Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

On the idea of conspiracy

I don't really get why this is called a conspiracy. A conspiracy is a plan formulated in secret, but I'm not sure who claimed there is a secret to this in the first place? "white genocide" usually refers to diversity policies and people responding to low birthrates with "but white people evil, so it doesn't matter".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11240700/School-marked-down-by-Ofsted-for-being-too-white.html http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/565198/BBC-Radio-2-white-audience http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/08/14/on-yogas-race-problem-has-the-practice-become-too-white/ http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/11/us-usa-portland-education-idUSKCN0IV0UX20141111 http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/04/04/3422904/clinical-trials-racial-diversity/ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14613800701384516?journalCode=cmue20 https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/01/the-end-of-white-america/307208/ https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4299673,00.html https://www.cnet.com/news/google-accused-of-excluding-asians-whites-for-some-positions/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/16/apple-executive-sorry-for-saying-white-people-can-/ https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world

How is it a conspiracy theory, if it's not a secret, and no one is really calling it one? It's pretty obvious to me that there is widespread anti-white sentiment, and the idea that companies need to hire less white people for the sake of them being white is specifically promoted by the left? Is it not true that they explicitly call for more diversity?

What is the notion that white genocide is not a common political poisition based on? https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.html

There are even people openly supporting white genocide, while denying it the same time https://jezebel.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-white-genocide-1790500883

There are people calling white people "the most destructive force of nature" on bbc. https://twitter.com/bbcthisweek/status/918610746375671808

I just wanted to point out that even though wikipedia always refuses evidence contrary to the status quo, and uses highly politically biased language and sources, articles like this really enrage me, as they spread blatant misinformation and cherrypicked sources.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/study-wikipedia-perpetuates-political-bias/2012/06/18/gJQAaA3llV_blog.html?utm_term=.e8e859e3824d https://hbr.org/2014/12/wikipedia-is-more-biased-than-britannica-but-dont-blame-the-crowd ThuleFinn (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No, this article is about a conspiracy theory, the belief that white people are actively being persecuted. You're the one cherry-picking sources and misrepresenting them. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

South Africa topics

South Africa should primarily be covered at South African farm attacks, and if one is talking about governmetal actions, at Land reform in South Africa. This is a legitimate issue but not one closely connected to the topic of "white genocide".--Pharos (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree. This seems mostly tangential (and, despite the summary, it feels, intentionally or not, like WP:SYNTH intended to hype the underlying elements of the conspiracy theory, especially the somewhat weird change of wording to "not currently experiencing" genocide.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pharos and Aquillion: According to that article, some far right activists have used it as evidence for a global genocide. wumbolo ^^^ 07:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but if we're going to talk about it, we should use sources making that link directly (obviously, secondary ones discussing the conspiracy theory rather than primary ones perpetuating it.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Why we have a specific "South Africa" section? We need a different title and possibly cover more attacks with reliable sources. Section title can be still changed even if it has only content about South Africa. Lorstaking (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lorstaking: Take a look at this. wumbolo ^^^ 09:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to find out if they mention "White genocide". Information is from 2010, and maybe we can revisit to see if they are still relevant. Lorstaking (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lorstaking: yeah, the sources should be checked. I was saying that if it does warrant inclusion, it should be named that way. wumbolo ^^^ 15:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

As a hashtag

I just added this source, which seems like an excellent resource for this article. In particular, it goes into detail on the #WhiteGenocide hashtag, putting the conspiracy theory in its historical context in right-wing politics and analyzing how it relates to the Alt-Right and the split in modern (and historical) conservatism. I think it might be worth trying to find a few more sources on this and elaborate it into a section in the article. This paper touches on the same general theme - the way the conspiracy theory has spread on the modern internet, who is pushing it and what they're trying to accomplish with it, etc. --Aquillion (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Excellent sources for the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a conspiracy - This embarrassment needs a total rewrite

This is not a conspiracy. It has been discussed in many very reliable sources:

• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/white-britons-will-be-minority-before-2070-says-professor-8600262.html
• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americas-whites-will-become-minority-by-2042-says-census-bureau-897561.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/opinion/the-myth-of-a-white-minority.html
• https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/so-youre-about-to-become-a-minority_us_553011f0e4b04ebb92325daf

It might be wrong, you may think it's a good thing, but it has been predicted by scientists and widely reported in the mainstream press.

Why the article conflates this perfectly logical population estimate with a "genocide" I have no idea.

106.91.200.28 (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a conspiracy theory, which is distinct from what those sources describe.

Why you conflate white people naturally becoming a minority with the conspiracy theory that white people are actively being persecuted, I have no idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

Well, you should have an idea. Ethnic Europeans are not "naturally" becoming extinct as you say. Why are they making less and less children? Economic reasons, culprits: politicians. Women wanting to have carreers, culprits: feminists. Devaluation of family and marriage, culprits: leftists & homosexual activists. Desire to mask the ageing of Europe by mass-naturalizations and immigration, culprits: politicians & co. And so on... But don't worry I know how Wikipedia works and know this rewrite, while totally justified, will never happen. — Orgyn (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC) You'll be happier at Metapedia, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I looked at about a dozen of the sources, and none of them say that it is a conspiracy, or that it is alleged to be a conspiracy. None say that it is a "conspiracy theory". We should not call it a conspiracy theory when most or all of the reliable sources say otherwise. Roger (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

A dozen of which sources? The ones in the article? If so, this is pedantic at best. Do any of these sources accept that there is any truth to these claims? Do any of them support that genocide is happening, or that it is a legitimate risk? The first three sources in the ref section of this article describe the belief that "forced integration" as leading to genocide, but do not give any credence to this belief. They document the perception by neo-Nazis and similar that the "mongrelization" of white people through race mixing etc. will destroy the "white race". "Conspiracy theory" sure seems like an appropriate term, but if you can think of a better way to describe this which doesn't subtly validate pseudo-scientific fringe garbage, let's hear it. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: It is not our job to "invalidate pseudo-scientific fringe garbage". Please read Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans. Also, we copy what sources say, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. wumbolo ^^^ 13:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Yes, it kind of is our job, because this is an encyclopedia. We certainly should not actively validate this kind of thing by taking its proponents seriously in order to refute them. Isn't that kind of the point behind that essay? This project is a reflection of the academic mainstream consensus, and refuting pseudoscience is a part of that goal. Nothing worthwhile is gained by sticking our heads in the sand and refusing to take any position at all on anything. Wikipedia articles can and should explain when something is wrong. This conspiracy theory is wrong, according to many reliable sources.

Also, I'm sure I've also been guilty of this, but do you really think any experienced editor hasn't already read WP:OR? Grayfell (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not our job to WP:Right great wrongs. Wikipedias articles only explain when something is wrong based on the sources not our own sources, except in the dispute amongst sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what the argument is about. There is no disagreement among RSes that "white genocide" is a conspiracy theory. Some describe it as such explicitly, some implicitly, but no scholarship actually disputes that it is a conspiracy theory.--Pharos (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Right. As I said, all reliable sources I've looked at either say this is wrong or at least do not even imply that it's right, but that wasn't what Schlafly was commenting on. This is wrong, and also many sources are describing this as a conspiracy theory even if only some use that exact phrase. If the phrase "conspiracy theory" is the problem, why? What, exactly, is the problem? Anyone is free to propose an alternative phrase, but it needs to be supported by sources. If the end result is to imply that this theory has merit, it's not going to be acceptable. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

