced to Duke, if included at all (see WP:UNDUE - is this mentioned enough to include? Doug Weller (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The mention of 'liberals' isn't undue weight, as long as it's clear made clear to the readers that the sources primarily attribute the genocide to Jewish influence. The point of contention is that Olehal09 believes that those who subscribe to Jewish influence theory are either a) among the minority or b) members of neo-Nazi movement. I also reject this notion, as the sources (i.e. King & Leonard 2014,p. 100) use the term 'white nationalist': "Jesse Daniels argues that white nationalist discursively link Jews and their purported promotion of race mixing within the media through their goal of "the genocide of the white race" Given that this article is discussing white genocide within the context of white nationalism, it's fair to conclude that the Jewish influence theory is in fact a widely held belief. -YnysPrydein (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You have many sources on this issue. A couple refere to Jews, not all, and those are usually refering to a neo-Nazi movement [one refering to white nationalist, while not defining what this is], based on articles written many years ago. When it comes to the term "anti-white", we have at least one source made by a scholar and many more on prominent individuals mentioning this word, like Whitaker. And you have many web-sites talking about this, no of these web-sites I've are speaking of Jews as the only or main perpetrators. Liberals are the people usually creditet with the high non-white immigration policies in the west, so that they are mentioned often should be a given, at least Duke mentiones this.

I will personally go through all the sources and I will further try to find more on the "anti-whites" and "liberals". Jews are a protected class in the societies they inhabit, so that the few people mentioning them get more attention might derive for that. I will also say that many academics use the terms white supremacist, white nationalist, neo-Nazi and neo-Facist as the same term, without even defining or adhering to their actual defentions. Olehal09 (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I will also say that the sources never state that these people think Jews are the primary perpetrators, that is in YnysPrydein's mind. Olehal09 (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I assume that you're referring to The Routledge History of Genocide when you said that there's at least one scholarly article that uses the term 'anti-white'. I don't think you realise this but ironically, the author actually uses the phrase "Nazi-inspired political parties" and "Nazi inspired activists" when describing those who apply the term 'anti-white'(see p. 215). So by your logic, are we supposed to then assume that 'anti-White' is a fringe view used by Nazis?-YnysPrydein (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It's the same quality on every article used on this page. As stated, the terms nazi, facist, white supremacist and white nationalism is used interchangable. Acording to the dictonary it don't mean the same, but they don't use the dictonary. Example: a white supremacist is a person who belives that white people are superior to other races and should rule over them. This term is then used to describes many different people which don't belives this. You might think a society fuctiones better without thousands of different tribes fighting for special privileges, with friction and all other forms of disfunction. In proper terms they should be called white seperatist. I understand the media, they want money, but shcolars should be better. Olehal09 (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, so the term "Nazi" is acceptable as long as it fits into your point of view. But when it's contradictory then the author must using a different definition! Good to know that you're consistent with your arguments...-YnysPrydein (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I try to follow the dictonary. Something these scholars don't do. 84.48.84.86 (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph

While opinions may vary on the underlying cause of the phenomenon; Jewish influence, along with liberal political forces are commonly cited as the main factors leading to white genocide.. This view is held by prominent figures such as David Duke, who cites Jews and "liberal political ideals" as the main cause. High profile white nationalist, Robert Whitaker, prefers to call the people behind white genocide "anti-white", although he once singled out Jews as a force contributing to white genocideHigh profile white nationalist, Robert Whitaker, has employed the term 'anti-White' to describe those he believes are responsible, and he has singled out Jews as a contributing force David Lane, of the organization The Order, existed from 1984–85, wrote about this conspiracy theory in his White Genocide Manifesto, in an account critiquing race-mixing and also the "Zionist Occupation Government" that encourages it. It is encouraged by a Jewish elite according to Lane, and may have been a factor which lead to his murder of Alan Berg in 1985.

However, the view that Jews are responsible to white genocide is contested by other figures, such as Jared Taylor.

Explanation

Key differences to current version:

• It is misleading to say that Liberals, Jews and "Anti-whites" are blamed in that particular order (as written by Olehal09). Instead I believe it's better to state that there may be varying opinions on the matter. But when it comes to giving weight to the root cause, I still hold that most of the sources point to Jews as the key influence.
• Add the Jackson (2015) reference to support the inclusion of "liberal political forces" in the opening sentence. I believe "liberal political forces" linking to the page on Liberalism, is more accurate than simply saying "liberals" (Duke discusses the actions of "Liberal governments" and the author uses the phrase "liberal political ideals".
• Removal of 'anti-white' from opening sentence due to the lack of secondary sources.
• Removal of the sentence "In neo-Nazi publications they often blame the Jews for this alleged genocide, which they achieve through race mixing" as it falsely implies that the Jewish influence theory is mainly held among 'neo-Nazis'. This conclusion is not supported by the given sources.
• Rewrite sentence on Whitaker - more succinct.
• Jared Taylor section remains the same. It's not really a point of contention so I'll leave it as it is for now.

@Doug Weller:, @Pharos:, @EvergreenFir: I would like to hear your opinion on the matter. -YnysPrydein (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this generally as an improvement, but the line on Whitaker, that "he once singled out Jews" is quite inadequate - there are a number of other mentions, including Mantra Thinking on Jews, which says "I freely acknowledge that Jews in general are out to destroy the white race", but also lays out tactical difference with others. The Lane bit is also a bit rambling, and should I think focus more on his writings than crimes, while not wholly omitting the latter. The line on Taylor is totally unsupported by the source cited; Taylor is well known as an outlier in the White Nationalist community who exempts Jews, and apparently doesn't favor the idea of "White genocide", though he does argue for a state of "White dispossession".--Pharos (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Slight amendment based on Pharo's suggestion. The problem is that we don't have any secondary sources on Whitaker. -YnysPrydein (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I think this article is too focused on Jews in general. I do not think they are so obsessed with them.

• I have not got around to looking through the sources again, and finding new ones, but I will comment on your views YnysPrydein & Pharos. First of all, David Duke states that liberals, as in the people who claim to be behind liberal ideas. Because liberalism as an ideology has nothing to do with this.
• When it comes to Whitaker, I think it's very important to explain what he actually writes. He have not said Jews are an important factor in this alleged genocide, or rather disposession from their land as they actually means. He writes Jews as a group hates white people, and are very often anti-whites, he never wrote that they are an important factor. When it comes to your second source, he does not even mention this disposession, he writes about why Jews were allowed to exist in Europe while heretics did not. And your version of Whitakers belifes does not illustrate his thoughts properly. With anti-white we have at least one; https://books.google.no/books?id=6rvlCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA215&dq=anti+white+genocide&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=anti%20white%20genocide&f=false. Page 215. I will get around to find more.
• Neo-Nazis and such terms can be removed if you think it's important for the quality of this article.
• When it comes to Jared Taylor he just don't agree with the terms, but he agree with the message, acording to your source. And I don't know that he is an outliner in the so called radical right community. In the sources used; http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/jared-taylor, the Souther Povertly Law Center has written that he is different from much of the radical right, not that he is an outliner.

In a few days I'll go through the sources and find out if you have misread something or not enough, I'll also serch for more articles or books. Olehal09 (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Media" section

This appears odd and disproportionate, perhaps it should rather be a section on the whitegenocideproject.com online campaign.--Pharos (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing of books added by YnysPrydein

YnysPrydein want to sement this article to the subject of nazism and Jews. I really dislike this, because it's so dishonest. This is personal, but this is what I belive is the problem with our society. No one have any honor left. They don't want a single subject to be read about without their nonsens mixed in.

He added the following sources:

• https://books.google.no/books?id=kL10dsWEjcEC&printsec=frontcover&hl=no#v=onepage&q&f=false, p 27.
• https://books.google.no/books?id=6rvlCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA215&dq=anti+white+genocide&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=anti%20white%20genocide&f=false, p. 214-215.

