Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

BLP concerns

I agree that accusing someone of spreading a conspiracy theory is a potential WP:BLP concern, in the sense that it requires high-quality sources to put someone there (I definitely don't see how the argument that criticizing a conspiracy theory is a BLP concern, so I've restored that section.) However, most of the sources there seem high-quality. I've gone over each one that I feel was well-sourced and detailed my thoughts below; I will wait a few days and then restore any that lack specific objections to the individual sources used. The sections could probably be better organized (prose instead of a list), but that's not a valid reason to remove the section and all associated sources from the article entirely. Please address each one individually; we're not going to get anywhere with blanket deletions, blanket reverts, or blanket discussions. Some I've left out because I didn't find sufficient unequivocal sources for my tastes; if someone else thinks otherwise (or has better sources), feel free to add to this list (people omitted here could still be added elsewhere in the article under a different context based on the sources we do have connecting them to the topic, of course.) Note that this discussion should only focus on sources (since they're the crux of the WP:BLP concerns under which the section was removed) and on slight wording tweaks to match them or to be a bit more cautious (eg. "...have been described as..." in the intro to the section); given that the deletion is a very drastic change with no clear consensus, it's important to get this part settled with regards to which figures we do / don't have sufficient sources to pass WP:BLP. We can discuss how to refine the structure and the like after resolving that, but obviously the deletion of the majority of an article over WP:BLP concerns has to be resolved first. Again, please be specific about which ones you don't feel are properly-sourced (if any); some of these sources look unequivocal to me, so I'll restore anything anyone lacks a specific, clear objection in a few days.

• Faith Goldy. GQ: ..Faith Goldy, one of Canada's most prominent propagandists of the "white genocide" conspiracy theory, BBC: In June, Goldy broadcast a YouTube video arguing that immigration policies were contributing to a "white genocide" in Canada. Globe and Mail: A recent video by contributor and former Sun News reporter Faith Goldy posed the question of whether demographic shifts in Canada's population due to immigration amount to "white genocide."
• Gavin McInnes: Rewire: In Rewire’s three-month investigation of the far right, McInnes emerges as one of the main leaders of the so-called alt-lite, one faction on the far-right spectrum of politics that believes in the threat of “white genocide;” The Verge: ...McInnes — who identifies as anti-Islam, often discusses the idea of “white genocide,”... The Guardian: ...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”... Baltimore City Paper: McInnes may try to disavow "racism" but he has espoused the concept of white genocide, as in a tweet where...
• Stefan Molyneux: Radio New Zealand: Mr Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide... Vice: From almost nowhere, "White Genocide In South Africa" has become the meme de nos jours in hard-right circles. In recent weeks, we've heard from Stefan Molyneux: "White Farmers Slaughtered In South Africa"...
• Lauren Southern: International Business Times: Southern has advocated against European countries’ acceptance of refugees from Africa and Asia, claiming that immigration would lead to white genocide., Raw Story: Lauren Southern, a far-right Canadian activist best known for her attacks on refugees and her promotion of bogus “white genocide” narratives... (Note: First sentence.), Sydney Morning Herald: 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". One of the boosters of this theory, Canadian alt-right activist Lauren Southern...
• Steve Hofmeyr: The Conversation: The most extreme version of this victimhood is “white genocide”. This idea has been popularised by the Afrikaans pop singers Hofmeyr and Sunette Bridges through their Red October campaign. (South Africa) Independent Online: Hofmeyr could meet Trump to discuss 'white genocide in SA'; headline, also see the entire rest of the article. Stopping here for Hofmeyr because the sources are sufficient to show that it's unequivocal that he unambiguously and overtly holds these views. (In fact, in his case it's the main thing he's famous for.)
• Katie Hopkins: Yahoo News: After a divisive trip to the country to document the alleged ‘white genocide’ of farmers... (first sentence) Vice: From almost nowhere, "White Genocide In South Africa" has become the meme de nos jours in hard-right circles. In recent weeks, we've heard from ... Katie Hopkins: "White farmers are being hunted to extinction"; New Statesman: No, Katie Hopkins, there is no white genocide in South Africa (headline) MacLeans: ...Katie Hopkins, ... who promotes the white genocide conspiracy theory that immigration and multiculturalism are intended to make white people a minority such that they can then be assimilated and persecuted.
• Paul Weston: The Guardian: ...Paul Weston, the former Ukip parliamentary candidate. He is named as a regular contributor to the Gates of Vienna blog, where he writes about impending civil war against Muslims and “white genocide” in Britain.
• Tucker Carlson: The Guardian: The idea that there is a ‘genocide’ of white farmers in South Africa was once the province of conspiracy theorists but, thanks to News Corp’s media promotion, it has moved into the policy realm. On Wednesday night, the Fox News presenter Tucker Carlson once again talked about the alleged plight of white South African farmers on his Fox News program. Vox: Trump is referring to a virulent, racist conspiracy theory that has been a pet cause of hardcore white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the alt-right for several years. More recently, Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, one of the president’s favorite conservative cable news pundits, has taken up the cause. Salon: "They all look to Tucker Carlson as a voice in mainstream media that’s pushing their rhetoric." Lawrence added that Carlson "dances around" using loaded and overtly racist terms like "white genocide" but is “so good at pushing those ideas that those people know exactly what he’s talking about."
• Mike Cernovich: Haaretz: Mike Cernovich believes in a 'white genocide' and that..., Mike Cernovich, an "alt-right" pundit who believes in "white genocide"... Yahoo News: ...and has also likened diversity to “white genocide,” Rolling Stone: ...popular alt-lite mavens like Mike Cernovich (“diversity is code for white genocide”)..., New York Times: ...Mike Cernovich, who in 2016 tweeted that “white genocide” was “real” in South Africa.
• Ann Coulter: {Daily Dot: The fundamental tenet of the #WhiteGenocide movement on Twitter is the idea that anti-racist actually equals anti-white and that diversity and multiculturalism are the equivalent of ethnic cleansing of white Americans. Coulter’s become quite the champion for the movement with the release of her new book. Thought Co.: Immigration is a particular sticking point for Coulter. In a 2007 column called “Bush’s America: Roach Motel,” she likened immigration into the United States to white genocide while criticizing George W. Bush’s amnesty plan for immigrants.
• David Duke: Independent Google has been condemned by an MP for refusing to ban a video by a former Ku Klux Klan leader called “Jewish People Admit Organising White Genocide”. (plus much more coverage of this, eg [1])
• James Edwards: Washington Post: In the past, Edwards has said that “interracial sex is white genocide,”
• Mike Enoch: New Yorker: Enoch, surrounded by small concentric circles of reporters, protesters, and counterprotesters, stood on a wooden riser in the shade of a dogwood tree. A tall, stout man with a husky voice and a grim, downturned mouth, he wore aviator sunglasses, a slight beard, and the unofficial uniform of the day: khakis and a white polo shirt. “We’re here to talk about white genocide, the deliberate and intentional displacement of the white race,”
• Alex Jones: TechCrunch: Yet Jones — who spins the gigantic lie of ‘white genocide’...; Mail and Guardian lists him in its coverage of how the conspiracy theory spread.
• Steve King: Mother Jones: On Sunday, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) decided to talk about white genocide. “[C]ulture and demographics are our destiny,” he wrote, in a tweet praising the Dutch nativist politician Geert Wilders. “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.” Paste Magazine: The Iowa representative’s “cultural suicide” phrase appears to mimic the common white nationalist refrain of “white genocide.” Vox: This theory has adherents on the alt-right, across the conservative media, and even in Congress. "Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies." — Steve King (@SteveKingIA) March 12, 2017 The New Republic: This is a factual point and a useful test for discovering racists, since the growth of non-white ethnic groups has long fueled white supremacist rhetoric about impending white genocide. And there’s evidence King buys into this notion...
• Jason Kessler: Washington Post: Kessler got his start as a local blogger, using his now-defunct personal website to inveigh against what he called “white genocide” and an “attack on white history.” USA Today: "Of course, the key difference is that white rights aren’t allowed a platform but white genocide is," Kessler said in his lawsuit. CBC: The term "white genocide," for example, has been used by the alt-right groups in South Africa and the U.S. Just days before this month's Unite the Right 2, white-supremacist rally in Washington, organizer Jason Kessler repeated the South African conspiracy theory to CBC's Ellen Mauro using that rhetoric.
• Michael Savage: The Guardian: Talk radio host Michael Savage devoted an entire show to the issue, and presented Southern and Katie Hopkins to his 11 million listeners to speak about their own trips to South Africa.
• Jack Posobiec: Newsweek: Posobiec has often also tweeted about “white genocide,” which J.M. Berger, a fellow with George Washington University’s Program on Extremism, identified as a phrase used to recruit members to the white nationalist cause in a September 2016 report.
• Donald Trump: The Mercury News: President Donald Trump’s promotion of a white nationalist conspiracy theory involving South Africa prompted fierce backlash there Thursday and fresh criticism in the United States that he is compromising American foreign policy to stoke his far-right political base.Times of Israel: US President Donald Trump has come under fire, including from the Anti-Defamation League, for apparently tweeting support for a white nationalist conspiracy theory that whites in South Africa are in danger of genocide. Vox: Trump is referring to a virulent, racist conspiracy theory that has been a pet cause of hardcore white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the alt-right for several years. More recently, Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, one of the president’s favorite conservative cable news pundits, has taken up the cause. ... Here’s what’s going on — and why it’s so disturbing that Trump is now basing US foreign policy decisions on a fringe white nationalist conspiracy theory. Rolling Stone: The “large scale killing of farmers” is a conspiracy theory pushed by white supremacists who want to believe a white genocide is underway in South Africa. ... As Will Sommer of The Daily Beast notes, the right-wing extremists who have been crowing online about white genocide in South Africa will interpret Trump’s tweet “as another thumbs-up from the president.”
• Donald Trump, Jr.: The Atlantic: As the Republican nominee seeks to tone down his rhetoric, his son has emerged as a loud amplifier of alt-right memes and views, including “white genocide.” ... The candidate has also repeatedly retweeted messages from white nationalists who allege there is a “white genocide” occurring––the term refers to the white nationalist belief that immigration of non-whites and intermarriage between whites and other ethnicities is leading to the “genocide” of white people. ... The outstanding question now is whether Trump Jr. is a true believer in white genocide or is simply playing one for cynical political purposes, letting the internet’s committed racists know that even if Trump moderates his rhetoric, he still wants their votes.