If there is no other phrase that a large proportion of sources use, we can describe white genocide as a conspiracy theory. However, conspiracy theories can and have been true in the past, so it is still too good of a term. Saying "refuted conspiracy theory" is much much better. I think we should rename this article to "White genocide" as it is a really common meaning for it, and we already redirect that article here. Notice that nothing is wrong with having two articles with the same title, but a different capitalization. However, in that case, this may be a POV fork of the Armenian article since it would only state criticism. Then we should either rename that article to add the Armenia(n) descriptor into its title, or merge it here, by having the lead sentence something like "White genocide is a refuted white nationalist and supremacist conspiracy theory that predominantly white countries are deliberately turned minority-white, but it can also refer to the threat of assimilation in the Armenian diaspora, especially in the Western world. The conspiracy theory says that mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates and abortion are being promoted in order for white people to become extinct through forced assimilation." wumbolo ^^^ 07:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, the sources do not say that it is a conspiracy theory. Apparently that is undisputed. The article should reflect the sources. Yes, the article is an embarrassment because it uses pejoratives instead of sources. Also, why are comments being deleted from this Talk page? Roger (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Although I think the existing sources supported it (eg. Amalgamation Schemes: Antiblackness and the Critique of Multiracialism calling it a "paranoid fantasy"), I've added three additional sources whose primary focus is discussing it a conspiracy theory in as many words. --Aquillion (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It's an embarrassment to white people that some of us still hold racist views in the second decade of the 21st century. If you wish to argue that there is actually some sort of widespread attempt to eradicate white people from Earth, Metapedia is ----> thataway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If someone (anyone, speaking in general) happened to believe that politically motivated killings aren't murder, being Jewish or Chinese can only mean one is trying to "undermine white Christian America", or that raping one's spouse isn't so bad (or even that it's just a communication problem), then that person lacks the moral and intellectual competency to contribute anything useful in a discussion on genocide, racial matters, or a variety of other issues ^{(for example, the teachings of Jesus)}. Wikipedia does not recognize advocates of a conspiracy theory as experts on it, and is by no means required to allow them to use the site to promote or create artificial validity for their belief. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not every process that brings a particular people into the minority is a genocide. A genocide by the normal definition requires genocidal intent. That such an intent exists is a conspiracy theory.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Aquillion, I see your 3 added references, but 2 are paywalled, and I cannot see where any of them say that white genocide is a conspiracy theory. Can you post the quotes that support that conclusion?

Maunus, I guess you are saying that any genocide is a conspiracy theory. That is not how these terms are usually used. Roger (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

TThat is a silly interpretation. The last sentence should include "that such an intent exists in this case is a conspiracy theory", which should be obvious.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at the first sentence of the lead: "The white genocide conspiracy theory is a white nationalist and supremacist conspiracy theory[1] that mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates and abortion are being promoted in predominantly white countries to deliberately turn them minority-white and hence cause white people to become extinct through forced assimilation"

There are 5 different levels of truth in there. 1) "mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates and abortion are being promoted." This is all true. 2) "turn them minority-white" This is a valid scientific estimate. Any genuine encyclopedia would limit it's discussion to this scholarly debate on population demographics.

3) "deliberately turn them" This is the conspiracy theory. It's difficult to prove or disprove. 4) "cause white people to become extinct" This is not really plausible "White people" are a pretty big group. 5) "white genocide" This is a total misnomer. Genocide involves killing people not waiting for them to die off of there own accord.

So you have truth, estimate, conspiracy, very unlikely, and totally false all mixed together under the title CONSPIRACY THEORY. Anyone who reads this with no prior knowledge would assume it all to be false. This is a terrible article that needs a rewrite. Or another article on wikipedia titled "White population decline" or similar to clear up this confusion.

I can actually find much better information from openly right wing sources who at least admit they are right wing. Wikipedia is clearly ardently left wing but keeps up this Orwellian doublespeak about WP:NON-BIAS and the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.91.206.111 (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't begin to imagine presenting an article about a conspiracy theory under a bland, non-descriptive title. We have articles about fringe conspiracy theories involving alleged faked Moon landings, claims President Obama was not born in the U.S. and the idea that President Bush is an alien-human hybrid. These articles are not titled "Moon landing" and "Nationality of Barack Obama" and "Species of George W. Bush".

Additionally, each of these articles begins with an explanation of the conspiracy theory such as "During Barack Obama's campaign for president in 2008, throughout his presidency, and afterwards, a number of conspiracy theories falsely asserted Obama was ineligible to be President of the United States because he was not a natural-born citizen of the United States as required by Article Two of the U.S. Constitution." Yes, he campaigned for president in 2008, was president for two terms, lived afterwards and Article Two requires birthright citizenship. Anyone deciding those are all false by reading that sentence will have trouble sorting out fictional events in a movie set in a real city and likely decide that New York City has a real problem with super villains, aliens regularly destroy the city and unemployed actors and coffee servers can afford spacious apartments overlooking Central Park. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: I disagree. Take a look at Category:Conspiracy theories and see how the tiny minority of articles have a "conspiracy theory" title descriptor. wumbolo ^^^ 15:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

There are several situations at play. Many of those articles are about organizations/individuals primarily known for conspiracy threories (e.g. Aerial Phenomena Enquiry Network, No Agenda, etc.) Additionally, we have a number of cases where the conspiracy theory has a widely-used name (e.g., Branton Files, various forms of denialism, etc.) Others are about notable topics which also have associated conspiracy theories attached to them (e.g. Baron 52, Charles August, Crown Prince of Sweden, etc.)

If you feel there is a better title for this article, you'll need one that describes the topic. This article is clearly not, for example, about supposed "white population decline". This article is about a claim that a worldwide, multi-generational assemblage of individuals, governments, NGOs, corporations, charities, etc. is secretly working in concert to allow, promote and enforce various tends, schemes, services and laws in order to dismantle the white race over an extended period of time by reducing its numbers and "purity". Proponents have started to call this "white genocide". That title, however, is heavily POV as no reliable sources claim it exists. Instead, it is a theorized conspiracy called "white genocide" by its proponents: the "white genocide conspiracy theory". - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: of course the title is POV, there is a lack of sources naming it white genocide, or rather, supporting that its proponents name it that. However, many people here have tried to find a better title but failed, including me, so you're welcome to find a better title if you want, too. wumbolo ^^^ 19:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Holy shit, are we still arguing this point? Two years ago on this talk page I gave three good examples:

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... 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.

These should satisfy the doubters. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Those should satisfy the doubters who are operating in good-faith and not from a lunatic position of advocacy. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Reedseque's comments

User who started the excessive number of collapsed discussions has been blocked indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE.