The first book are posible ro read, but not page 27. It is clear that the writers start writing about christian identity on page 26. And who goes on talking about Jews, as most books made by Jews tend to do. I dubt that there are any talk about racial purity there.

The second book are talking about neo-nazis. No white supremacists are mentioned in the sentences about racial purity. We do all know what the nazis thought about racial purity. They belived races had evolved to be adapted, by intermarriage between races, their superiority would deminish. The slavs were interracial acording to the nazi, a white and Asian inferior race. The jews were inferior since they were white and arab. The Germanic were pure Aryan or white. The Japanes were pure eastern asian. Two superior races.

But do we really need to take this history lesson about the nazis in this article about a theory about genocide? The subject is not about the neo-nazi view of racial purity. Olehal09 (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You are correct in stating that the Routledge source is discussing the views of a Neo-Nazi (at least on p.214, in other places it is used when discussing "post war fascists"). If you read on, this is then followed by a blockquote which connects theme to the subject of genocide. As for the Waltman & Haas (2011) source, the authors discuss the topic under the heading of 'white supremacy' (p.27 - I've added the actual quote in the reference). I've added the two labels (neo-nazi and white supremacist) to the end of the sentence to clarify. So, what's the problem? -YnysPrydein (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

My point is that we don't need to make this a lesson about the neo-nazis ideas about race. They belive pure races are evolved to their habitate and become superior. Mixed races loose their superiority. Like the slavs, which they belived where mixed races, but later were found to be just as nordic as themselves.

Do you really think it is necessary to add all of this nonsens? I think it is very dishonest to make this an article about Jews and Nazis. Olehal09 (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Olehal09 seems to have a habit of removing sourced information for no other reason than that he/she personally disagrees with what it's saying. If you're going to invoke WP:FRINGE, then you'll need to provide evidence. -YnysPrydein (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Ynys. Can you tell me why you want to make an article about a conspiracy theory about a white genocide, to an article about jews and nazis? If you want to, we can remove the whole thing and redirect this whole article to the nazis and the jews if you want to. Or just change the name? To: "Neo-nazis, white supremacist, fascist, genocidal and evil people's conspiracy theory, about how the aryan master race/white people as a whole are being victims of love, diversity and beauty through removal". I will certanly agree to this change, because this article seems to be centered around this consept now, thanks to you. Exept that the Aryan race are were not all whites, but the Germans acording to them. Because the germans were the purest "whites", the others were racemixed and had lost their superiority. They were no longer adapted.

When I made this article, I thought to make an article about this theory, but now it's centered around nazis. A fringe group which are becoming smaller and smaller.

(Personal attack removed) Olehal09 (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

For other users, the so called personal attack were to ask if the user were Jewish, which could explain why he were obsessed with nazis and Jews. It's nothing wrong with that, and it is not an insult to be a Jew and think about nazis. By God, the nazis were bad. Olehal09 (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I don't consider that a "personal attack". @Olehal09, again if you're going to argue that it's fringe (or WP:UNDUE) then you'll have to provide evidence. -YnysPrydein (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 August 2015

WP:NOTFORUM EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
White Genocide is NOT a "conspiracy theory". There are enough MASS MEDIA clips where people are BRAGGING about white countries becoming non-white There are major prime ministers, president's, military generals, Bankers, UN spokespersons that have said it OPENLY that white countries are not allowed to remain homogeneous. NO hidden "CONSPIRACY" about it It's out in the open 75.186.144.109 (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Since the principal critic of this article has now been indefinitely blocked, I'm not sure this is necessary. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Not done: No specific request made. Please make a request in the form of "Change XXX to YYY". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected this article for a week to encourage editors to discuss their concerns instead of edit-warring. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

With the blocking of the editor who has been disruptive on this page, I have unprotected the article. I still encourage editors to discuss controversial changes or contested edits instead of edit-warring. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Theory

The White Genocide theory is that Whites are being subjected to Massive Immigration & Forced assimilation. Every proponent describes it in those 2 terms. Someone wants to remove the Forced assimilation part of the theory. To remove this portion is changing the theory, it's like changing E=mc^2 to E=mc^8 and calling it Einstein's theory. If the theory is wrong, let it be wrong, but don't CHANGE what the theory alleges. The portion on low fertility rates, abortion, miscegenation, integration are relevant and could be described in a sentence which follows the intro... but again the theory is E=mc^2 not E=mcasdkljas^2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linuxl3wis (talk • contribs) 13:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the first sentence introducing the conspiracy theory is listing several real things that more-or-less actually exist, viz. "third world" immigration, integration, "miscegenation", low fertility rates and abortion, and then attributing these to an organized conspiracy against white people. 'Forced assimilation' as used by conspiracy theory proponents, on the other hand, bears no relationship to actual forced assimilation in the real word (which is about minority language schools being suppressed, for example), and seems to just be a derogatory synonym by them for racial integration.--Pharos (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You say Forced assimilation isn't happening to whites, I say it is. Regardless of what either of us believe, Massive Immigration & Forced Assimilation is the "conspiracy theory" of White Genocide, to NOT present it in that manner is to NOT TELL THE THEORY. You could change the verbiage to fit that it is ALLEGEDLY happening, but if the article is NOT going to present the theory as this... then it's not presenting the actual theory and it should be removed. Things like Abortion, Low Fertility Rates, etc (although RELEVANT) are RARELY ever discussed within the context of White Genocide. They certainly should be in the article, but not within the context of describing the conspiracy theory, as this only confuses the readers (which i suspect is the intention). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linuxl3wis (talk • contribs) 14:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Bias

A whole lot of bias going on in this article. I'm willing to be FAIR but I AM one of the main proponents. I find it funny that this article is telling proponents that they don't even know their own theory.

Editors some do not want the actual theory of White Genocide to be presented to the public. Luckily Wikipedia tracks who is doing this. I could present several different news sources all quoting proponents as saying "Massive Immigration + FORCED assimilation is Genocide under the Genocide convention", but according to some, the theory is to be defined by people who don't want it to be exposed. I am SURE the Catholic Church would have loved to decide what Galileo's theory was, stop the little orwellian newspeak game and at least let PROPONENTS decide what THEIR theory is.

Political Slogan - White Genocide isn't a political slogan - it is a criminal accusation - describing it as either would present a BIAS. This needs to be removed.

Ad Hominems/Libel/SlanderWhen i go to the Black Genocide wikipedia entry - i do not see their proponents being labeled as Black Nationalists or Black Supremacists, this is a bias that needs to be addressed (not just in THIS article). Those of you that would like to tie it to nazis supremacists leprechauns unicorns, should be allowed to do your namecalling, but in a different paragraph.

Wikipedia's general notability guideline we ALL know it meets it

I don't know the INS/OUTS of Wikipedia - but I would imagine there is an admin hierarchy - we need someone to write the opening line/paragraph. I have contributed an Edit as to what it should resemble but someone changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linuxl3wis (talk • contribs) 12:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No, although there are Administrators that's not our role. See WP:Administrators. Having said that, the "political slogan" doesn't belong, it should be something like "White genocide is a conspiracy theory associated with the White nationalist and white supremacists movements" with appropriate sources. Doug Weller (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It would not be accurate to label believers in the theory as being White Supremacists, as those who believe in it are from all walks of life, some are "anti-racists" aka anti-whites that do not like the theory being exposed yet they believe in the theory, you can tell who these people are by their edits. In fact the edit history is testimony in itself that the theory is true and that there are many who would not like the theory to be explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linuxl3wis (talk • contribs) 00:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because... (The white genocide conspiracy theory is an idea many white nationalists belive is true. Basing it upon numbers from the census bureau of the United states and other statistical bureaus. It's well known from social media, internet sites, like the one I linked to and the news. Read this article: http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/01/white_genocide_billboard_poste.html