...whew! Anyway, let me know which specific entries you find objectionable, which sources you object to or feel are insufficient, and so on; we need to narrow down the scope of discussion a bit; then we can restore the rest and work on either finding better sources for the others, or figuring out how / if to reflect their existing coverage in the article. Some of these are unequivocally well-sourced enough to the point where I don't think there's anything to discuss in terms of WP:BLP, with multiple high-quality mainstream sources directly citing the subject as unequivocally advancing or endorsing the conspiracy theory by name or naming them as central to its spread (but feel free to go over them point-by-point if you disagree; that's why I took the time to break down the coverage for each.) Some of the others we might have to discuss the exact wording, but at least by my reading everyone I've listed has sufficient sources to satisfy at least the bare minimum for inclusion in even a highly-negative article like this. --Aquillion (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your exhaustive work to show that the recent deletions claimed to be based on BLP violations are not legitimate. The sources are solid for each person involved. I hold that power~enwiki does not like the material, so much so that he nominated the whole article for deletion on a very flimsy basis, and has since worked to remove as much of it as possible. Binksternet (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I strongly object to conflating two conspiracy theories here. There are people who think that the Jews run the world, and many of these people believe George Soros wields huge power for evil ends. So George Soros conspiracy theories are "an established subset" of Jewish conspiracy theories. But that doesn't entitle us to accuse someone of believing in Jewish conspiracy theories solely because they believe in Soros conspiracy theories. In exactly the same way, while it's true that "South African government is persecuting white farmers" is an established subset of white genocide conspiracy theory, we cannot accuse a living person of believing in "white genocide conspiracy theory" just because they believe in the South African government conspiracy theory.