POV The main issues: - The article does not actually describe the arguments of the people who believe in the idea of 'white genocide', nor the reasons why other consider it a 'conspiracy theory'; - The list with names of people who 'believe in this conspiracy theory' includes many people who have actually never said they believe in this 'conspiracy theory'. It reads like a 'wall of shame', where any person is included who has ever, in any article from any of the liberal media (Vox, etc.) been related to the idea of 'white genocide'. The main solution: - Rewrite the article completely. Reedseque (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC) I deleted the most outrageous claims, but the article is still too laughable to consider it enyclopedic in any way. The 'advocates'-part is, for the most part, also one long violation of WP:BLP, to an extent that a law suite for libel against Wikipedia (c.q. the specific editors) would probably have a large chance of success. Reedseque (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC) @Reedseque: See WP:NLT. If we're just summarizing existing sources, and those sources document where something someone said only makes sense if it's within the context of the conspiracy theory, it is a bad-faith move to suggest that anyone you disagree with might be sued. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC) The entire concept is a conspiracy theory, according to reliable sources - it merits no more credence here than the nonsensical claims that 9/11 was perpetrated by a Jewish conspiracy. Your removals were not in any way justified by BLP - the material was well-sourced and carefully worded based on extensive discussion and consensus. If you have specific issues with specific wording, discuss them here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Reedseque, I see that your very first contribution on Wikipedia was trolling the communism talk page. This new effort is not much different, except that now you're skirting WP:No legal threats. It doesn't matter whether you think a listed person has every said they believe in white genocide. Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, and if the reliable sources talk about this person in the context of the white genocide conspiracy theory, then that person is appropriately listed. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Obviously, this is a white supremacist conspiracy theory, full stop. I do think the long list of names, though, which is a pretty new addition to the article, bears some more thinking about. Not every racial dog-whistle is demonstrably referring to this particular conspiracy theory, and it could potentially be a BLP issue. And it's really weird the list doesn't include many of the explicit neo-Nazis who originated the theory. I think potentially some of this would be better served by an actual section on the influence of this conspiracy theory on relatively mainstream alt-right thought.--Pharos (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "we're just summarizing existing sources". No, you aren't. You're first setting up a description of 'white genocide conspiracy theory' which is vague and broad, and then adding a long list of people whose names have been mentioned in a few articles from liberal media sources which contain the term "white genocide". It's a more than obvious smear tactic and it has nothing to do with an encyclopedia, i.e. you would never find anything like this in Encyclopædia Britannica or any other real, neutral encyclopedia. Give me one, just one example of an article in a real encyclopedia which comes even close to the smearing in this article. Reedseque (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC) If this isn't a real encyclopedia, then there's no reason for you to care what we put on here. Sour grapes whining isn't an actual argument. Have you found any of the cited sources to have failed in framing the things those people have said as belonging to the conspiracy theory? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC) See, you cannot even provide one example of a real encylcopedia that engages in smearing campagnes like this. To answer your question: none of the sources that I deleted is suitable for the claim that person X supports 'the white genocide conspiracy theory'. Some of the articles merely mention the respective person, many relate specifically to South-Africa (so not to 'white genocide' in general), (almost) all of them are from (far-)left sources (some even written in a polemic/opinionated style) and one article even links to a business article -- granted, the latter is probably a mistake. In conclusion: this is pure propaganda which would never be placed in e.g. Encyclopædia Britannica, but which is used for a smearing campagne here on the English version of Wikipedia. The claim that this Wikipedia is not a real encylcopedia is therefore fully justified. Reedseque (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Ok dude.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC) So you're saying sources such as The Guardian, International Business Times, The New York Times, and The Atlantic are unreliable? Do say yes so we can go ahead and block you under WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "So you're saying" Reedseque (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Jordan Peterson??? I got BINGO! User:Ian.thomson, I win! Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC) You said none of the sources that I deleted is suitable for the claim.... The sources I pointed to are accepted as highly reliable. How are they not suitable? For example, this Guardian piece says Gavin McInnes (who is no longer part of Vice), who has referred on Twitter to immigration and white women seeking abortions collectively as threatening “white genocide”,... How is that not suitable reliable for identifying him as a supporter of the conspiracy theory? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC) I did not delete the part about Gavin McInnes -- whoever that may be. Maybe pay better attention next time, it makes your cherrypicking look less silly. Reedseque (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Fine then, The Atlantic. Also, you did remove a citation of this Guardian piece. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC) It's an opinionated article; The article actually calls the idea of white genocide a 'meme', not a 'conspiracy theory', which conflicts with the premise of this Wiki-article; The 'proof' that Donald Trump Jr. supports the 'white genocide conspiracy theory' actually consists of some retweets he made. Nothing more than that. The fact that this is the best article you can provide shows how badly sourced this article is. edit: you added the part about the Guardian-article later. Seems like bad manners to talk/discuss in this way, but that's fully up to you. Anyway, my comments above relate to article in The Atlantic, just to make that clear. Reedseque (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC) The article does not state as fact that Trump Jr. is an enthusiast of the theory. Rather, it appropriately mentions the reliable sources which discuss accusations and links. If your standard is "proof" before anything can be mentioned in Wikipedia, I eagerly await your removal of similarly-unproven claims about Hillary Clinton or Bruce Ohr. Somehow, I have a feeling you have different standard there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC) The article written by a staff member of Atlantic does not say that Donald Trump Jr. "supports the white genocide conspiracy theory". The article does not even contain the term "white genocide conspiracy theory". Reedseque (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC) We are explicitly putting Jr. on a list of "Advocates". It is precisely because this is a neo-Nazi theory that I think it requires stronger sourcing. I think Reedseque does have a point with the sourcing on this list, though I disagree with all their other points. And I am concerned that such a list is just publicizing the more extremist and charismatic of such people and their views, rather than analyzing them.--Pharos (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC) There is no proof that Ann Coulter supports the 'white genocide conspiracy theory' There are two sources given for the outlandish and damaging claim that Ann Coulter supports the 'white genocide conspiracy theory': 1. https://theoutline.com/post/4486/the-creeping-spectre-of-white-genocide?zd=1&zi=z5vxffi2 This article mentions the name of Ann Coulter one time. Here the article does *NOT* state that Ann Coulter supports the 'white genocide conspiracy theory'; 2. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/16/peter-duttons-offer-to-white-south-african-farmers-started-on-the-far-right This article, too, mentions the name of Ann Coulter only one time: "Ann Coulter remarked last year that the farmers are the “only real refugees”". Again, it says nowhere that Ann Coulter supports the 'white genocide conspiracy theory'. Therefore, I will delete this again. Please do not place it back, unless you can provide that actual proof that Ann Coulter supports the 'white genocide conspiracy theory'. Reedseque (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Coulter is supported by her reply at a Breitbart event, saying that if we (Americans) don't stop white genocide in South Africa then the US is next.[1][https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/05/ann-coulter-south-african-genocide-white-farmers-breitbart-news-town-hall/] The Daily Dot and SPLC support Coulter as a believer in white genocide.[2][3] It's looking more and more like you are not interested in representing the literature in a neutral manner. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Did you just link to a blog and Breitbart? Also, the Daily Dot is only semi-reliable for BLP content, while the SPLC has WP:DUE problems. wumbolo ^^^ 23:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC) I am no fan of Breitbart, but it was a Breitbart-sponsored event, and their account is factual, not judgemental. And both the Daily Dot and SPLC are legitimate sources for BLP. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC) @Binksternet: I literally reviewed the provided literature, so please keep your qualifications to yourself, since it's quite clear who's not interested in a neutral article here. Anyway, none of the other sources as provided by you seem reliable, but in case they'ld nevertheless be deemed as such, I'll happily review them as well. Reedseque (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Katie Hopkins' comments do in no way fulfill the definition of 'white genocide conspiracy theory' as given in this 'encyclopedic' article The definition of the 'white genocide conspiracy theory' as provided in this Wiki-article is: a neo-Nazi, alt-right, white nationalist, and supremacist conspiracy theory,[1] which contends that mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates, abortion, organised violence and eliminationism are being promoted in predominantly white countries to deliberately turn them minority-white and hence cause white people to become extinct through forced assimilation The articles provided relating to Katie Hopkins, however, all relate to her visit to S-Africa and her comments that S-African white farmers are being murdered because of their skin-color (plaasmoorde). Therefore: S-Africa is not a "predominantly white country", so the definition as provided in this Wiki-article cannot be 'fulfilled' by what Hopkins said; Even if one does not agree with Hopkins' claims, it is simply outrageous to claim that, because of these comments, she agrees with 'a neo-nazi theory that states that all white people will become a minority because of a conspiracy of migration, abortion, etc.'. Her comments relate specifically to one group of white people (who already are a minority) and the effects of real crime (i.e. the plaasmoorde), not to any conspiracy relating to abortion or any of the other elements listed in the definition. In conclusion: Katie Hopkins' comments do in no way fulfill the definition of 'white genocide conspiracy theory' as given in this 'encyclopedic' article, and therefore she should not be mentioned in this article. Reedseque (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Apparently, you are more interested in removing names than in finding sources to support the presence of those names in the list. Hopkins is supported by the New Statesman and the Daily Maverick. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC) All the criticism I mentioned above is relevant for these sources, indeed. You might consider reading the criticism and responding to it. Reedseque (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC) I rejected your arguments because the sources about Hopkins don't agree with your view. Binksternet (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC) These articles do not claim that S-A is a "predominantly white country", nor that Hopkins meets the other criteria for 'white genocide conspiracy theory' as set out in this Wiki-article. So you can't reject the arguments based on these articles. Cheers, Reedseque (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC) You appear to be stuck on the question of whether white genocide is really happening in South Africa. The answer doesn't matter if the sources are saying Hopkins is a believer of the white genocide theory. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Please, read the actual arguments as I wrote them above; I'm not going to belittle you by repeating them. Reedseque (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Again, if someone believes in a white genocide conspiracy then it doesn't matter whether there is an actual conspiracy. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I nowhere argue whether there actually is a 'white genocide', so no idea why you bring this up. Let me write this as clear and simple as possible: 1) there is a definition of 'white genocide conspirary theory' given in this article, 2) the sources provided do not prove Hopkins has met this definition, for the two (numbered) reasons as stated in the first post of this section. Cheers, Reedseque (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Multiple reliable sources describe Hopkins as a believer in white genocide and/or white ethnic cleansing. That's all that's required here. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Actually, no. See above for the arguments, which you ignore. Cheers, Reedseque (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia is intended to reflect what the reliable sources say. The sources say that Hopkins promotes the idea of white genocide and white ethnic cleansing. Therefore the requirement has been met. We are not ignoring or misunderstanding your arguments above, we are telling you they are not relevant here. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC) If you first define X has "ABC" and then provide sources that person Y is called X by some (liberal) media, but in a context which clearly does not fulfill the "ABC"-definition (see the numbered arguments at the beginning of this discussion), then you are deliberatly smearing a person. This is equivalent to writing a Wiki-article in which "soccer player" is defined as "a fascist that kills baby's" and then adding to it that Messi is called a soccer player by a reliable source. Try to understand it. Cheers, Reedseque (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC) The Advocates-part is a smearing campagne The problems as discussed above, relating to Ann Coulter and Katie Hopkins, exist with the parts about many of the other people mentioned in this article as well. The 'Advocates'-part is clearly used a a 'wall of shame' and such a smearing campagne has no place in an encyclopedia; hence, you won't find ANY of it in ANY real encyclopedia, such as Encyclopædia Britannica. Wikipedia should abide to these standards as well. The POV-symbol should only be removed after these issues have been resolved. Reedseque (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC) White genocide appears to be a form of cultural genocide adapted by opponents of the term (similar to calling Israel a "Nazi state" with regard to its policies towards Arabs/Palestinians). It is a form of tu quoque. There is a chapter on the subject in the "The Routledge History of Genocide", and the article should be rewritten accordingly. The list of alleged theory supporters is futile, because most radical right-wingers support the theory in one form or another (see also Clash of Civilizations). There is also the notion that a low birth-rate among whites (or high birth rate among the "primitives") contributes to white genocide, see Lebensborn. --185.13.106.213 (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Since this article is named 'white genocide conspiracy theory', it should only discuss conspiracists I guess it's valuable to make this point a little bit more explicit: this article states that it discusses a conspiracy theory. This implies that only conspiracists should be discussed in it. This means that e.g. (people who make) claims that whites in the USA might become a minority, based on actual projections (e.g. "The non-Hispanic White percentage (63% in 2012[5]) tends to decrease every year, and this sub-group is expected to become a plurality of the overall U.S. population after the year 2043. " (Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States)) do not belong in this article, but people who e.g. claim that e.g. the Aemrican abortion and immigration policies are designed to make whites a minority do belong in this article. Reedseque (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Please provide sources that actually prove that Molyneux thinks there is conspiracy leading to a white genocide Of the currently mentioned articles/sources, none shows that Molyneux believes that there is a conspiracy leading to a white genocide. Therefore, he should be deleted from this article as well. Reedseque (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I'm sorry, but you misread the title. The conspiracy is the idea that there is a white genocide. The thesis is not that there is a conspiracy leading to white genocide, which would suggest there is a white genocide. There is no white genocide. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC) 'X happens' is not a conspiracy theory, see Conspiracy theory. 'X happens because of Y, which Z (secretly) wants and contributes to' is a conspiracy theory. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The good people who wrote this article will have to decide whether they, a) want to smear as many people as 'nazi' by having a very broad definition of 'white genocide'; or b) want to smear the people as 'conspiracy theorist' as well, in which case, however, the list should be limited to actual conspiracists. Many of the people there (such as Molyneux) namely simply point out facts, such as the plaasmoorde and/or the decrease of the percetange of whites in the USA. This is not a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory would mean that they would argue that this is the conscious work of governments or others. Cf. black genocide (which, again showing Wiki's tremendous bias, is ofcourse *NOT* called black genocide conspiracy theory), where only people who claim that blacks are deliberatly etnically clinsed by birth control and abortion policies are mentioned. So, yes, a conspiracy theory is, quite obviously, required for there to be a 'white genocide conspiracy theory' and if someone does not argue there is any conspiracy, then s/he should not be mentioned in this article. Reedseque (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Trump edits