It's not something I've made up or someone I know. I'm a Norwegian, these guys are Americans.) --Olehal09 (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Cahk: I've declined this because very technically this isn't something that was made up one day. I did a search and I found a handful of news stories that do discuss this group. ([1], [2], [3]) The coverage seems to be fairly recent from what I can see. However that said, I don't see where this would pass notability guidelines and I would recommend that this goes to AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
• Actually I do see where this is mentioned in some academic textbooks so the term would merit a mention somewhere. Now it's a question of whether or not there is enough out there to merit an individual page or if it should be merged somewhere else. I'll let the discrimination WikiProject know about this so they can look for sources as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Since the explanation of the theory is not even accurate and Wikipedia is scared to even allow an inaccurate explanation of the theory pass a "notability" requirement that it obviously meets, this article should be deleted. I would say that the editors here just don't understand the theory, but i think they understand it fully, do not like it being exposed, and wish to distort the theory. Either way, a fair representation of the theory is not being permitted, so it should be removed. I would ask Wikipedia to allow us a fair representation of our theory (just as the Black genocide entry) free of bias, deliberate distortion of the theory, namecalling, & slander... but I don't believe that's possible. The only way to be fair to those who are afraid of it being exposed and those that would prefer an accurate representation of the theory, is to just remove the article entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linuxl3wis (talk • contribs) 01:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Article Deletion

This is likely the only wiki article on a "conspiracy theory" where the actual theory is not even being presented. In every other instance of a Wikipedia conspiracy article the proponents agree that the theory is being presented. However on this article - those that are ignorant to the theory or afraid of the theory being presented continue to edit it and make up their own theory. Again this is like Galileo putting up his theory, and the Catholic Church deciding to change what his theory is. The ONLY people who should decide what the theory IS are those that PRESENTED THE THEORY. Regardless if this page is being edited by people who are just IGNORANT on the theory or those that wish to deliberately DISTORT the theory, this article should be REMOVED or a higher admin should work with me on establishing an ACCURATE UNBIASED explanation of the theory (as I have already posted on here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linuxl3wis (talk • contribs) 00:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm about the highest Admin interested in this article (actually we only have on level of Administrator, but I'm also on the Arbitration Committee), but we don't deal with content as Admins or Arbitrators. We deal with behavior. Articles are normally only deleted after discussion at WP:AFD. And no, we don't leave it to proponents of an idea to be the only source for that idea. See WP:VERIFY. We rely on what we consider to be reliable sources for the content of our articles. WP:Fringe sources can be used but we are basically a mainstream encyclopedia and articles about fringe subjects need to be clear that the subject is fringe.

And we do not use editors' (you're an editor) personal experience or knowledge for our articles, see WP:NOR. So we're not able to use your opinions here. Doug Weller (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

In other words - if Wikipedia existed in Galileo's time, his theory would not be allowed to be presented here as it would not fit what was "allowed" or "accepted" by the Church. Although the media has repeatedly used our words to describe what OUR theory is (in their own articles cited here), we cannot allow that to be the theory, we must allow the Church of Political Correctness to determine what OUR OWN THEORY IS, and if they choose to distort it (as they are doing here), then that is now the theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.144.75 (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a terrible analogy. Ignoring the fact that his ideas were discussed and rejected by other astronomers and even the Church said he could present it as a possibility, he was an individual whose publications were widely discussed and we have the historical texts to show what he and others thought. We'd base our article on those texts. We can use David Duke's words because he's a notable representative of the conspiracy theory. You can't even show explicitly who "OUR" is. Now if you have sources meeting WP:RS you'd like to discuss, bring them here. And thanks for being another example of a right-winger bringing out the PC claim to attack something they don't like. Doug Weller (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This article could use a better description of the theory, as advocated by the proponents. It mentions some advocates (Duke, Whitaker, Lane), but has no link to them. Eg, this seems to be a page on the subject. [4] I also suggest changing the title to remove "conspiracy". The above page denies that it is a conspiracy. Or find sources where the advocates say it is a conspiracy. Roger (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Roosevelt on "Race Suicide"

My contribution regarding Roosevelt referring to birth control as "race suicide" was deleted on the grounds of being "original research" and that the source did not talk about the subject of the Wiki article at hand.

First, the same source is used in Wikipedia's "Black Genocide" article, which is where I found it, with the statement "A falling birth rate has been identified by some observers as harmful to a race of people." To the best of my knowledge, the source nowhere mentions the word "genocide" specifically, let alone "black genocide." Why is it used in the "Black Genocide" entry?

Additionally, I would contend that mentioning White "race suicide" is, for all intents and purposes, no different than mentioning White "genocide." It is the killing off of a race, the extinction of a people. The only difference being one of perspective. Those members of the race not actively participating in the "suicide," "killing themselves" and who condone that trend would view it as "genocide," the "killing off of an ethnic or racial group." Even in terms of perpetrators, I see no reason to maintain that a "genocide" must necessarily be perpetrated by those outside of the race or ethnic group that is the target of genocide. ElkanahTingley (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

New sections belong at the bottom. Genocide is described in Genocide as "is the intent to systematically eliminate a racial, ethnic, religious, linguistic, cultural or national group." That's not what Roosevelt was talking about. It doesn't belong at Black genocide either. These are articles about a conspiracy theory, Roosevelt wasn't suggesting another group was imposing birth control. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Doug. Race suicide is certainly not genocide. Binksternet (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Quotations

Too many, too big. See WP:QUOTEFARM. The article is already imbalanced and these large quotes make it more so. Doug Weller talk 20:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Let's whittle them down. There seems to be an over-representation of one author too... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we can do without quotes from anyone without an article. Doug Weller talk 20:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Needs reorganization, at least

The recent expansion, with long block quotations under a "Factors" heading, is treating the conspiracy theory too much like a real phenomenon with actual contributing factors, rather than a series of unproven claims. The structure should probably be something more like the Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories article.--Pharos (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this topic should be treated as being a conspiracy theory rather than being a real thing. Naturally, real statistics will be found by those who advocate the conspiracy theory, but we don't need to give any kind of credence to the idea that whites are actually being targeted for genocide. Binksternet (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You know that being a "conspiracy theory" doesn't mean in any way that the theory is false? Theories can be correct. Conspiracies can be real. So, simply by virtue of being a "conspiracy theory" doesn't mean that it cannot possibly be true.

At any rate, you can simply put the word "claim" before everything and it would be fine instead of deleting it all. "Claims that mass non-European immigration is a factor in white genocide," "claim that racial integration and miscegenation is a factor in white genocide," "claim that abortion and birth control are factors in white genocide," etc. These are things that are already very briefly mentioned in the opening line of the article. I see no reason why it shouldn't be expanded upon to include, you know, what people are actually saying about it.

The UN definition of genocide thing was also taken out of the "discourse" section, which I find absurd seeing as how it's probably one of the most talked about things in relation to white genocide by white nationalists. It is mentioned by several proponents of the theory in Paul Jackson's encyclopedic entry on the subject alone. But, of course, now that section simply reads "Jew, Jew, Jew." And it doesn't appear that there was any trouble including the UN definition of genocide into the "black genocide" article. ElkanahTingley (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the quotes should be put back in. The article can describe some wacky claims without giving them credence. Also, what makes this a Jewish conspiracy? Is that something the proponents claim, or the critics claim? The opinions of critics are just opinions also. The article on cconspiracy theory explains that the term is often used as just a pejorative term to try to discredit someone. Roger (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I definitely think it's fair to maintain that the Jewish angle is something many of the proponents claim, but it's also true that this is not the only cause typically outlined. I think it would be fair to say that just as many proponents focus on the super-wealthy elite, international corporations, proponents of globalization, etc, as part of the program. Also, it's probably not the case that most proponents of the theory think that there's some shadowy Jewish cabal with secret meetings or that every Jewish person out there in the world is tasked with undermining the white race. ElkanahTingley (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it a conspiracy theory?