Several of the folks on your list -- most notably Donald Trump (Senior) and Tucker Carlson -- are stated by reliable sources to believe in the South African conspiracy theory. So we can say that in this article. What we cannot do is put their names in a section labelled "people who believe in this theory" or anything of that sort, because according to the lede, this article is about the theory that "white populations" are being "deliberately replaced, removed, or liquidated" in "predominantly white countries, or supposedly white-founded countries" (plural).

Again, this problem is not solved just by writing accurate paragraphs. As it stands, the article is placing people in lists where they don't belong, and then saying "It's okay, because the fine print makes the truth clear." But you can't put a living person in a list of X's if they're not an X, even if the fine print says they are only a partial X. In a discussion above, Pharos said that reliable sources say that the South African conspiracy theory is the same thing as the global white genocide theory. I'll stipulate that there are sources that say that. But since it's obviously false -- it's very easy to find people who believe the South African government is trying to kill whites (which it's not, by the way) but who don't believe there is white genocide going on anywhere else -- we can't conflate two things that are obviously different just because a RS identifies them. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 08:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Addendum. User:SummerPhDv2.0 said it very well above: "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." We can't call someone a believer in this conspiracy theory unless they believe that. So if someone says "The South African government is illegally taking land away from whites, because everyone's out to get whites these days," then they are adocating the conspiracy theory which is the topic of this article. But if someone says "The South African government is illegally taking land away from whites, because they're a leftist government, and leftists like to redistribute land from the rich to the poor," then they are not adocating the conspiracy theory which is the topic of this article. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 08:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Disagree to an extent. We can and should be clear about exactly what iteration of the conspiracy theory someone endorsed and how (and how strongly) they endorsed it, but if WP:RSes treat the two as linked (or treat the conspiracy theory about an in-progress South African ethnic cleansing against whites as a subset of the larger belief that whites everywhere are at risk of eventually being forced out), we have to cover that and reflect it in our article. And the sources absolutely do. Importantly, this isn't a list, so we can provide context and clarity in places where there is potential misunderstanding; but we can't ignore the sources saying the two are the same just because some editors, personally, feel they are different. Myself, I feel your distinction is dubious and that people who push the South Africa conspiracy theory in the right tone and contexts are definitely pushing the larger "it could happen here" conspiracy theory; as far as I can tell, everyone in the list at least has reliable sources supporting that interpretation, so if you feel those sources are wrong I'd want to at least see other sources contradicting them. (After all, I think it's fair enough to say that if a source incorrectly accuses the President of the United States of holding a conspiracy theory, there will be plenty of pushback.) But in any case, this is not a bare list or category - we can cover exactly who said what and which sources said what about them, with in-line citations if necessary. I categorically disagree with your assertion that we can exclude people from the article, when they've been described in reliable sources as advancing this article's conspiracy theory in reliable sources, based solely on an editor's personal feelings that the sources are wrong. In any case, go down the list and tell me which you specifically object to based on this - that will at least give us a place to start discussions (it's important to know which ones people object to, since I think it's clear that the inclusion of at least some of these people in the article is not seriously disputed, and it's hard to discuss a massive block of text with dozens of sources all at once.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I've responded to a request for page protection for this article here with a decision to fully protect the article for one week. Though this is a technical measure meant to discourage repeated reversion, I realize Pharos is an admin who can edit fully protected articles. From what I can see, I don't agree with Wumbolo's statement that there is "insanely strong consensus to keep this", if what they mean by that is keeping the text as is in the version they restored. This article is on my watchlist; let me know if you have any comments or concerns regarding the page protection. Airplaneman ✈ 13:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Related ANI thread involving this article. Airplaneman ✈ 14:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

One important thing I should mention: Several of the sources listed above are not the ones currently in the article. I intended to add those sources (and replace weaker ones if necessary) if / when individual figures were re-added, but since it's been protected with the old version in place it's possible that might get overlooked, so I'm noting it down here so someone knows to go through it and do so to anything that ends up staying in the article. Also I will reiterate that I think "alleged critics" (which we ended up with again as part of the blanket revert) is a bit silly - as far as I can tell there's no question that anyone in the section is a critic, and it's not something negative, so it doesn't make any sense to couch that with "alleged." (In the 'advocates' section we might benefit from moving towards more specificity about who and what is saying it, since that obviously is negative.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem is the mixing the idea of white genocide in South Africa with the conspiracy theory of white genocide more broadly (occurring in other countries). The specific people that I do not think the sources have identified as being a part of the broader conspiracy theory are Katie Hopkins, Tucker Carlson,Ann Coulter, Steve King, Michael Savage, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Jr. I'm not sure of the context of the tweets by Jack Posobiec (plausible given what I know of him, but I havn't seen them and the RS doesn't explain). -Obsidi (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should just split this article into two parts with a new article discussing the topic concerning South Africa, and this one the topic more generally.-Obsidi (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

We do already have the article South African farm attacks, which seems a far more appropriate place to discuss these individuals statements (which are explicitly about such South African farm attacks). -Obsidi (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

No, that's a very inappropriate article to discuss it, see WP:FRINGE and WP:ONEWAY. The current article is the perfect place for now. wumbolo ^^^ 18:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

We are talking about two different conspiracy theories. In fact, this page is far more WP:FRINGE. That is the more mainstream one and should discuss the statements concerning it on that page. Many of the statements of the people I identified above are already represented at that page. Statements about one conspiracy theory shouldn't be mixed with another without RS doing so, especially a more fringe one like this one (see WP:ONEWAY Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.). There is no serious and prominent connection by RS between these individuals and this broader conspiracy theory. -Obsidi (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, do you have a source for calling them two different conspiracy theories? The sources we currently have treat them as the same. At the very least, given the sources that have connected them, you should be able to find other sources responding and saying they're different - when it's at the level of talking about the beliefs of the President of the United States, it seems obvious that disagreement on that point would be reflected in the sources. (Of course, depending on the depth and relative weight of the disagreement, we might have to cover it rather than omit it - but you need to find sources backing up your assertion that they're different, since I've found plenty saying they're the same and, despite the high profile of the topic and these sources, nobody has yet produced anything contradicting them.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Look at the BBC [2] describing a global campaign to portray South Africa's once dominant white population as a victimised minority under attack. Or snoops [3] which describes the conspiracy theory popular among white supremacists who have for years been attempting to advance the baseless claim that white South African farmers are being systematically murdered en masse. Or Vox [4] describing the The conspiracy theory is based on the very real — and very controversial — issue of post-apartheid land reform in South Africa.. Many RS specifically focus on South Africa in describing such a conspiracy theory. We should be following what the RS do on this and recognize that the issue concerning South Africa has unique details different than other "white genocide" conspiracy theories. In other countries it is immigration or other domestic policies that are being described as "white genocide" in displacing the white population. In South Africa it is the accusation of murder of white farmers taking place (without evidence of that). Those are two radically different accusations, and that is reflected in the RS. -Obsidi (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