@Avangion: please discuss here your proposed changes, and gain consensus in order to put them back in the article. wumbolo ^^^ 08:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Um no

Donald Trump is not "promoting the conspiracy theory", "claiming the government has begun taking land from whites". He is actually stating facts this time. [4] wumbolo ^^^ 13:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No comment but here's a UK source.[5] Also the NYT.[6] Doug Weller talk 15:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

And a source from South Africa. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Wumbolo you're treading on really thin ice here. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I am not talking about this contentious thing, but about this real event. wumbolo ^^^ 17:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, Trump was talking about the "large scale killing of farmers", which is the white genocide conspiracy that this article is actually about. The article isn't about SA farmers or whatever, but about the presidentially endorsed canard of white genocide. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I missed that. While it's still debatable (surely, if Trump supported this conspiracy theory, the coverage would outweigh his birth conspiracy theories), it's at least not out of the blue. wumbolo ^^^ 18:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• BTW, per NOTNEWS, I am really not a big fan of this thing from yesterday being in here already today. I know it's not a little thing, but still. We're turning into cable news. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• My big concern is with the controversial Category:White genocide conspiracy theorists. If Trump's not in the category, why is he mentioned in this article? wumbolo ^^^ 18:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The Trump Horizon GMG^talk 18:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• You're an experienced enough editor to know this, but categories are used more cautiously than article text, since they lack context. We can (and should) cover the fact that such a prominent public figure has been reported as spreading a conspiracy theory in reliable, mainstream media; but part of the reason we can do that is because we can use inline citations and other tools to treat the topic with a degree of caution. Adding the category would endorse it as absolute fact in the encyclopedia's voice and therefore requires stronger sourcing than just mentioning reporting on the topic here. --Aquillion (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• And you realize that the article section is explicitly called "Advocates", and it says "Advocates of the conspiracy theory include". wumbolo ^^^ 08:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It is indeed called "Advocates". I guess the intention was some sort of shaming, but I think it's unintentionally promotional of a lot of these fringe figures. Combined with an unintentional legitimization when we list mainstream figures. People who google "white genocide" need to know it's a conspiracy theory with a neo-Nazi origin, some of the history of its development, and how aspects of it have influenced mainstream political conversation. This is best done in sections and paragraphs, rather than a personality-driven bullet point list of "Advocates".--Pharos (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned by the way the article lumps together reasonable concern over racially-motivated attacks on white people in Southern Africa with nonsense spouted by racists in Canada, England, Norway and America.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "Critics" section

See 9/11 conspiracy theories#Criticism for an example of which conspiracy theory critics may be credible enough to include in a criticism section. This conspiracy theory (not unlike nearly all others) is extremely fringe, and only the most significant critics should be included. Not to mention the WP:FALSEBALANCE that is created by listing twice as many supporters as critics (even though all the listed supporters/critics are on the same level of credibility – neither very prominent figures nor people in positions of power). wumbolo ^^^ 13:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the "Critics" section is entirely criticism of Trump's recent comments about South Africa. Which certainly deserve to be criticized, but this article doesn't need a whole section devoted to Trump criticism. Nothing about criticism of the general immigration conspiracy nonsense, nothing from long-time scholars of the far-right, etc. This article would be better served by prose rather than bullet point, particularly here in the 'South Africa' section that talks about Africa Check..--Pharos (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've moved this list under the South Africa section, which given the list members, and their quotes, is where it belongs. We'd also be better served by expanding the prose at the top of that section as well.--Pharos (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Early 20th century precursors

Besides the 1934 Nazi propaganda by Walter Frank mentioned in the intro, in the United States there was the 1920 The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy and the 1916 The Passing of the Great Race, and before that, even an 1863 American Civil War propaganda piece that coined the word "miscegenation". Not sure if these precursors should be mentioned somewhere, there are probably some sources mentioning them in connection with the modern conspiracy theory (e.g.).--Pharos (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The most relevant article to develop here for the early 20th century concept would probably be race suicide (currently a redirect).--Pharos (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Lincoln...

@Perspex03: I appreciate your efforts, but you're deep into WP:SYNTH-territory here. The article is about a (specific) contemporary conspiracy theory, not about a 19th century forgery. Kleuske (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe this was in reaction to my "precursors" section above. I don't think there are RS tying the 1863 pamphlet to the current conspiracy theory that I've seen yet, but it still might be a good idea to start an article on the Miscegenation hoax, and use some of the existing text you added on that article instead.--Pharos (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I've started the Miscegenation hoax article, maybe others would like to contribute to it.--Pharos (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violations?

I noticed that one of the justifications for removing material was "copyright violations." Looking in to that:

• There was matches with this WaPo article -- but those matches consisted of a quote (that is properly attributed and presented as a quote) and the source's title. Matches beyond that were ridiculously short things like "white farmers in South Africa."
• This NBC article... again for properly attributed quotes (one of one of Trump's tweets, another from Africa Check). The rest are short matches like "secretary of state Mike Pompeo."
• This Fortune article... again for properly attributed and formatted quotes.
• This Esquire article... again, quotes and titles.
• A couple of minor "news" sources that post-date this article.
• A bunch of other sources that the Copyvio detector was no where near as confident about as the above examples.