This is called a conspiracy theory, but I do not see anything to substantiate that. Who are the alleged conspirators? Do the proponents of this theory allege that secret meetings or deals take place to further white genocide? Or is the term conspiracy theory being used in the sense of a pejorative term? In that case, is there some justification for it? I think the article should address the conspiracy aspect of the theory. Roger (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Remember WP:NOTAFORUM. The literature supplies the common understanding that this is a conspiracy theory, not a discussion among editors. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

For example, Paul Jackson discusses white genocide as a conspiracy theory in his chapter "'White genocide': Postwar fascism and the ideological value of evoking existential conflicts", which is Chapter 15 of the Routledge book The Routledge History of Genocide, edited by Cathie Carmichael and Richard C. Maguire. One accusation made by proponents is that it's a Jewish conspiracy, to weaken the W.A.S.P. culture and replace it with multi-culturalism. There are other versions, of course. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not have that book. Can you add something to the article that explains who says that it is a conspiracy theory, and why? I do not see this justified in the available sources. Roger (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I found a bunch of sources online, and mentioned just one of them. Another one is law professor Mark Fenster's book Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture. He talks about how white genocide is a more dangerous conspiracy theory than black genocide, because more violence comes from those who believe in white genocide. We also have sociologist Abby L. Ferber who writes in White Man Falling: Race, Gender, and White Supremacy that white genocide is supposed to be a Jewish conspiracy against whites.

I will let those who care about this topic add those sources. I only care about misrepresentation. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Those sources do mention Jewish conspiracies, so they might be some support. But you also removed some quotes, [5] one of which directly blames the Jews. What goes? If you want to support the argument, why not leave in the quotes? If some people say that this is a Jewish conspiracy, then that should be explained. Or removed if there is insufficient support. Roger (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed over-long block quotes per the discussion directly below this one. The quotes taken together were giving too much credence to the theory. This article should contain more analysis and less first-person quoting. The issue has nothing to do with more or less emphasis on the Jew-blaming side of the theory. I support any sort of text which follows the best (scholarly) sources, and these certainly discuss the Jew-blaming aspect. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The quotes do not give credence to the theory. They expose it for what it is. Regardless, it is not the job of editors to censor info because it expresses an objectionable point of view.

I do favor putting in scholarly analysis and criticism. If the scholars say that it is an (alleged) Jewish conspiracy to be lumped in with JFK theories, then put that in. But we should not say that it is a conspiracy theory unless we also say what makes it a conspiracy theory. Roger (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Calling it a conspiracy follows the sources. We follow the sources whether or not the article fully fleshed out. I agree that it would be good to tell the reader why this topic is called a conspiracy theory, but such an explanation is not required. We will call it a conspiracy theory regardless of whether the reasoning is explained. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theory"

This article is a farce. The title most of all is a farce--the assertions comprising this "white genocide" theory are statistical predictions, perhaps with the added claim that people are inclined to help the eventuality along. There's no "conspiracy" in any sense of the term; calling it a "conspiracy theory" it's a blatant weasel tactic in an attempt to hush anyone who's partial to the notions discussed. Fix it or delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.158.152 (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The article describes "white genocide" as a conspiracy theory because that's what reliable sources call it. See the section above titled "Is it a conspiracy theory?" for a previous discussion of this. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"Fix it or delete the article"... that's the same comment from the IP troll over at white pride... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Those sources are obscure and vague. If you tell the reader that it is a conspiracy theory, then you should be willing to say what makes it a conspiracy theory. Eg, who conspires? When? Where? If the sources say, put it in. Otherwise, drop it. Roger (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No. We are not going to try and give this topic a false credence. Binksternet (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fine. Then explain that "conspiracy theory" is being used as a pejorative term, and not meant to imply that there is really a conspiracy. Roger (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory", as used by scholars of this kind of thing, means a fringe theory about the motivations of political actors, and that's clearly what this is. It does not require a literal cloak and dagger to be a conspiracy theory.--Pharos (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The article on conspiracy theory defines the term somewhat differently, and says "two or more persons or an organization have conspired to cause or to cover up". Is that what is meant here? Or that it is just a scholarly way of calling something a fringe theory. Some clarification is needed. Roger (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2016

These suggestions are meant to limit bias/clarify the point (changes are bolded):

White genocide is a white nationalist conspiracy theory that mass third world immigration, integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates and abortion is being promoted in predominantly white countries to deliberately turn the whites into a minority group and subsequently lead to whites being out-bred and eventually removed from the gene pool.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

The phrase "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white", coined by high-profile white nationalist Robert Whitaker, is commonly associated with the topic of white genocide.[8][9]

The^ above part of the introduction seems very off-topic, perhaps it better fits elsewhere in the article.

In his White Genocide Manifesto, David Lane makes the claim that the government policies of many western countries have the intent of destroying white European culture and breeding the white race out of existence:[10]

Eldimal (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done. The lead section is supposed to be a summary of referenced article text. You are proposing that new ideas be inserted into the lead section. None of the article text supports your suggestion. Moreover, the thinking is flawed; miscegenation does not remove genes from the gene pool. Instead, the genes are given to offspring. Binksternet (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Title?

Perhaps we should find a title that is less confusing with the Armenian term White Genocide. I can't see any particular rationale why this page should have the definite article and be in lowercase, and the Armenian term shouldn't. One possibility for a rename would be White Genocide Manifesto, after the 1994 pamphlet that apparently popularized this concept.--Pharos (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. It would be better to call it "Genocide of white people". Olehal09 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on your rationale? Genocide implies intent. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to my rationale (which as you stated above can't be the basis of an wikipedia article), it is genocide when someone willingly let it happen, approves policies that let it happen and do not call for election to see if the people really want it. Therefore at I belive it can be called a genocide. You can also read about the subject on the wiki page about genocide. Olehal09 (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

But that's just not what genocide means. Externalities and inattention, if not intentionally causing the extermination of a people, are not genocide. Use of the word is strictly a rhetorical strategy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

So there are two subjects here: one is the concept of a reduction in the proportion of people who identify as "white" -- a concept that's pretty well covered already at miscegenation, white people, and at country-specific pages like White American, Race and ethnicity in the United States, and Definitions of whiteness in the United States. If the subject you're meaning to write about, Olehal09, is strictly about demographics, I would recommend bringing it up at one or more of those talk pages.

The other subject is either the slogan/phrase "white genocide" used in white nationalism, which seems to range in intent from highlighting a problem that requires intervention to conspiracy theories that work to build a claim of intent to support the use of "genocide". I'm dubious about the notability of the slogan on its own, so maybe the best way to take the article is something like "white genocide conspiracy theory" while the demographic/research-based material can go at the existing articles? Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This is the definition of genocide:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

   (a) Killing members of the group;
   (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
   (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
   (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
   (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. 

This development will be under b and c. I do belive the proportion of a nations population comes under this defeintion as well. In time the white peopulation in countries with more and more immigration will naturally disappear as a people if they become a minority in their country. Olehal09 (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

So to be clear, rearranging this definition, you're saying the e.g. US government (or some other governing body) commits acts with the intention "to destroy, in whole or in part," [the "white race"] by "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group" or by "deliberately inflicting [on white people] conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Nearly. For example; the US goverment (or some other governing body) accept policies or work for policies that causes in whole or in part [the white peoples] physical destruction. And in the proces are causing serious mental harm to members of the group [white people]. In article III; e). The states are complicent in genocide.

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

   (a) Genocide;
   (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
   (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
   (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
   (e) Complicity in genocide. 