There are differences, but it's the same basic conspiracy theory. The idea is that whites face a genocidal threat from non-whites, and so policies that prohibit non-whites from gaining power are necessary to preserve them. There's a reason this is referred to as a "white genocide" rather than an "Afrikaaner genocide": white supremacists see South Africa as a specific case of a broader genocidal trend that is not limited to South African farmers. This is pretty explicit in their rhetoric. Here's American Renaissance: Their fate is inseparable from ours, and as a global minority, it is time for whites to recognize the dangers we face. What happens in South Africa today will reflect what happens to all of us tomorrow. Nblund ^talk 00:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubt that "white supremacists see South Africa as a specific case of a broader genocidal trend" but that doesn't mean that everyone that buys into the accusations concerning South Africa agrees with the broader conspiracy theory. This is the Fallacy of the undistributed middle "All broad conspiracy believers believe X. Person Y believes X. Therefore Person Y believes the broader conspiracy." This is just not logically true. -Obsidi (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Obsidi: I basically agree with you that not everyone who mentions "genocide" in South Africa is fully endorsing the notion of a global white genocide, but that's a little like saying that someone only believes that Jews poisoned some wells. We should be careful about not attributing views to people that they don't actually hold, but it's entirely accurate to say that, for instance, Tucker Carlson has repeated a racist canard that has been spread by advocates of this conspiracy theory. It's also worth mentioning that most people on Aquillion's list above have explicitly endorsed both the SA genocide idea and the idea of a white genocide more broadly. Nblund ^talk 14:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there are people on this list who do qualify, explicitly so, for belief in the broader conspiracy theory (outside just SA), that the RS support. My objections are the inclusion of specific individuals which I do not believe the RS link to such ideas. Those people would be: Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter, Steve King, Michael Savage, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Jr. It is true that Tucker Carlson has agreed with the unsupported theory concerning South Africa. But none of the RS say that means Tucker Carlson also believes in the broader conspiracy theory outside of South Africa, and that we cannot imply without a RS. Just because advocates of this conspiracy theory claim that South Africa is an example of what they are claiming, doesn't mean that anyone that agrees with their claims concerning South Africa (such as Tucker Carlson) agrees with this entire conspiracy theory.-Obsidi (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Obsidi, I don't think any of those reliable sources do anything to refute or contradict the reliable sources that convey the South African issue as part of a broad "white genocide" conspiracy theory. In fact, let's take the 3 sources you provided. The BBC article goes on to feature a University of South Africa political analyst: Mr Fikeni told the BBC that international support for South Africa's white farmers was not surprising, and tied in with the votes for Brexit and Donald Trump, and the rise of right-wing parties across Europe. "The anti-establishment is growing across the world, partly because of immigration pressures. There are those who feel local cultures are being invaded, who want whiteness to be maintained in its purest form,"
The Snopes article, goes out of it's way (after the section you quoted) to feature ADL analysis: Since then, white supremacist references to “genocide” in South Africa have been common. Richard Spencer, for example, focused on the plight of the “Boers” [white settlers] in South Africa in his March speech at Michigan State University, suggesting the United States might see something similar. and later: although such events are tragic and reprehensible, they have been spun into a twisted story that proponents imagine to be representative of what’s in store for whites in the United States, and again: South Africa has with violent crime with victims of all races in all of their cities. But white supremacists are not much for accurate context. They started taking these incidents and essentially built out these anecdotes into a dark fantasy of ongoing white genocide and they use that phrase over and over in South Africa. Their twisted vision is South Africa is the canary in the coal mine.
The Salon Vox article, directly after the descriptor you quoted says: The conspiracy theory is based on the very real — and very controversial — issue of post-apartheid land reform in South Africa. But the white nationalists who propagate it have taken what is a genuinely thorny issue and magnified it beyond all objective fact, twisting it into what they see as a nightmare cautionary tale of “white genocide.” (all bold sections are mine). All of those sources, then, have sections completely consistent with the already established narrative that reliable sources are describing; that the South African-issue is a part of/subset of/linked to a broader "white genocide" conspiracy. So to recap, I think we're looking at about a half dozen or so reliable sources that do connect South Africa, and zero that explicitly contradict these reliable sources. And even if we find reliable sources that do contradict (which we haven't so far), they're very unlikely going to cancel out the others, but may simply provide a counterbalance in the prose of the article. Perspex03 (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Being consistent with other sources isn't good enough for BLP in WP. To claim that specific individuals support the broader conspiracy theory we need reliable sources linking those specific people to the broader conspiracy theory. The RS say that white supremacists who believe the broader conspiracy believe the SA is a instance of that, but they do not say that everyone who believes the SA claims believes the broader conspiracy. Without that, it is WP:SYNTH to combine sources to imply conclusions that neither of the RS say directly. -Obsidi (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

No, no. You've held these articles out as reliable sources (the only suggested so far, in fact) that somehow show a considerable, explicit difference between supposedly two different conspiracy theories. Let's not get anything twisted around. You've asserted they show this. I've simply taken those examples and shown, even within those very sources that you've held up, there are examples of the South African-issue being not only "consistent" with the broader conspiracy (eg. BBC), but literally, explicitly linking the concepts, (eg. Snopes and Vox). Those aren't even the best sources provided to show how the South African-issue is part of the broader "white genocide" conspiracy theory; they're simply the ones you held out as supposedly showing the opposite. Do you have any reliable sources you can quote from, that states an explicit difference between the conspiracy "theories" (plural), and hence contradicts the about half a dozen or so that, explicity describe them as part of one broad conspiracy "theory" (singular)? Perspex03 (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe the sources I have provided have shown substantial differences between the claims concerning SA and the broader conspiracy theory. We cannot make claims concerning individuals claiming they believe the broader conspiracy theory without a RS making that claim. -Obsidi (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