@Wumbolo: where exactly is the wolf? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: copyvio concern is related to a youtube.com video. wumbolo ^^^ 19:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Then why don't you say which video and remove that, rather than lumping in 10,000 things together? Unless you're willing to do the work of pointing out exactly what you object to and why, you're not going to get anywhere.--Pharos (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I object to everything that I removed in my edit. And my edit summaries explain exactly what my reasonings are. If I say that I'm removing opinion sources cited for facts, and I remove an opinion source cited for a fact, then that's my reason. Why would I have to explain why I remove each link separately? I'm not required by any policy to provide an entire diary on the talk page of every unreliable source I remove in an edit, and edit summaries are called edit summaries for a reason. wumbolo ^^^ 19:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Not good enough. Your blanket statements about blanket removals are not going to work. Each source is different and each supported fact is different. And you are wrong about the Guardian source being opinion. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It took a bit of sleuthing, but I think Wumbolo is referring to this Guardian opinion piece, which is used to support the line "contributing to her dismissal at The Rebel Media", referring to Faith Goldy. If there is a consensus that the Guardian piece is not good enough, this source could be used instead. Bradv 19:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Don't you see what's wrong here, forcing other editors to go "sleuthing"? At the very least, if you make an edit removing multiple sources, you have to give one reason that you've removed that set, like "removing copyvios" or "removing opinion pieces", not "removing various sources, some of which are copyvios, some of which are opinion pieces, some of which are just bad grammar, you figure it out".--Pharos (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

My impression is that Wumbolo does not like the material, and no amount of reasoning will satisfy him, which makes me shy away from performing the sleuthing work which he is demanding. I fear it would be a waste of time. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I fear it would be a waste of time to explain the removal of every single reference individually. And it's true that I don't like unreliable sources and BLP violations, and no amount of "reasoning" will satisfy that. wumbolo ^^^ 20:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I read this comment as evidence that your edits are not being done in good faith. If you would like to see something changed, make your case here. If not, please don't waste people's time. Bradv 20:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It is a waste of time for everyone to do mass-removal without real explanation and expect it to be accepted. It's not going to work on an article that has any kind of controversy, let alone this one. You don't necessarily have to do everything one-by-one, but if you give a list here broken down in sections by what you consider a BLP violation, an unreliable source or a copyvio, people will be able to intelligibly respond. Maybe you'd like to start with a list of copyvios, those are probably easiest.--Pharos (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Kalergi Plan

No White Genocide conspiracy is complete without the Kalergi Plan. Should probably be mentioned in the article. :) You know, if it even is a conspiracy as demographic studies do indeed show that several European nationalities may indeed become a minority within their own countries within the next 50 years or so: http://www.bulletinofgeography.umk.pl/39_2018/10_Tarvainen.pdf --Kebman (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Le grand remplacement - the french populist conspiracy theory

I created page for the the french version of this conspiracy theory, known as Le grand remplacement. More information can be found in the article on the french wiki. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed the french version. Looking at the fr.wiki article, the theory seems quite notable, and Le Pen herself denied believing it. wumbolo ^^^ 18:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

As per Renaud Camus himself, it is not a conspiracy theory, it just describes the ethnic substitution on native europeans. Other calls it (and celebrates it) as diversity or multiculturalism. So it's just another word, non politicaly correct, to describe the same phenomenom. You can construct a conspiracy therory to explain it or attribute it to natural causes, but the "Great Relplacement" is neutral in itself.72.141.14.254 (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it a "conspiracy" if it is not a secret?

Throughout the years many anti-White activists have openly said that the goal of their activism to get more non-Whites into White majority countries, integrating White communities and promoting interracial breeding to Whites is to eliminate the White race from existence. Basically they want every White majority population in the world to become some sort of mocha brown population and White people to no longer exit. It's been out in the open, completely admitted and even championed as some sort of great advancement in human civilisation.

The definition of a "conspiracy" is a secret plan...but the program to eliminate the White race from existence has been anything but secret. It's promoters have been shouting from the hills about how wonderful it will be when there are no more White people on Earth. It in no way meets the definition of a "conspiracy" when it has been so completely out in the open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.1.46 (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This article doesn't say White genocide is a conspiracy-- it says it is a conspiracy theory (i.e. there is no credible evidence such a conspiracy even exists). Bennv3771 (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

South African "white genocide"

There seem to be two different "white genocide" memes combined here. One is the Renaud Camus-like one of demographic shifts (see The Great Replacement conspiracy theory), the "conspiracy" part usually being about what force is orchestrating the demographic shifts.

The second appears to relate to land seizures in South Africa. Someone got Donald Trump to tweet about that, and there's a cottage industry of bloggers conflating the two. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the South Africa thing has been promoted as part of "white genocide" by people like David Duke since the 1990s, and RS agree it's the same conspiracy theory. That doesn't mean there are no legitimate issues with farm attacks of course. The Carlson/Trump thing has had too much emphasis in the article lately due to recentism, but it does deserve mention.--Pharos (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this. I think that the two are part of the same broad conspiracy theory, and are treated as such in any source that mentions both, but that it is important for the article to clarify this context and to unambiguously identify what it's talking about at any given point, especially when discussing what individuals believe or advocate. And the people connecting the two are not a "cottage industry of bloggers"; see the sources below, none of which, as far as I can tell, are opinion pieces or blogs. eg. The Guardian: The conspiracy theory of “white genocide” has been a staple of the racist far right for decades. It has taken many forms, but all of them imagine that there is a plot to either replace, remove or simply liquidate white populations. South Africa and Zimbabwe in particular have exerted a fascination on the racist far right because in the mind of white nationalists, they show what happens to a white minority after they lose control of countries they once ruled. Sydney Morning Herald: But News Corp in Australia was far from the first group adopting the cause of the white South Africans. They had become a favourite of people pushing the idea of "white genocide". Coined originally by white supremacists, "white genocide" acts as shorthand for one of their most deeply held convictions: that the white race is "dying" due to growing non-white populations who "breed" more quickly than white populations and aggressively attack them, and that governments are enacting "forced assimilation". (Context is an article about the South Africa iteration in particular.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian source is not an opinion piece or blog. wumbolo ^^^ 16:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

That's what I said! --Aquillion (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 September 2018

The part which currently says The 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia referenced the conspiracy theory as tiki torch-wielding protestors yelled "You will not replace us!" and "Jews will not replace us!". is unreferenced. Would it be possible for this SPLC source to be used as a reference, which unambiguously links the slogans to this conspiracy theory? Thanks. Bangalamania (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

SPLC is an self-described advocacy organization. It is a reliable source for it's own opinions, but not third-party facts like this. A far more reliable source would be the NYT [7] -Obsidi (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

And there's no mention of the word "genocide" in the NYT article. Looks like another WP:SYNTH. wumbolo ^^^ 13:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Article conflates two topics?

The lede of the article describes white genocide conspiracy theory in very general terms. But the bulk of this article concerns the specific South African application of the term.

Should this be separated into two articles, or at least two distinct sections of the article? For example, the section "Advocates and alleged advocates" includes people who claim that people of color are engaged in white genocide all over the world, and also includes people who have only mentioned the South Africa genocide accusation. Even if both of these are false conspiracy theories, they seem to be different conspiracy theories. Should they really be lumped together? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 06:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree, the circumstances behind both controversies are quite different, and one seems to have more truth to it than the other. funplussmart (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

We have a distinct section for White genocide conspiracy theory#South Africa, and this should be expanded. The South Africa conspiracy theory is a sub-topic of the general one, and has been promoted as such by Americans since the 1990s[8]. The South Africa sub-topic has had disproportionate emphasis in this article since the recent Carlson/Trump controversy and the addition of the various lists of advocates, alleged advocates and critics. This should be covered here, but I think most of it would be better covered by expanding narrative text in #South Africa and #Discourse rather than the bulleted lists.--Pharos (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That sounds fine, but the section "Advocates and alleged advocates" needs to be divided into two as well. Currently that section is divided based on the geographical location of the named individuals, but that makes it even more misleading. The heading to this section says, "Advocates and alleged advocates of the conspiracy theory include [the following people]." But when someone says that they believe that the FBI killed John F. Kennedy, we don't say that this person believes that all four assassinated U.S. presidents were killed by conspiracies. In the same way, when someone says "the South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers", we must not conclude from that statement that they believe that there's a conspiracy to turn white-majority countries into white-minority countries. Those are two very different things. If some of the listed people believe in both theories, then say so, but combining them into a single list makes no sense. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lawrence King: That's an exaggeration of the current version of the list. People who merely say factual things like "the South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers" aren't included on the list (except Trump, but it's difficult to discuss anything with the editors on this page and similar pages who consistently push WP:OWN). wumbolo ^^^ 14:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't intend to exaggerate, which is why I quoted those words directly from the article itself.