Olehal09 (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'd support moving this to the Manifesto name or even merging it into another article if there's an appropriate target, like miscegenation. There are sources out there that discuss this theory/slogan, but so far it's fairly light. Now as far as the word "genocide" goes, we should not be definitively labeling something as genocide. We can say that others have labeled it as such, but we as editors should avoid making statements along the lines of "this is genocide". That falls under original research and while it may not be intended as an endorsement of the belief, OR can give off this impression. I'm not entirely sure why this is something that we're bringing up here since the only stuff we can put in the article is that this is a viewpoint held by fringe groups, many of which are considered to be white supremacy organizations. We're not here to back up whether or not this is actually genocide but to show how this specific theory has been covered in independent and reliable sources to the point where it would merit its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Aside: I think the Miscegenation article is pretty problematic as currently written, especially the by-country sections which tend to assume that racial categories are objective and fixed, and that this concept makes sense outside the context of post-1500 racial ideology.--Pharos (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Basically we're not here to definitively label this as a genocide, especially if this is predominantly covered in RS as a fringe theory or political slogan. This may have started as a discussion over what the article's title should be (or if it should be merged into another article entirely), but it's turning into a discussion over the legitimacy of the theory. As such, it's running the risk of looking like the article is being used as a WP:SOAPBOX or WP:FORUM. When it comes to deciding an article title we do have to take the WP:COMMONNAME into consideration, but in many instances we also have to look at where a specific theory came from and how it was popularized. In other words, the only way to decide how this is named is via its coverage in reliable sources- debating whether or not it'd qualify under the definition of genocide isn't going to accomplish anything. The fringe websites can play into this somewhat since that can cover the common name and its general use, but I will admit that the sourcing for this isn't entirely the best. For the most part this is discussed in relation to racism and miscegenation as a whole, so there's a strong argument here for merging it with another article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I follow. This thread is not, as far as I'm concerned, about validating (or not) the "theory" but about the title and subject of the article. My point in following the "genocide" thread is to try to show Olehal09 that an article about "the white genocide" is necessarily about a slogan/phrase and not about the literal concept of "genocide" plus "white people" because "genocide" is being used in a clearly incorrect way. The further we go, however, the more I wonder if the concept is closer to "white genocide conspiracy theory". In other words, I was skeptical that anybody using the word "genocide" was using it for anything other than polemical reasons. If I've misunderstood and the sources are really talking about intentional extermination of "white people" -- and if there are enough of those sources for a stand-alone article, then per WP:FRINGE we would need to frame it as something along the lines of a conspiracy theory. Framing it that way would encompass all of this, I think, and would likely be the most notable of the various choices we have (I didn't see sufficient sources to support an article about the Manifesto without using OR to connect later uses of "white genocide" to it). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

My apologies- I thought that the debate was whether or not to definitively label it as a genocide as opposed to the name of a theory. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that White Genocide (conspiracy theory) or similar would be a viable title, my only concern is that, while not true for the mainstream usage, but some of the more extreme interpretations of the Armenian term could potentially be seen as conspiracist as well.--Pharos (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this kind of parallels the disambiguation of New World Order, so I can see it working.--Pharos (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Call it a conspiracy theory. But I do absolutely not agree that the Armenian genocide can in any way be seen as a conspiracy theory. The Turkish goverment denies this act of genocide, but it is a prooven fact. Olehal09 (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I meant here the concept of the "White Genocide", which refers primarily to assimilation, not to the actual Armenian Genocide.--Pharos (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No need to move this page, but we can have a {{for}} at the top linking to The white genocide (which really should be renamed to White genocide). This topic of the Armenian term is notable and deserves a page. The latter topic of the conspiracy theory of White genocide is notable in that the groups purporting it have been studied (but I fear it will attract folks who wish to promote the idea). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering that the ambiguity of the current title is tending to confuse the issue with unrelated events outside the contemporary Western context, I think the case for specifying White genocide conspiracy theory is stronger now.--Pharos (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Except that it is not a "conspiracy theory". That is a rhetorical device used by those who seek to discredit the reality of white genocide. In fact, downplaying the genocide of a people by denying that it is occurring is among the acts cited by the UN as constituting intentional genocide. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Why were references to definition of genocide by UN even removed? 87.207.13.138 (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2016

All instances of "white supremacist" in this article need to be replaced by the term "white nationalist." The word "supremacist" implies a desire to rule over others. It is used to vilify anyone opposed to being replaced by non-western invaders. VUPite8Is1L2FxDYwttQ (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.--Cameron11598 (Converse) 07:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Criticisms of the concept

Tom Sunic, Ph.D., has criticised the term 'white genocide' for its contradictions with popular perception of genocide as organized mass murder and with european-descended people still holding many positions of power in USA and EU and has proposed the term 'white disposession' to be used to describe the dwindling demographics of people of european descent. I think it should be included in the article. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/04/comment-on-white-genocidewhite-dispossession/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestcyclopedia (talk • contribs) 06:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Occidental Observer isn't a reliable source. Tomislav Sunić's assessment would need a reliable, independent source. If he's critical of the term white genocide but not the underlying concept, I don't think this is worth more than a single sentence, at most. White nationalists/supremacists/separatist/racialists/race realists/identitarians/etc. have already collected more than enough euphemisms, and we would need a lot more than one essay to indulge in that any further. Grayfell (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

How is Tomislav Sunić not a reliable source, but Bob Whitaker is (references 19,20,21)? Freestcyclopedia (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

New users/IP addresses wishing to make edits to this Talk Page

Please click on the link in the heading which will take you to the appropriate venue. This is not a free pass. Editors who continue editing in a disruptive fashion will still be blocked should they continue their behaviour there. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The focus on Jews and supremacists in this article

I hope the editors of this article understand that their focus on Jews and supremacists, causes extremism and Jew hatred. You should write that the causes of this alleged genocide is disputed in the start, and find more ideas and sources. Both for the sake of causing less extremism and to make an better article. It is not healthy to make extremists the main source, and stick to nationalists instead.

Also the part about Breivik is directly wrong. He never talk about "white people". Actually, I recomend to remove the whole part about "dsicorse". 37.253.209.254 (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Excessive Use of Quotation Mark

"Why" are "quotation marks" used so "frequently" in this "article" "?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.217.118 (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in White genocide conspiracy theory

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of White genocide conspiracy theory's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Committee":

• From South African farm attacks: "Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks – 31 July 2003". Retrieved 7 December 2013.
• From Afrikaners: Criminal Justice Monitor (31 July 2003). "Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks". Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2006-10-11. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Genuine endorsement

Perhaps a discussion of how actual endorsement such as https://thoughtcatalog.com/emily-goldstein/2015/05/get-rid-of-white-people/ encourages this conspiracy could be useful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makingnamesishard345 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

That link is from a site with extremely lax editorial guidelines, and appears to be a Facebook cross-post, making it WP:UGC. For several reasons, this is not a reliable source, so it is not useful here. If you have a reliable source discussing endorsements or supposed endorsements, bring them forth. Citing unreliable examples is original research, especially if that unreliable source is uses to imply a conclusion not directly made by a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 05:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: The site has now removed the page as "hateful or abusive content". - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It's confusingly explained by the site, but it hasn't been removed. The article can be read by clicking "continue" in tiny letters at the bottom. Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

David Lane usage

I'd like to ask for restoration of the information about David Lane's 1995 usage, if other editors agree - it was in both of the recent edit-warred versions.--Pharos (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I have no objections at all. Grayfell (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Page protected

Oshwah Can you please restore the WP:STATUSQUO version? EvergreenFir (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Stand by. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Why? There was no reason for reverting the entire edit over two words that are missing from the first sentence, other than WP:STONEWALLING.Chi Sigma (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I went back about a good 200 or so edits, and I picked a revision during a calm editing phase. This revision will be the least likely to have issues or policy violations. Does the revision give one person an edge over the other? I don't know, but that's the luck of the draw. Please discuss this dispute and let me know when you've come to an agreement so that I can unprotect the article for you. Either way, I wish happy editing and a peaceful resolution to the dispute for all involved :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Oshwah. The goal of my request was exactly that: reduce conflict during the protection period. Chi Sigma We can discuss the merits of the edits during this protection time. The standard on Wikipedia during a dispute is to keeping things as the WP:STATUSQUO while the dispute is being resolved. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is regarding this massive edit by @Chi Sigma:

There are many problems with this, which is yet another example of why incremental editing is superior to big batches, especially for controversial articles like this. The overall thrust of these edits appears to be to normalize and reframe this extremist fringe theory as having mainstream support.