They haven't unfortunately, despite your belief. In fact, the majority of those sources showed the exact opposite of what you intended. eg. Snopes and Vox, explictly linked the broader conspiracy to issues concerning South Africa. We don't need a RS making granular, overtly acute claims about which exact tenets or subsets an individual is advocating for under the reliably-sourced definition of the broader conspiracy theory, in order to satisfy an individual editor's requirements which aren't based on Wikipedia policy. We run with what the sources say. Not what you wish for them to say. So I guess you'll need to start producing reliable sources which directly detail two separate conspiracy theories (plural), or this angle of debate completely runs out of road. Perspex03 (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

We do need RS to link the individual to the specific beliefs of that individual. No doubt there are white supremacists who think SA is part of a vast conspiracy. But that isn't what Snoops or Vox or any of the other RS say about the specific individuals named. -Obsidi (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

We're in agreement about the broad definition of the conpiracy theory then. All the reliables sources we have (on this subject) only point towards treating the South African-issue as a part, or subset of, the broader conspiracy. I said, "we don't need a RS making a granular ... etc." simply to satisfy an editor's requirement which aren't based on Wikipedia policy. Of course, the RS must claim an individual has endorsed/advocated/supported/evoked the "white genocide" conspiracy theory. But it's not for any editor to afterwards say, what the "white genocide" conspiracy theory is and is not, in referring to a reliable source's declaration. What the "white genocide" conspiracy theory's definition covers is already established by reliable sources, and doesn't require further granular and overtly acute specifying by said reliable source about which specific subset of the broader conspiracy theory was evoked, necessarily. That said, we can still add that detail where pertinent and clarified by said source, but no, it does not actually require it, because, again, we are running with what the sources say, not what you wish for them to say. eg. if The New York Times, directly says "the US President is a rabid supporter of the white genocide conspiracy theory, and proved it again recently by pouring scorn onto the South African government's actions" - we do NOT need that source to now clarify that the US President's beliefs may not extend to the "low fertility" or "demographic" element of the broader conspiracy. We simply can run with what the reliable source says. Perspex03 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The ADL source is a press release. We can't expect any serious journalism from it. wumbolo ^^^ 12:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Snopes is the source, they're referencing the ADL analysis. Perspex03 (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The "ADL analysis" is an ADL press release. wumbolo ^^^ 12:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Prose alternative

The problem is not the inclusion of the names, I don't object to any of these names (at least not the ones Aquillion has vetted above), except for some which might be too repetitive/obscure minor figures. There is a fundamental BLP issue with a bullet-point list of "Advocates", when many people on the list plainly deny it. I actually think there is an alternative model of representing this kind of information, and the de facto Trump/Carlson section in a recent version of this article did that fairly well. In addition to fixing the BLP issue, this would also make the article much more comprehensible to actually read and get a summary of the topic.--Pharos (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Prose won't fix it. We're still left with people like Trump and Carlson, for which there is no logical way to conclude that they support the conspiracy theory, and should be left out of the article. If you can't explain how someone supports something, you don't even say that they support it because you made an evidence-less assertion. wumbolo ^^^ 18:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

If you can't explain how someone supports something, you don't even say that they support it because you made an evidence-less assertion.

Irregardless of whether there is evidence - of which I'd dispute that there isn't -per WP:OR it isn't mine or your thinking that decides the article, it is whether reliable sources have concluded that Trump or Carslon supports the conspiracy theory, which they appear to have (or at-least that they may be doing so). Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Not if they contradict themselves in their own article. wumbolo ^^^ 18:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

How do they do so? Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I have three main concerns. First, these sources clearly use the phrase "white genocide" to mean multiple different things; James Edwards In the past, Edwards has said that “interracial sex is white genocide,” has nothing to do with Stefan Molyneux From almost nowhere, "White Genocide In South Africa" has become the meme de nos jours in hard-right circles. In recent weeks, we've heard from Stefan Molyneux: "White Farmers Slaughtered In South Africa".... It is WP:SYNTH to claim otherwise, and a WP:BLP violation to imply that what one person says about "white genocide" applies to all people that use that phrase.

Second, this is clearly a WP:FRINGE topic, there must be exceptional care taken to avoid making claims about people that those people (including the sitting President of the United States) deny or would deny if there were any reason to ask, and to avoid extrapolating from a slip-of-the-tongue (or even an intentional dog whistle) to support of something they have not supported. Steve King's comments about "other people's babies" may be racist, but it's hard to say that they are promoting a white genocide conspiracy theory.

Third, there are a few entries that go beyond that to simply re-publishing personal attacks from non-credible sites; for example [5], an article which takes Andrew Sullivan's direct quotes of Sarah Jeong as his promoting a conspiracy theory. This is absurd; Jeong is the one who says "White people have stopped breeding. you’ll all go extinct soon. that was my plan all along." It's unacceptable to claim that Sullivan is the one promoting these views based on such a source.

Finally (though it's not a BLP-violation issue) many of the people listed are WP:UNDUE; an editorial from an MSNBC host playing holier-than-thou about a tweet isn't important; we don't have a List of scientists who don't believe in creationism or List of engineers who believe in gravity and shouldn't have a WP:COATRACK of any journalist who has ever mentioned this theory. Chris Cuomo and Mika Brzezinski, for example.