The lede states, "In August 2018, US President Donald Trump was accused of endorsing the conspiracy theory in a foreign policy tweet, instructing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to investigate South African farm attacks, claiming that 'South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers'." Notice what it says: (1) It says Trump was accused of "endorsing the conspiracy theory" -- not just any conspiracy theory, but the conspiracy theory. At this point in the article (paragraph 3 of the lede) the only conspiracy theory that has been mentioned is one described in the first paragraph, which will "cause white people to become extinct". The second paragraph says that "The conspiracy theory was developed by the neo-Nazi David Lane in about 1995" -- again, note the "The" which indicates that this article is about one single theory. When Trump is accused of endorsing "the conspiracy theory", South Africa hasn't even been mentioned yet. So the context unambiguously indicates that Trump has been accused of endorsing the claim that white people are in danger of extinction. (2) And why was Trump accused of this? Not because of his many racist comments, or Charlottesville, or his overall pattern, but because of a single "foreign policy tweet" that claimed that "South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers".

That's the very essence of my complaint. The article, including the lede, conflates a claim about whites being oppressed in South Africa with a claim about a worldwide conspiracy to make white people extinct. Now, common sense will show you that even if every white person in South Africa were to be killed (which obviously is nonsense), white people would not become extinct. That's why the specific South Africa conspiracy theory must be distinguished from the broader one. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 20:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

So by your logic the actual White Genocide, the one with a capital G, is not an actual genocide because it did not target all whites around the world? Then zero genocides have ever happened because every group of people has a diaspora all over the world, and "genocides" are limited to a small geographical area. wumbolo ^^^ 13:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You really didn't read a word I said, did you? I never said anything about a genocide requiring being worldwide. I never said anything about what qualifies as genocide. The Armenian genocide is genocide, and the Holocaust was genocide. That doesn't mean they should be put together into a single Wikipedia article that conflates them. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 23:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

For the record, this concept has been discussed in the 'BLP Concerns' section in much more detail, noting the multiple reliable sources that directly link the South-African issue with a broader "white genocide" conspiracy. Perspex03 (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Critics and alleged critics

This is getting ridiculous, there is no reason to mention figures like George Takei in this article. And who is an "alleged critic"? I have also nominated Category:Critics of the white genocide conspiracy theory for deletion.--Pharos (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Since this term is a neologism, there's no reason to rule out multiple meanings. The primary meaning of the term refers to the alleged elimination of white people in a real-world setting, but the Takei article shows that some have used the term "white genocide" to refer to white people being displaced by people of color in a media property (e.g., Star Trek). That alternate meaning should be mentioned in the article, but only very briefly. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 06:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

This article, like all Wikipedia articles, is about one subject. That subject is the conspiracy theory held by various hate groups to deliberately turn various supposedly white nations to nations of color.

This article is not about the term "white genocide", various uses of the phrase, where the phrase originated and random occurrences in various sources.

Discussion in the article of diverse casting in Star Trek is off-topic. If you have multiple reliable sources discussing that usage of the term "white genocide", you might have sufficient material to start a new article at, perhaps, White genocide (casting practice) and we would need a hatnote at White Genocide. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I've struck the sections for supporters and critics. There are clear BLP violations here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree these sections have major BLP issues. I think a lot of this could be covered better in prose rather than bullet lists, even while mentioning some of the more important names in a better context.--Pharos (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The current consensus-building of whether, or not, there are BLP violations has been discussed in much finer detail in the 'BLP Concerns' section.Perspex03 (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Fundamental BLP issue with a list of 'Advocates', but not with including names

I do not object to the inclusion of any and all of the names in @Aquillion:'s vetted list in the article, except for a couple that may be too minor/repetitive. The fundamental issue is putting all of the names under a list of 'Advocates' or even an undifferentiated list of 'Advocates and alleged advocates'. I suppose you could separate out the alleged from the explicit advocates, but that would not be easy at all. Pro-list people, is there some way that you feel that, for example, the de facto Trump/Carlson section underplays the accusations? I think in the future, this article should have a couple of more such narrative sections, for example one covering the concept in right-wing media / social media.--Pharos (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 September 2018

Include information on U.S. discourse section involving pew research and U.S. government census bureau along with brooking.edu regarding whites becoming a minority by 2050 based on census projections.

Published change could be as simple as:

"Various census studies have indicated that white identifying demographics will become a minority in the U.S. by as early as 2050.[9][10][11] These figures proved inflammatory to racial tensions already brewing in the U.S., fueling much of the alt-right rhetoric. [12]"

section continues... WolfHook (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Your source says nothing to support the claim that "these figures proved inflammatory to racial tensions," because... they really haven't. The vast majority of Americans don't care. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done, none of the sources support the suggested wording. Fish+Karate 09:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 September 2018

I would like to ask for a reinstatement of the last edit by Ammarpad before the edit by @Wumbolo: that removed the recent changes of @Aquillion: in a way that was kind of against the spirit of WP:POINT. Not asking for an admin to just do this, but seeking a consensus of editors, as I feel this will put the article in a better and more productive place for when the protection is lifted on October 1. The reinstatement I am asking for removes the "Advocates" section with its BLP issues, while having a section that covers some of the same issues related to Trump/Carlson, and that could be expanded.--Pharos (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

That looks like a much better version with far less BLP issues. I would support starting with that as the base going forward. -Obsidi (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done no opposition after 15 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Understandable precaution. Current status is Aquillion's list of advocates at the top of the 'BLP Concerns' section, has had no specific objections on a source-by-source basis. No objections to, or analysis of sources have shown that each individual cite is not a reliable source showing an individual's advocacy, promotion, or supporting of the conspiracy theory. Therefore, as it stands, awaiting specific objections or contradictory sources, the new "Advocates and alleged advocates" list could potentially be added to the article after the expiration of protection. Perspex03 (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If you get consensus to make the change including consensus that it doesn't violate BLP. -Obsidi (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, right now there are no objections that any of the list or prose violates BLP in the future 'Advocates' section, because nobody is producing any source-specific objections to any of that content. Current consensus is; there are no BLP violations, pending any future specific citation objections (again, none so far). Perspex03 (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I and others are making very explicit BLP objections based on WP:SYNTH. -Obsidi (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Most of your objections (in fact, nearly all of them) seem to be grounded in the fact that you feel that discussing the White Genocide conspiracy theory as it applies to South Africa is off-topic for this article. Can you explain why you think that? I've presented numerous sources about how they're part of the same conspiracy theory, and nobody has presented anything saying otherwise. More importantly, if your issue is that you don't feel the article talks enough about the South Africa example, do you think your objections could be assuaged by adding more about that aspect to the article? It already has a large section in the lead, but of course we could add more. EDIT: Important secondary question. Do you deny that the conspiracy theory about the systematic murder of white farmers is a conspiracy theory at all? Because we have numerous sources for it referring to it as part of the "White Genocide conspiracy theory"; and if it falls under this title, and we have sources unambiguously saying that people have advanced or pushed it, I don't see how listing them on this article could ever be a WP:BLP violation - at best, we would have to be careful to clarify what aspects of the conspiracy theory they have and have not pushed. --Aquillion (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem isn't that "White Genocide conspiracy theory as it applies to South Africa is off-topic for this article." The problem has to do with BLP in implying that specific named individuals are supporters of the White Genocide conspiracy theory. That requires a specific source in which the named individual is said to support the full White Genocide conspiracy theory, and not just the claims concerning South Africa. There are many people in this article that I do not dispute that RS do make such claims, but for those RS which are focused exclusively on South Africa they do not support the notion that those individuals support the broader conspiracy theory outside of South Africa. You need one RS (and only one) that says the individual supports the broad conspiracy theory (including outside South Africa), you cannot use two parts joined together (one that links SA to the broader conspiracy and the other that links the individual to the claims concerning SA). -Obsidi (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. The "White Genocide conspiracy theory" covers a wide range of topics and permutations; we have numerous sources for the people you object to referring to the conspiracy theory that they hold, with regards to South Africa, as being the "White Genocide conspiracy theory". Therefore, a source referring to a conspiracy theory someone holds as a "White Genocide conspiracy theory" is sufficient to justify putting them in this article. Since you have (as far as I can tell) conceded that the White Genocide conspiracy theory, as it applies to South Africa, is relevant to this article, sources saying that someone has endorsed, amplified, or spread that conspiracy theory, and calling it a "White Genocide" conspiracy theory, are sufficient to answer your objections. If you are concerned that someone could confuse it with other permutations of the White Genocide conspiracy theory, we can be cautious in our wording to make it clear what they endorsed - this isn't a list or category, so we can provide context - but that's not an argument for excluding entirely, not unless you have a source showing that the numerous reliable sources I cited below were mistaken in referring to the conspiracy theories these people endorsed as being "White Genocide" conspiracy theories. --Aquillion (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Kalergi Plan