The edit very specifically downplays the racist connotations of the conspiracy theory from the lede. This is a defining trait according to reliable sources. I don't know exactly what "minority belief" is intended to convey, but it's euphemistic, and therefor inappropriate. Editorializing about it's "most extreme" variation is also consistent with whitewashing this, while ignoring majority of what reliable sources say about this. The comments about "certain historical governments" are even worse in this regard. Editorializing is not appropriate, especially in service of WP:FRINGE theories. The edits introduces the term eurocide as a synonym, but this isn't sourced, and bold should generally be avoided unless there is a redirect, per MOS:BOLD. This isn't even a source, so a redirect would be inappropriate. Saying it's "been attested" isn't enough. We need to point to where it's been attested. This indicates WP:OR is being introduced into the article.

Brittany Pettibone is no longer contextualized as being alt-right, but is merely listed under "other figures". Pettibone's article has been deleted multiple times. She is not independently notable enough for an article, and this edit removes whatever small reason there was for mentioning her at all, while also again downplaying the extremist context of the theory. There's more, but I think this is enough to explain why a revert is necessary, at least pending further discussion. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You have completely missed the mark there. Where on earth are you getting "mainstream support" from in what I wrote? Of course it's an extremist fringe theory. It's an extremist fringe theory whose article currently contains the words "Belief about the causes" and "the underlying causes and origins of the phenomenon". How do you have causes and origins of something that clearly isn't happening because the white supremacists invented it?! THAT is normalising and reframing, and I removed it. I would like to put the word "racist" in the first sentence, along with perhaps "completely stupid", but when you talk about "the racist connotations of the conspiracy theory", unfortunately that is exactly what editorialising is. You might think that Adolf Hitler was a racist, you might even consider that one of his defining traits, but if you look at the article on Adolf Hitler, it takes five paragraphs to even mention his "racially motivated ideology" and even then avoids actually calling him names.

"Eurocide" was in a link that I tried to include as evidence that this exists outside the English-speaking world, but Wikipedia told me was a banned site. I agree that sentence makes no sense without the source included.

"Certain historical governments" - yes. More detail is available at the Wikipedia article on forced assimilation that was linked from that same sentence. I then immediately explained why forced assimilation per se was notevidence of genocide, despite the white supremacists' attempts to spin one into the other. Thus reducing the amount of whitewashing in the article relative to the current version, which uncritically conflates forced assimilation and genocide.

The words "minority belief" are perfectly clear. A belief held by a minority. If you're confused about what they're "intended to convey", I can only assume you are reading Wikipedia expecting it to be a weapon in the global argument against white nationalists, rather than an encyclopedia. This may be where your problems are coming from. Chi Sigma (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I appreciate your intentions in adding The Hill article. It would be nice if we could explain just how absurd this nonsense is, but as I'll get to, that source is not an appropriate way to get there at all.

Looking for "eurocide", I get some Darkwave band, and then a handful of links to the Occidental Observer and Stormfront. If you're finding sources at sites like that while also removing links to white nationalist from the opening paragraph, then you are absolutely whitewashing, regardless of your intentions. Reliable sources define it as white supremacist/nationalist/identitarian/etc., and unreliable sources are blocked specifically because they are used by neo-Nazis for trolling. I hope it's obvious why that's a red flag. You cannot try to add blacklisted links and then expecting other editors to accommodate your edits when that doesn't work. If nothing else, the blacklist should've been an indicator that this was going to be controversial, and that discussing on talk was the appropriate next step. Moving on...

As I said, incremental edits are important. Did I say that every change you made was bad? Not really the point. Expecting other people to filter out the good from the bad when there were so many issues swirled together isn't realistic or respectful of other people's time. Was reverting respectful? Maybe not as much as it could've been, but the burden is still on you to gain consensus, and these edits were not acceptable.

If you have a reliable source explaining that forced assimilation is claimed to be part of white genocide, but isn't really, then you would have to add that to the article in a way that the source was identifiable for that statement. Using other Wikipedia articles as sources isn't good enough. (Articles are not reliable sources). If you have sources, but they don't directly link forced assimilation to white genocide, this is WP:SYNTH.

The statement "The theory does not have significant support in any country and is usually considered a far-right or alt-right viewpoint" is not supported by either attached source. Neither says anything about "significant support", nor do the say "usually" far-right. It's defined as a white nationalist belief, not "usually" alt-right. Of course this is true that no country supports it, but why are you introducing the idea that it wouldn't be true? Why would anyone assume that this has support unless you plant the idea that it does? Does any government support that the moon landing was faked? As another example, when Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, a government agent, started supporting AIDs-related conspiracy theories, sources covered that and provided context for why that's significant. Only then could we cover it in the article. This is an approach that is discussed at WP:FRINGE. We do not cover hypotheticals like this unless they are contextualized by reliable sources. Adding content that isn't supported by the attached sources is pretty much always unacceptable.

The Hill article does not mention genocide. It doesn't mention global populations or any group at all outside of the US. It tangentially discusses shifting demographics, but it explains that diversity is increasing. It was attached to a paragraph that contained information that was not supported in the sources, which is, again, always unacceptable. White people, as a percentage of population, are decreasing in the US according to this source, so why was it used for a paragraph saying that white people are not decreasing overall?

Again, I think these are enough reasons why these changes need to be discussed incrementally. Grayfell (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been here since 2004, newbie. You're not going to impress me by quoting lots of WP:POLICIES at me.

You know exactly why The Hill article was used for a paragraph saying white people are not decreasing. Because it states that, in absolute terms, they are not decreasing. But you would sooner take a white supremacist's side in an argument than admit that you skim-read something and misunderstood it completely.

I'm going to wait until the lock expires and then make the changes one at a time, and you can go through them and argue about any that you don't like. If that isn't respectful of your time, then tough titties: I don't respect your time. I didn't wake up this morning and think "Grayfell seems like a really important person, I must make sure to be respectful of his time today." Chi Sigma (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Note - there's been a momentary spate of talkpage comment removal. At present the path of least drama seems not to restore what's been removed, and to simply remind everyone to comment on content, not contributors. Some of the comments (removed or still here) are personal attacks which do nothing to advance the discussion. Please avoid these too: at best they're a waste of time, at worst they're disruptive.

Happy to discuss, but preferably on my talkpage so this thread can return to commentary on article content. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Good call.

Chi Sigma, instead of trying to antagonize me by calling me a "newbie" and telling me that you do not respect my time, discuss the changes you want to make. Incremental editing is good, but at this point you're basically announcing your intention to continue edit warring once the lock expires. That's not a good idea. We're here now, so let's discuss them. If you've decided that I must be an idiot because I dared to challenge you, then so be it, but you still have to collaborate, and, yet again, the burden is still on you to establish consensus for the changes you want to make.

The Hill article does say that white people are expected to decline in absolute numbers in the 2030s. This does support that white people are not currently declining, although it doesn't meaningfully persuade us that the number is currently growing, either. This is a supposedly global conspiracy theory. Fiddling about with the margins for minor demographic shifts isn't productive unless sources say it is. More importantly, does that work as the sole source for the statement it was attached to? No. It does not link this information to the theory at all. It also says nothing about other countries, and as a source for white people increasing in the US, it's not that great either. The substance of the article is that white population growth is decreasing significantly, which is wholly consistent with the white genocide conspiracy theory. Most of the theory's believers claim that this is a supposed to be a gradual process. This source's conclusions are being presented as a refutation, but the statistics it cites are not that, they indirectly support it. The theory frequently purports that white people will die off and be replaced by non-whites or mixed whites, which is not at all challenged or even addressed by the Hill article. The use of this source to attempt to refute the theory appears to be WP:SYNTH, at best. Sorry you don't like links to policies, but they are still important in discussions like this. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You've already explained that you can't be bothered identifying the bits of the edit that you don't like. So what's the point discussing the edit as a whole? I'm doing you a favour by cutting it into manageable bits first. The only reason you'd have a problem with that is that it would invalidate your comment about "the overall thrust of these edits". Where is the "overall thrust" policy, Grayfell? Where does it say that "overall thrust" is a valid criterion for reverting good faith edits?