I still feel that the entirety of the supporters section must be removed, as it continues to contain obvious violations of the WP:BLP policy. The fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine applies; there is so much wrong with the section it must be expunged and can be re-created once other issues with the article (i.e., there being a consensus as to what the theory actually is) are resolved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

...you think that that section is based on illegally-obtained evidence? Anyway, again, people keep saying that the multiple iterations of this conspiracy theory are distinct topics, but the sources do not support that. We have many sources (especially for the most high-profile figures on the list) saying that they're all part of the same whole. If, as you say, they're unrelated or represent distinct conspiracy theories rather than different iterations of a single one, it should be easy to find sources pointing that out - it isn't credible that high-profile outlets like The Guardian, The Atlantic, or the Sydney Morning Herald (all of whom treat these different facets as part of a unified whole) could make a mistake of that magnitude, when discussing something so high-profile in relation to famous public figures, and not have pushback or corrections somewhere. Nobody has produced even the smallest source in support of that, so the idea that this article should be broken up into multiple different conspiracy theories about white genocide doesn't currently amount to more than idle speculation by editors. If you want it to go anywhere, you need sources, ones that unambiguously identify multiple different "white genocide" conspiracy theories (and ideally ones that directly contradict or dispute the sources we have that treat them as a unified whole.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you please provide one source that says that the killing of farmers in South Africa is "part of" a campaign by a mysterious conspiracy to cause demographic change in the United States? Or are you just saying that they're both racist? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

From the Guardian: Taylor told his guest, “We think of whites in South Africa as a canary in the coalmine” and as bellwethers for “the future Africanisation of the planet”. It's probably fair to say that not everyone who has picked up claims about "white genocide" in South Africa is fully aware of where the claim comes from, but it does originate with white supremacists who believe that a non-white majority would inevitably lead to white genocide elsewhere. Nblund ^talk 01:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not even a new thing, this dates to the 1990s[6].--Pharos (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• I posted it above, but I'll post it here, too, and add some more:

• The Guardian is unambiguous: 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. Emphasis mine.
• 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".
• Washington Post: Analysts said the idea that white farmers in South Africa were being unfairly treated and are attacked in large numbers by nonwhites has persisted for decades. Brian Levin, a professor of criminal justice at California State University at San Bernardino who studies hate groups, said the narrative of “white genocide” has been central to the white-nationalist movement across the globe. “Now we have an American leader parroting these talking points once they’ve been transmitted through cable news. It’s astounding,” Levin said. “Cumulatively, these messages — and particularly the bluntness and adherence to inaccurate information or conspiracy theories — are taken like rocket fuel within this fragmented, but still very significant, white-nationalist community.”
• Slate: These corners of the far-right are excited because they’ve been talking about the fairly niche topic of South African land policy for years. Now their talking point has the attention and endorsement of the president, who wrote in his tweet that he’s asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to investigate what’s happening, as if there’s a human rights abuse urgently requiring U.S. intervention. The specter of white genocide has long been used as an indoctrination tactic in white supremacist circles on the internet, and in fact it was cited by Dylann Roof as part of his motivation for murdering nine black churchgoers in South Carolina in 2015. Note the unambiguous identification of the conspiracy theory as the one cited by Dylann Roof.

In other words, the sources say that the "white genocide" conspiracy theory has taken many different forms over the years, encompassing both obsessions with demographic changes in majority-white nations in the west, and obsessional fictions about systematic mass-murders in South Africa - no different from how Holocaust denial, for instance, runs a broad range from outright denial that it ever happened, to minimizing figures, to denying that the Nazis intended to commit genocide. I'll also note that your wording here is a bit confusing to me - I assume you meant to ask for a source connecting the conspiracy theories about an ongoing "white genocide" in South Africa via the mass-murder of farmers with the broader use of that conspiracy theory in other countries, including (but of course not limited to) America. The way you worded it seems to imply that you don't think that the South Africa manifestation is a conspiracy theory at all. Am I wrong? This might be the crux of the disagreement here; if your fundamental issue is not that you assert that the two are distinct conspiracy theories pushed by far-right outlets about the systematic eradication of white populations that use the term "white genocide", but that that you deny that the South Africa aspect is a conspiracy theory at all - as in , you think it's actually happening, or you think that there's more nuance to it etc etc etc - then that changes things in terms of what this discussion should focus on. --Aquillion (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The sources say that there is a substantial difference between the South Africa claims and the other claims being made. It is true that the white supremacists see the two as related (and the sources do talk about that), but that doesn't mean that people who believe what is happening in South Africa agree with the broader conspiracy theory. To say otherwise is WP:SYNTH unless the RS says the person buys into the broader conspiracy theory. -Obsidi (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"The sources say that there is a substantial difference between the South Africa claims and the other claims being made" - please provide a quote from reliable source(s) which shows two, separate conspiracy theories (plural) being detailed and discussed. So far, we have about half a dozen or so sources which explicitly link the South African-issue into a broader "white genoicde" conspiracy theory (singular). And zero sources which separate them out as two entirely different concepts (plural). Also, "that doesn't mean that people who believe what is happening in South Africa agree with the broader conspiracy theory" - that is true, but can, will and has been differentiated between somewhat, when describing what an individual has said or supported. eg. according to a RS; an individual, has evoked "white genocide" to relation to US demographics, and also with supposedly "refugee" white farmers in South Africa. If a second individual has been described as endorsing the conspiracy theory in relation to only Canadian demographics, that can be specified. If a third individual has been accused of promoting the conspiracy theory by a reliable source, in relation to "bogus Boer farm murder figures" in South Africa, that can be specified. It's not up to editors to theoretically, (not anyone in particular), decide: 'oh that source didn't really mean "white genocide conspiracy theory" in this instance, even though the source explicitly published it and accused an individual of it; they must have meant an entirely seperate conspiracy theory, for which I currently have no reliable sources differentiating'. Perspex03 (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. There is only one conspiracy theory; otherwise the title would be "conspiracy theories". But we certainly shouldn't mention everyone accused of it by every random source, and insinuating that every random living person who mentions actual facts about something in South Africa is somehow comparable to a convicted murderer. wumbolo ^^^ 12:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree. It should be a reliable source, and that reliable source should specifically accuse or explicitly declare that someone has evoked, endorsed, directly referenced, promoted, believes in, supports etc. some form of a "white genocide" myth, theory, conspiracy theory, concept etc. Perspex03 (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The RS needs to say the individual believes the broader white genocide conspiracy theory, outside of just South Africa, before we can make that claim. Otherwise such statements should be included in South African farm attacks, but not imply the individual believes in something the RS do not claim. -Obsidi (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, you will need to find sources backing up your idea of a "broader white genocide conspiracy theory" distinct from the South Africa instance of that theory. The sources we have treat them as the same conspiracy theory in different forms, and this article (as it says in the lead) covers all permutations of the "white genocide" conspiracy theory, including the aspects present in Africa. Therefore, a source reliable source saying that someone advances the "White Genocide against African farmers" version is sufficient to put them on this page. We can be careful to clarify what, exactly, each person believes; but your insistence that the two are separate topics is not backed up by the sources available. --Aquillion (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the burden is on those that wish to add BLP claims to prove those claims without WP:SYNTH. WP:BURDEN. We need a RS that links the named individual with the broad conspiracy claim which is not exclusive to SA. -Obsidi (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