No White Genocide conspiracy is complete without the Kalergi Plan. Should probably be mentioned in the article. :) You know, if it even is a conspiracy as demographic studies do indeed show that several European nationalities may indeed become a minority within their own countries within the next 50 years or so: http://www.bulletinofgeography.umk.pl/39_2018/10_Tarvainen.pdf --Kebman (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Le grand remplacement - the french populist conspiracy theory

I created page for the the french version of this conspiracy theory, known as Le grand remplacement. More information can be found in the article on the french wiki. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed the french version. Looking at the fr.wiki article, the theory seems quite notable, and Le Pen herself denied believing it. wumbolo ^^^ 18:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

As per Renaud Camus himself, it is not a conspiracy theory, it just describes the ethnic substitution on native europeans. Other calls it (and celebrates it) as diversity or multiculturalism. So it's just another word, non politicaly correct, to describe the same phenomenom. You can construct a conspiracy therory to explain it or attribute it to natural causes, but the "Great Relplacement" is neutral in itself.72.141.14.254 (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it a "conspiracy" if it is not a secret?

Throughout the years many anti-White activists have openly said that the goal of their activism to get more non-Whites into White majority countries, integrating White communities and promoting interracial breeding to Whites is to eliminate the White race from existence. Basically they want every White majority population in the world to become some sort of mocha brown population and White people to no longer exit. It's been out in the open, completely admitted and even championed as some sort of great advancement in human civilisation.

The definition of a "conspiracy" is a secret plan...but the program to eliminate the White race from existence has been anything but secret. It's promoters have been shouting from the hills about how wonderful it will be when there are no more White people on Earth. It in no way meets the definition of a "conspiracy" when it has been so completely out in the open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.1.46 (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This article doesn't say White genocide is a conspiracy-- it says it is a conspiracy theory (i.e. there is no credible evidence such a conspiracy even exists). Bennv3771 (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

South African "white genocide"

There seem to be two different "white genocide" memes combined here. One is the Renaud Camus-like one of demographic shifts (see The Great Replacement conspiracy theory), the "conspiracy" part usually being about what force is orchestrating the demographic shifts.

The second appears to relate to land seizures in South Africa. Someone got Donald Trump to tweet about that, and there's a cottage industry of bloggers conflating the two. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the South Africa thing has been promoted as part of "white genocide" by people like David Duke since the 1990s, and RS agree it's the same conspiracy theory. That doesn't mean there are no legitimate issues with farm attacks of course. The Carlson/Trump thing has had too much emphasis in the article lately due to recentism, but it does deserve mention.--Pharos (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this. I think that the two are part of the same broad conspiracy theory, and are treated as such in any source that mentions both, but that it is important for the article to clarify this context and to unambiguously identify what it's talking about at any given point, especially when discussing what individuals believe or advocate. And the people connecting the two are not a "cottage industry of bloggers"; see the sources below, none of which, as far as I can tell, are opinion pieces or blogs. eg. The Guardian: The conspiracy theory of “white genocide” has been a staple of the racist far right for decades. It has taken many forms, but all of them imagine that there is a plot to either replace, remove or simply liquidate white populations. South Africa and Zimbabwe in particular have exerted a fascination on the racist far right because in the mind of white nationalists, they show what happens to a white minority after they lose control of countries they once ruled. Sydney Morning Herald: But News Corp in Australia was far from the first group adopting the cause of the white South Africans. They had become a favourite of people pushing the idea of "white genocide". Coined originally by white supremacists, "white genocide" acts as shorthand for one of their most deeply held convictions: that the white race is "dying" due to growing non-white populations who "breed" more quickly than white populations and aggressively attack them, and that governments are enacting "forced assimilation". (Context is an article about the South Africa iteration in particular.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian source is not an opinion piece or blog. wumbolo ^^^ 16:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

That's what I said! --Aquillion (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 September 2018

The part which currently says The 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia referenced the conspiracy theory as tiki torch-wielding protestors yelled "You will not replace us!" and "Jews will not replace us!". is unreferenced. Would it be possible for this SPLC source to be used as a reference, which unambiguously links the slogans to this conspiracy theory? Thanks. Bangalamania (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

SPLC is an self-described advocacy organization. It is a reliable source for it's own opinions, but not third-party facts like this. A far more reliable source would be the NYT [13] -Obsidi (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

And there's no mention of the word "genocide" in the NYT article. Looks like another WP:SYNTH. wumbolo ^^^ 13:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Article conflates two topics?

The lede of the article describes white genocide conspiracy theory in very general terms. But the bulk of this article concerns the specific South African application of the term.

Should this be separated into two articles, or at least two distinct sections of the article? For example, the section "Advocates and alleged advocates" includes people who claim that people of color are engaged in white genocide all over the world, and also includes people who have only mentioned the South Africa genocide accusation. Even if both of these are false conspiracy theories, they seem to be different conspiracy theories. Should they really be lumped together? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 06:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree, the circumstances behind both controversies are quite different, and one seems to have more truth to it than the other. funplussmart (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

We have a distinct section for White genocide conspiracy theory#South Africa, and this should be expanded. The South Africa conspiracy theory is a sub-topic of the general one, and has been promoted as such by Americans since the 1990s[14]. The South Africa sub-topic has had disproportionate emphasis in this article since the recent Carlson/Trump controversy and the addition of the various lists of advocates, alleged advocates and critics. This should be covered here, but I think most of it would be better covered by expanding narrative text in #South Africa and #Discourse rather than the bulleted lists.--Pharos (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That sounds fine, but the section "Advocates and alleged advocates" needs to be divided into two as well. Currently that section is divided based on the geographical location of the named individuals, but that makes it even more misleading. The heading to this section says, "Advocates and alleged advocates of the conspiracy theory include [the following people]." But when someone says that they believe that the FBI killed John F. Kennedy, we don't say that this person believes that all four assassinated U.S. presidents were killed by conspiracies. In the same way, when someone says "the South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers", we must not conclude from that statement that they believe that there's a conspiracy to turn white-majority countries into white-minority countries. Those are two very different things. If some of the listed people believe in both theories, then say so, but combining them into a single list makes no sense. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lawrence King: That's an exaggeration of the current version of the list. People who merely say factual things like "the South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers" aren't included on the list (except Trump, but it's difficult to discuss anything with the editors on this page and similar pages who consistently push WP:OWN). wumbolo ^^^ 14:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't intend to exaggerate, which is why I quoted those words directly from the article itself.

The lede states, "In August 2018, US President Donald Trump was accused of endorsing the conspiracy theory in a foreign policy tweet, instructing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to investigate South African farm attacks, claiming that 'South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers'." Notice what it says: (1) It says Trump was accused of "endorsing the conspiracy theory" -- not just any conspiracy theory, but the conspiracy theory. At this point in the article (paragraph 3 of the lede) the only conspiracy theory that has been mentioned is one described in the first paragraph, which will "cause white people to become extinct". The second paragraph says that "The conspiracy theory was developed by the neo-Nazi David Lane in about 1995" -- again, note the "The" which indicates that this article is about one single theory. When Trump is accused of endorsing "the conspiracy theory", South Africa hasn't even been mentioned yet. So the context unambiguously indicates that Trump has been accused of endorsing the claim that white people are in danger of extinction. (2) And why was Trump accused of this? Not because of his many racist comments, or Charlottesville, or his overall pattern, but because of a single "foreign policy tweet" that claimed that "South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers".