By the way, if you want to talk about what's antagonising and what isn't, there are certain tactics that Wikipedians with tens of thousands of edits use to be as passive-aggressively condescending as possible without technically engaging in any personal attacks. You said yourself that you don't have time to deal constructively with my edit, so you're going to deal unconstructively with it. That's the plain English meaning of what you said to me, isn't it? Your time is more valuable than mine. Chi Sigma (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that is a clear improvement. So yeah, in my assessment it damaged the article and introduced enough problems that it wasn't worth trying to pick-apart to save whatever the as-yet-unidentified improvements were. I'm not going to ignore it because you made it in good faith. You can call me condescending all you want, but you still have to work with me on this. Grayfell (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You don't see anything that's a clear improvement? You're prepared to put that in writing, are you? H'oh boy, this is going to be fun watching you try to lecture me on how I'm being unfair to those poor white supremacists ;) Chi Sigma (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Why wait? You want to make me look like a fool, than do it now. Explain your edits here, now, instead of intentionally waiting for the lock to expire so you can resume edit warring. Of course I could've missed something, but you would have to point it out to me in order for me to know, apparently. I keep looking, and I keep not seeing it.

Here are the changes that I notice:

• The lede was significantly expanded and rewritten to provide more context and background information. This was done by adding new content and moving content from the body to the lede.
• Individual theorists who were mentioned were moved from other sections to a dedicated section, thus shortening those sections.
• A source was added.

Here are some of the problems I have with these changes:

• The lede rewrite introduced a large amount of material which was not supported by sources, or was very poorly supported by sources.
• Similarly, per MOS:LEDE, the lede is generally a summary of the body of the article, but these changes were covering a large amount of material which wasn't discussed elsewhere.
• The lede introduced editorializing language which was not supported by or attributed to sources. "It is also debatable..." being an obvious example. Who, exactly, is 'debating' it? Who is on the "for" side of this debate? Even presenting this as a debate is legitimizing essentialist views on race, as the underlying premise is nuanced and intensely controversial. The starting point for this is finding a reliable source.
• The reorganization for an 'individuals' section broke the article into many more sections. Many of these sections were very short, which breaks up the article's flow for no real benefit. This is discouraged by MOS:BODY.
• This reorganization introduced disjointed information and redundancy. Why was Breivik an WP:OVERLINK, if he's already discussed in his own single-sentence section? Why were Taylor, Cernovich, Duke, Anglin, and Hofmeyr not also listed as notable theorists? I'm not saying they necessarily should've been, but picking some but not all seems arbitrary. This is enough reason not to use this approach at all, in my opinion.
• Even if it weren't potentially arbitrary, a list with only four entries of Lane, Breivik, Trump and misc. is introducing a mess of BLP issues down the road.
• As discussed above, the Hill source doesn't support the content it was attached to, nor does is it clearly apply to this specific article.

I am not claiming the article was perfect the way it was, only that these changes were not a step in the right direction. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

See, there you go with your get-out clause again. You're asking me to explain why my edit was a improvement, but if I point out something that needed improving about the article, you'll just say "I never claimed it was perfect". Why haven't you fixed it already, then? You clearly are invested in the status quo for its own sake.

Here's a policy for you: WP:NOTSOAPBOX. "Even presenting this as a debate is legitimizing essentialist views on race, as the underlying premise is nuanced and intensely controversial." What? Yes, I know what all those words mean (before you patronise me any further by directing me to a dictionary), but that sentence is just non sequitur stew. First, what "underlying premise"? Second, if something is intensely controversial, it is the subject of ongoing debate. That's what the word controversial means. Third, essentialism has nothing to do with it. You don't have to believe in genetic differences between the races to believe the white genocide conspiracy theory, or vice versa. Fourth, this is the wrong website to be talking about "legitimising". There is due weight and there is undue weight. There is no "legitimate". If the object of Wikipedia was to prevent the "legitimising" of a theory, why do we have an article about it?

I would assume you were trying to conceal an obvious political agenda in a thicket of verbiage, but a quick glance at your talk page tells me that no, it's not concealed at all, it's a badge of pride. Chi Sigma (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have political opinions. So do you, and pretending otherwise is pointless.

Implying that there is a debate over whether or not nations assimilate their own (emphasis yours) ethnic group legitimizes the flawed premise that white is a single ethnic group. It's not that simple at all. At most it's a set of extremely loosely-defined ethnic groups, but even that's contested. Further, stating that governments could meaningfully identify with this monolithic white ethnic group, and then categorizing these demographic changes as potential assimilation in the same sentence, is give legitimacy to an incoherent mess of a theory in order to present it as something that could be debated. All of these are simplistic, at best. This was your own editorializing included without any sources at all.

The article isn't perfect, but your edits didn't help. If you want to point out where you edits were an improvement, do it. It's not that complicated.

Also, you say that you don't have to believe in genetic differences in races to believe in this conspiracy theory? I'd like a reliable source for that, please. Grayfell (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You can keep using that word "legitimise" all you like. It means nothing. It's a more obtuse way of saying WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The page title legitimises the premise that white is a single ethnic group, if it comes to that.

Here is a reliable source for the fact that you don't have to believe in one thing to believe in a completely separate thing: WP:BLUE. Chi Sigma (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The use of the title to legitimize the concept was discussed back in 2015 when the article was titled "The white genocide". "Conspiracy theory" was added to differentiate it with White Genocide, to clarify that it's WP:FRINGE, and also that it's not a factual description of genocide, meaning it's not a literal term. Race and genetics are "completely separate" according to white supremacists? Sorry, that's not blue sky obvious. I'm not contesting that some white supremacists believe strange things, I'm asking for reliable sources to better understand this position. If you were to include that in the article, directly or indirectly, you would need such a source. Grayfell (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You're very good at lecturing me on topics that are vaguely in the neighbourhood of what I said.

"The use of the title to legitimise the concept" - no, you're just using "the concept" there to mean whatever you want. "White is a single ethnic group" is one concept. "White genocide is happening" is a different concept. Decide which one you're talking about.

"Race and genetics are completely separate according to white supremacists" - no, you've added those words to the end of the sentence to completely change the meaning. "You don't have to believe in X to believe in Y" is one statement. "I don't personally know anyone who believes in Y and doesn't believe in X" is a different statement. Decide which one you're talking about. Chi Sigma (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, okay. Forget what I'm talking about, then. What are reliable sources talking about? What do sources have to say on white genocide/the genetics of race/white ethnic groups/white genocide as a concept vs. a slogan/etc.? What sources about white genocide are you using? Grayfell (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

You're not going to railroad me into playing "my source is better than your source" either! Look at just the first sentence. Seven sources - all of which I have no doubt are the finest most reliable sources it's possible to get. And yet they've been synthesised into something that's syntactic garbage. A "white nationalist conspiracy theory" - theories themselves don't have opinions about white nationalism. People who believe theories can be nationalist, but that's not what the sentence says. Then you've got three separate outcomes: "turn them minority-white", "cause white people to become extinct", and "forced assimilation". None of those three have any logical relationship to the other two. Becoming extinct is not an inevitable consequence of becoming a minority (unless you actually believe the extreme version of the theory). Forced assimilation, even assuming such a thing exists, is not the same as actually reducing the assimilated peoples in number. Plus, if there is a genuine controversy over whether forced assimilation has ever happened in the real world, that sentence fails to acknowledge it, because it's an uncritical mention of forced assimilation as a concept, rather than a use of the label "forced assimilation" to refer to part of the theory. Chi Sigma (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This change by Chi Sigma has big problems with neutrality. It reduces the white nationalist footprint to just Robert Whitaker and some quotes by observers. It also introduces new ideas into the lead section, ideas which are not a summary of the article body. And it removes Nazi Germany from the lead section even though that's part of the history which is discussed in the article body. So Chi Sigma appears to be white-washing the topic, trying to normalize it by removing some of the most unattractive parts. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I refer you to my discussion above with Grayfell. "Normalising", "white-washing" and "reducing the white nationalist footprint" are vague accusations with no bearing on NPOV, and are also nothing to do with your actual objections to the edit, which are innocuous editorial matters. Chi Sigma (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

George Ciccariello-Maher

I believe George Ciccariello-Maher is an important figure in this topic. Ref: "History professor receives hundreds of death threats over 'white genocide' tweet". The Independent. 27 December 2016. I should note the event is controversial and it resulted in countless death threats. This is already reciprocated on that article. I would've added it myself weren't this article protected. Ꞷumbolo 08:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a bit of a problem in this part about South Africa.