No, we have around 10 reliable sources which explictly link multiple subsets, or factors, including the South African issues, into a broad "white genocide" conspiracy theory (singular). You have produced zero reliable sources which detail or describe two or more dinstinct and separate conspiracy theories (plural). So the burden of proof falls onto you, to dig up those reliable sources and produce them here for analysis by editors. The scales are currently tipped because 10 vs. 0 is quite significant. Perspex03 (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Topic coverage

This seems to be at the heart of a lot of disputes above, and while I was rewriting some sections to re-add them, I had some additional thoughts on it. It feels like there's some disagreement about what this article covers; the sources broadly refer to three different aspects of the topic, with some connecting them or treating them as one topic and some referring to only some of them:

• First, conspiracy theories centered idea of demographic replacement, usually via immigration but also via birth rates and the like.
• Second, conspiracy theories about incipient, hypothetical, or ongoing actual murders of whites, especially in South Africa.
• Third (and this one hasn't been mentioned at all on Talk that I can see, but it is a huge thing in the sources), the #WhiteGenocide hashtag and "White Genocide" as a meme used for far-right recruitment.

My reading is that all three of these are on-topic for the article and represent different facets of the same subject, especially given the number of sources that directly treat them as one topic and the total lack of sources that unambiguously separate them, but that we have to be extremely cautious to be specific about what we're talking about in any one part of the article, especially when a source only seems to be referring to one aspect. Additionally, we should probably devote a section to each and / or to how the sources connect them. --Aquillion (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that these are the three different areas and are logically distinct. I also agree that there are some neo-nazi white supremacists which are pushing all three of these things. I also agree we have to be very careful in sourcing, because many times the RS is focusing on only one aspect of this. There are some people that have endorsed one of these areas, but not the others. People like David Duke are just pure white supremacists and are pushing all of these. People like Steve King are focused on immigration (with no RS that I am aware of in which they make any argument of murder occurring). And then people like Tucker Carlson, which clearly endorses the idea of the likelihood that farmers in South Africa are being killed, but there is no reason to believe supports the ideas outside of SA. -Obsidi (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree they're all important. Something that is missing in the various name lists is a sense of chronology, of the order of how things developed. I'm not sure that #3 is a separate thing, but it should surely be discussed more in the article. There was a conscious "meme" campaign for many years (including billboards, and inserting the phrase into ever context possible) around Whitaker that predated the currently popularity.--Pharos (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Excellent reasons to rename the article to "theories". But we definitely shouldn't be promoting each one of them in individual articles because they are indistinguishable in most reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 15:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from the above discussions in the hopes that other editors will find a consensus that's compliant with our WP:BLP policies, but I wanted to chime in that I agree that a rename to White genocide conspiracy theories will fix multiple problems. I'm not sure if it needs an RM or can just be done basedo n a consensus in this discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned above, all the reliable sources we have treat them as indistinguishable, therefore we should go with those sources. I'm yet to actually read a reliable source that breaks them up like plural, dinstict topics. But have read several which couldn't more explicitly link them as invariably; interchangeable, linked, subset of a broad concept, cautionary tale of, evolved from/into, etc. Changing the page title to "theories" is a harmless concession which is fine by me, and can hopefully bring about a consensus. As with Moon landing conspiracy theories, whether a theoritical notable individual believed a stereotypical version of a "faked landing", or an obscure version that aliens came down and implanted a false memory of the event on the whole world's population; both individuals would still be considered as Category:Moon landing conspiracy theorists, and the page wouldn't needed to broken up into several pages based on every region or country in which they conspiracy theoriests thought about the concept, or broken up into several pages based on what exact iteration of the conspiracy theory said individual had evoked or advocated. Perspex03 (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

We go with logic and reason, not simply copy-and-paste from sources. Any individual source may discuss only a single theory, but the details discussed are so very different that it's impossible to claim that they are all a single coherent theory without inaccurate synthesis. As this isn't non-controversial, I'll start a RM now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

My problem is that implying that they're clearly-distinct conspiracy theories or topics with well-established dividing lines is also WP:SYNTH, since we don't have any sources that actually make that division. I feel that the best we can do is to try and be as specific as possible in each part of the article based on the relevant sources; but that we can't actually present the division I outlined above as part of the topic or use it to structure the article, since the sources don't generally talk about it that way (and the ones that do generally still treat it as one recurring conspiracy theory that has taken different forms.) We should be cautious to say that we're talking about "...conspiracy theories about ongoing White Genocide in Africa" when that's what the source says, but it's WP:OR to say or imply that that is definitely a distinct conspiracy theory from the demographic replacement aspect. --Aquillion (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Propose 'Media' section