That's the very essence of my complaint. The article, including the lede, conflates a claim about whites being oppressed in South Africa with a claim about a worldwide conspiracy to make white people extinct. Now, common sense will show you that even if every white person in South Africa were to be killed (which obviously is nonsense), white people would not become extinct. That's why the specific South Africa conspiracy theory must be distinguished from the broader one. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 20:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

So by your logic the actual White Genocide, the one with a capital G, is not an actual genocide because it did not target all whites around the world? Then zero genocides have ever happened because every group of people has a diaspora all over the world, and "genocides" are limited to a small geographical area. wumbolo ^^^ 13:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You really didn't read a word I said, did you? I never said anything about a genocide requiring being worldwide. I never said anything about what qualifies as genocide. The Armenian genocide is genocide, and the Holocaust was genocide. That doesn't mean they should be put together into a single Wikipedia article that conflates them. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 23:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

For the record, this concept has been discussed in the 'BLP Concerns' section in much more detail, noting the multiple reliable sources that directly link the South-African issue with a broader "white genocide" conspiracy. Perspex03 (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Critics and alleged critics

This is getting ridiculous, there is no reason to mention figures like George Takei in this article. And who is an "alleged critic"? I have also nominated Category:Critics of the white genocide conspiracy theory for deletion.--Pharos (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Since this term is a neologism, there's no reason to rule out multiple meanings. The primary meaning of the term refers to the alleged elimination of white people in a real-world setting, but the Takei article shows that some have used the term "white genocide" to refer to white people being displaced by people of color in a media property (e.g., Star Trek). That alternate meaning should be mentioned in the article, but only very briefly. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 06:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

This article, like all Wikipedia articles, is about one subject. That subject is the conspiracy theory held by various hate groups to deliberately turn various supposedly white nations to nations of color.

This article is not about the term "white genocide", various uses of the phrase, where the phrase originated and random occurrences in various sources.

Discussion in the article of diverse casting in Star Trek is off-topic. If you have multiple reliable sources discussing that usage of the term "white genocide", you might have sufficient material to start a new article at, perhaps, White genocide (casting practice) and we would need a hatnote at White Genocide. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I've struck the sections for supporters and critics. There are clear BLP violations here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree these sections have major BLP issues. I think a lot of this could be covered better in prose rather than bullet lists, even while mentioning some of the more important names in a better context.--Pharos (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The current consensus-building of whether, or not, there are BLP violations has been discussed in much finer detail in the 'BLP Concerns' section.Perspex03 (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Fundamental BLP issue with a list of 'Advocates', but not with including names

I do not object to the inclusion of any and all of the names in @Aquillion:'s vetted list in the article, except for a couple that may be too minor/repetitive. The fundamental issue is putting all of the names under a list of 'Advocates' or even an undifferentiated list of 'Advocates and alleged advocates'. I suppose you could separate out the alleged from the explicit advocates, but that would not be easy at all. Pro-list people, is there some way that you feel that, for example, the de facto Trump/Carlson section underplays the accusations? I think in the future, this article should have a couple of more such narrative sections, for example one covering the concept in right-wing media / social media.--Pharos (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 September 2018

Include information on U.S. discourse section involving pew research and U.S. government census bureau along with brooking.edu regarding whites becoming a minority by 2050 based on census projections.

Published change could be as simple as:

"Various census studies have indicated that white identifying demographics will become a minority in the U.S. by as early as 2050.[15][16][17] These figures proved inflammatory to racial tensions already brewing in the U.S., fueling much of the alt-right rhetoric. [18]"

section continues... WolfHook (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Your source says nothing to support the claim that "these figures proved inflammatory to racial tensions," because... they really haven't. The vast majority of Americans don't care. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done, none of the sources support the suggested wording. Fish+Karate 09:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 September 2018

I would like to ask for a reinstatement of the last edit by Ammarpad before the edit by @Wumbolo: that removed the recent changes of @Aquillion: in a way that was kind of against the spirit of WP:POINT. Not asking for an admin to just do this, but seeking a consensus of editors, as I feel this will put the article in a better and more productive place for when the protection is lifted on October 1. The reinstatement I am asking for removes the "Advocates" section with its BLP issues, while having a section that covers some of the same issues related to Trump/Carlson, and that could be expanded.--Pharos (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

That looks like a much better version with far less BLP issues. I would support starting with that as the base going forward. -Obsidi (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done no opposition after 15 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Understandable precaution. Current status is Aquillion's list of advocates at the top of the 'BLP Concerns' section, has had no specific objections on a source-by-source basis. No objections to, or analysis of sources have shown that each individual cite is not a reliable source showing an individual's advocacy, promotion, or supporting of the conspiracy theory. Therefore, as it stands, awaiting specific objections or contradictory sources, the new "Advocates and alleged advocates" list could potentially be added to the article after the expiration of protection. Perspex03 (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If you get consensus to make the change including consensus that it doesn't violate BLP. -Obsidi (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, right now there are no objections that any of the list or prose violates BLP in the future 'Advocates' section, because nobody is producing any source-specific objections to any of that content. Current consensus is; there are no BLP violations, pending any future specific citation objections (again, none so far). Perspex03 (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I and others are making very explicit BLP objections based on WP:SYNTH. -Obsidi (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Most of your objections (in fact, nearly all of them) seem to be grounded in the fact that you feel that discussing the White Genocide conspiracy theory as it applies to South Africa is off-topic for this article. Can you explain why you think that? I've presented numerous sources about how they're part of the same conspiracy theory, and nobody has presented anything saying otherwise. More importantly, if your issue is that you don't feel the article talks enough about the South Africa example, do you think your objections could be assuaged by adding more about that aspect to the article? It already has a large section in the lead, but of course we could add more. EDIT: Important secondary question. Do you deny that the conspiracy theory about the systematic murder of white farmers is a conspiracy theory at all? Because we have numerous sources for it referring to it as part of the "White Genocide conspiracy theory"; and if it falls under this title, and we have sources unambiguously saying that people have advanced or pushed it, I don't see how listing them on this article could ever be a WP:BLP violation - at best, we would have to be careful to clarify what aspects of the conspiracy theory they have and have not pushed. --Aquillion (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem isn't that "White Genocide conspiracy theory as it applies to South Africa is off-topic for this article." The problem has to do with BLP in implying that specific named individuals are supporters of the White Genocide conspiracy theory. That requires a specific source in which the named individual is said to support the full White Genocide conspiracy theory, and not just the claims concerning South Africa. There are many people in this article that I do not dispute that RS do make such claims, but for those RS which are focused exclusively on South Africa they do not support the notion that those individuals support the broader conspiracy theory outside of South Africa. You need one RS (and only one) that says the individual supports the broad conspiracy theory (including outside South Africa), you cannot use two parts joined together (one that links SA to the broader conspiracy and the other that links the individual to the claims concerning SA). -Obsidi (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. The "White Genocide conspiracy theory" covers a wide range of topics and permutations; we have numerous sources for the people you object to referring to the conspiracy theory that they hold, with regards to South Africa, as being the "White Genocide conspiracy theory". Therefore, a source referring to a conspiracy theory someone holds as a "White Genocide conspiracy theory" is sufficient to justify putting them in this article. Since you have (as far as I can tell) conceded that the White Genocide conspiracy theory, as it applies to South Africa, is relevant to this article, sources saying that someone has endorsed, amplified, or spread that conspiracy theory, and calling it a "White Genocide" conspiracy theory, are sufficient to answer your objections. If you are concerned that someone could confuse it with other permutations of the White Genocide conspiracy theory, we can be cautious in our wording to make it clear what they endorsed - this isn't a list or category, so we can provide context - but that's not an argument for excluding entirely, not unless you have a source showing that the numerous reliable sources I cited below were mistaken in referring to the conspiracy theories these people endorsed as being "White Genocide" conspiracy theories. --Aquillion (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)