"However, Africa Check, a fact-checking organisation has rejected the claims as false: "In fact, whites are less likely to be murdered than any other race group." Africa Check reported that while whites account for nearly 9% of the South African population they represent just 1.8% of murder victims. Lizette Lancaster from the Institute for Security Studies has said that "Whites are far less likely to be murdered than their black or coloured counterparts."[32]"

Setting aside that 'fact checking' websites tend to be constantly exposed as dishonest and corrupt, the above somehow posits that success in genocide is what constitutes genocide, rather than intent in genocide. For example, if Hitler killed less Jews in WWII, was he committing genocide, or not committing genocide? Successful genocides and unsuccessful genocides are still genocides. Statistically the representation of hate crimes against 'whites' in South Africa are horrific, and the number of refugees flooding into my country (many whom I work with as a human rights lawyer) are disproportionate to any other 'white' country. When the leader of the nation calls to 'kill the boer, shoot the boer, take his lands' on national television to a roaring crowd you just might have a problem with systemic institutionalized oppression and murder of a specific class of people. This portion of this article is like stating at the start of the Holocaust "There is no Holocaust, because as yet not enough Jews have been killed, and Hitler's rhetoric is just words."

Having a segment like this in the article would fuel the conspiracy nutters out there, and would also push people who may be on the fence and savable with reason towards the conspiracy nutters because it's quite clear that the writer of this portion of the article is lying (at least to anyone in South Africa or countries nearby who accept their refugees (i.e. those affected, and those close to them)) so they may step over into "So what else are they lying to me about?"

I would suggest that being honest and open about the hate crimes in South Africa and the open calls by it's leader to 'kill the boer, shoot the boer, take his lands' would go a long way to show that this article is legitimate and fair. The problem is though that Wikipedia is very, very biased, and pushes a very hardline left political message and it's become common knowledge in the broader internet community so whether or not honesty and neutrality in this instance could go a way to repair that image issue is irelevant; but for this specific article I would ask that you not lie and push a political agenda in this instance so that, 1. those of us professionals trying to help the human rights crisis that is ongoing are not lumped into the same category of foaming at the mouth trailer trash, 2. the men, women and children affected by the human rights tragedies of racially motivated violence irrespective of their color are not victim blamed, or told they're wrong, or just don't understand that their being raped at gun point and told it's because they're a specific color is somehow not the real motivation, and 3. those who may be within reach of saving will not be pushed further down the rabbit hole of stupid conspiracies by a pointless lie that serves nothing but to try to pile onto a conspiracy that is already easy to debunk. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You're going to need WP:Reliable sources, not Hofmeyr, Breivik or Cernovich, discussing the deaths specifically as white genocide rather than as a generalized angry response to the long history of racism in South Africa. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

South Africa

somebody gotten rid of a link on South African farm attacks on White famers getting killed. it fixs in the section. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The target article does not discuss the white genocide conspiracy theory (the topic of this article). Additionally, there is nothing sourced in this article discussing the topic of the target article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

its on the page. it says Genocide Watch has theorised that farm attacks constitute early warning signs of genocide against White South African and has criticised the South African government for its inaction on the issue, pointing out that the murder rate for them ("ethno-European farmers" in their report, which also included non-Afrikaner farmers of European race) is four times that of the general South African population. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

References

You may be a little confused. The attacks on white South Africans are real. This article is about a conspiracy theory that somebody is trying to reduce or eliminate the white population in Europe and North America for whatever reason. Two very different things. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Multiple reliable sources report the attacks on white South Africans, particularly those in remote areas, as facts. They do not report the "white genocide" that is the subject of this article as a fact, but as a nutty conspiracy theory. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record, op was the one who added the content about Genocide Watch's opinion to that page. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI: “White genocide” is not underway in South Africa by Dr. Gregory Stanton, President, Genocide Watch--Pharos (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz; therein lies the problem. The article presently states that the genocide in South Africa is part of the 'white genocide conspiracy theory' now. I've just added a section addressing it below as this seems to be an argument over one specific set of mass systemic and institutionally sanctioned hate crimes and murders, where as my grievance is with the entirety of South Africa being included and lied about in a way that serves nothing but to fuel conspiracy nutters belief that we are no longer a reliable source because we're too biased by our politics and push a political message over the truth. Which, unfortunately, is becoming a very problematic thing with this website. But as a human rights lawyer who actively works with refugees and has seen first hand what is happening in South Africa this denial of a serious human rights crisis is disgusting to me; I feel the article should address the genocide in South Africa in it's real threat, this will prove that we aren't just saying it isn't happening because it's inconvenient to the rest of the argument but rather even though it is happening it doesn't mean the overall argument is bunk.

When you have the head of state shouting "Kill the boer, shoot the boer, take his lands!" on prime time television to a roaring crowd you have definite concern. It's like trying to say the Holocaust didn't happen in 1939 because as yet they haven't rounded up ENOUGH Jews to kill yet, or because Hitler's words are just rhetoric. It's ridiculous. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's not like anything except South Africa. (Sorry, I don't do analogies.) The issue isn't whether white South Africans have good reason to fear for their physical safety. The issue is whether threats and violence against white South Africans belong in this encyclopedia article, which is about a conspiracy theory that says there is a movement to destroy the white race through desegregation, immigration, and the encouragement of the use of birth control. Do you see that one is a real-world concern and the other is the sort of thing that only people who wear Nazi armbands or tin foil hats rant about? Unless you believe the fears of white South Africans are completely imaginary and irrational, I don't see how you can argue that speeches by government leaders or attacks against white South Africans belong in this article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Are Nazis fascists?

Binksternet wants to remove {{Portal|Fascism}} and [[Category:Fascism]] from this page.

They think it should be removed because "no discussion of fascism in the article". I reverted on the basis that the article mentions "Nazi" 8 times and Nazis are fascists therefore clearly it's related. And they reverted back. So now I'm bringing it to the talk page.

--ChiveFungi (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

There's probably some policy based reasoning to follow in the event that an article mentions something that is heavily associated with X without mentioning X - fortunately, that's not necessary here, as the white genocide conspiracy theory is not just a racist theory but a fascist theory given its origin in fascist publications. I'm gonna add that stuff back in. PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I would be happy to see the white genocide theory connected to fascism by reliable sources. The main problem I had with the previous version was that nothing in the article mentioned fascism. Also, racism can and does exist without fascism, but fascism is historically connected to various nationalist forms of racism. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Nazism is a subset of Fascism, and it's already in Nazi and Neo-Nazi categories. Adding a Fascist category or portal would be redundant. It is quite true the conspiracy theory has its origin in Neo-Nazi publications, and this could be clearer in the whole article.--Pharos (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The fascism category would be overcategorization. Nazism is a subset of fascism which takes the main tenets (nationalism, militarism, authoritarianism) and adds scientific racism. There are better published resources, obviously, but here's something from the BBC on the matter [6] Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Historical pushing of the conspiracy theory

While the white genocide conspiracy theory is mainly associated with Neo-Nazis (that is, followers of Hitler post World War II, mainly in the US), the basic elements of the conspiracy theory can be seen in Mein Kampf. Hitler purports in the book that the Jews sent black French troops into Germany to have mixed babies (Rhineland Bastard) to destroy the German genetics and make it easier for Jews to rule them. That is exactly what the Neo-Nazis believe today. Of course we would need a secondary source to link the two together. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)