I would like to propose a 'Media' section as a way to discuss the topic of advocacy and alleged advocacy by people in fringe and not-so-fringe media, without the BLP issues of a binary list.--Pharos (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with limiting to the media. Many listed figures, including a few that don't seem controversial based on discussion above, aren't "media figures" - eg. Steve King - and more importantly, in terms of "what makes this useful to the reader?", the important thing is to identify who / how it spread, rather than to name names in the media. While I do think shifting to prose would be a good long-term goal, for now the important thing is to restore whatever was salvageable from the old text, updating when necessary / possible with better sources and more specific descriptions of what people believe. Even a list does not have to be binary, since it's not just listing names; we can be cautious about how we word each entry in order to be specific about what they believe, and can even break it up into different strands. Also, leaping straight to prose would make it very hard for people who liked or objected to parts of the previous version to identify what has been added / removed / changed in the new one so they can object to or expand it. I think the first step for now should be to fix up the previous text, replacing / removing sources, updating it to reflect the best sources and being specific about what the sources say each person listed actually believes; and, secondarily, reaching agreement on the article topic, which people seem to disagree on. This would hopefully eventually turn the entries into something that can be converted to prose while retaining a degree of continuity. --Aquillion (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I salute the work you've put into this, but there is not consensus for this format and as our priority is readers, "makes it easier for people to check changes from the previous list" is not a valid reason to give a bad format to the front side of an article. The story of this spread is in different domains - one is media, another is politics, probably there are others. This is all better dealt with in prose rather than "naming names" as you say. There's also too much detail in the mini-biographies of a list, most of these people deserve only a sentence or a sentence fragment. I've consolidated White genocide conspiracy theory#Appearance in mainstream US politics with all of the Trump info, and I think King and possibly Trump Jr. would belong there as well.--Pharos (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Lists are used all the time on Wikipedia. The best thing to do would be to produce specific objections to sources, and specific disagreements in what said sources have declared about an individual. Perspex03 (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that the current version of the list is bad enough to justify removing or excluding it entirely. Yes, it can definitely be improved, even by rewriting it into prose, but WP:PRESERVE applies here (as long as the WP:BLP issues are addressed, which I think my version does.) If you want to try a prose rewrite, go ahead, but I feel that the burden is on you to produce that (it's a non-trivial undertaking on top of the existing effort I put into rewriting the entries and incorporating better sources.) "Prose would be better" isn't enough of a reason to cut such a huge chunk of an article. I mean, I might swing by and do that rewrite at some point if nobody else does, but basically, with the WP:BLP problems addressed it isn't a critical problem that requires massive immediate cuts or anything, and can be addressed with incremental improvements when someone has the time and energy for it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Nazi vs neo-Nazi origin

While there are obvious parallels to Nazism, White genocide conspiracy theory#Nazism is SYNTH. The secondary sources support a neo-Nazi origin for the conspiracy theory, not a Nazi one. The stuff from Walter Frank is not unique to Nazis, see #Early 20th century precursors in the section above.--Pharos (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Have found a cite from B'nai Brith Canada showing: "The white genocide conspiracy theory ... finds its roots in classical Nazi ideology but has been revived in recent years by neo-Nazis and white supremacists." I've now put this into the prose. Perspex03 (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Have restored the B'nai Brith source which was probably removed accidently in the BLP process. Perspex03 (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the revert of this. B'nai Brith Canada doesn't actually say this directly, more draws the comparison that the people who originated this idea were actual neo-Nazis, which is true. And they are also not a scholarly source, and this is not a connection that scholars of racism and antisemitism have made directly. It's also true that this is a distinctly post-WWII phenomenon, a sort of reverse statement of Holocaust denial, which is sort of in a few sources. I also think it's clearly a rip-off of the black genocide conspiracy theory of the late 60s about contraception and abortion, though I haven't found sources for that yet.--Pharos (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 October 2018

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

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move, therefore not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

---

White genocide conspiracy theory → White genocide conspiracy theories – I don't believe there is a single coherent theory that is referred to here; theories about murders of farmers in South Africa are vastly different from theories of long-term demographic change in Western Europe. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - there are zero sources to back up this opinion that these are two separate conspiracy theories, so far. Whearas 10+ back up that they indeed are part of one singular broad but coherent conspiracy theory. As a superficial name change, it's potentially a harmless concession. But if it's about bluntly forcing subsets of a theme to be entirely separate articles, because one can't find a single source demonstrating that they're separate, then this will just be a tiresome continuation of debate. Perspex03 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support The conspiracy theory as described in the WP:LEAD of this article (and supported by RS), is not the same conspiracy theory discussed in other RS that are cited. They have different facts and claims (as expressed by the RS). Claims of actual murders occurring are not the same as claims concerning immigration. Claims of a broad international conspiracy are not the same as localized claims concerning South Africa. I think this is demonstrated by a dispassionate examination of the RS cited. -Obsidi (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment. Are there any sources saying they're the same thing, which do not mention it in the context of Trump? As I've said multiple times on this talk page, Trump did not promote the conspiracy theory even one bit, as these sources claim. Since these sources are wrong about Trump, I wouldn't trust them about much else. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. wumbolo ^^^ 17:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Genocide watch in 2015 noted that "white genocide" idea was advanced by far right racists like David Duke. Multiple commentators mentioned the connection when discussing Dylan Roof. The Aryan Nation was campaigning around this issue in 2012. So, yes, it's something that predates Trump's apparent endorsement of some component of the idea. Other sources did discuss the potential threat to Boer people and racial polarization in the country, but calling this a "genocide" and especially a "white genocide" has more or less been the sole purview of white supremacists until very recently. Nblund ^talk 17:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Quite true, but Trump/Carlson/et al. never used the word genocide, only others commenting on their discussion of SA did. The "white genocide" conspiracy theory clearly pre-dates any Trump/Carson comments, but there are substantial questions as to if the "white genocide" conspiracy theory is what Trump/Carlson/et al. were referring to. -Obsidi (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the question of whether/how to link Trump and Carlson to the theory is a slightly different one that what is raised by this RfC. That said: reliable sources link this to the "white genocide" claim advanced by people like Dylann Roof, and have traced the claim's newfound prominence to a white supremacist doomsday cult called the Suidlanders. The only other explanation would be that Tucker Carlson himself invented a fictional claim about the plight of the Boers, and that his fiction just happened to line up with an extant conspiracy theory. This seems unlikely. Nblund ^talk 16:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose As I pointed out above: if this was truly about South African specifically, we would call it "Afrikaaner genocide" not "white genocide". The term "white genocide" implies that the goal is to eradicate "white people" rather than a specific ethnic group in a specific country. It's incoherent because that's the nature of conspiracy theories. The New World Order, conspiracy theory is still under one entry even though the theory's adherents name a diverse array of perpetrators. Cultural Marxism Conspiracy theory is essentially rooted in an anti-Semitic canard. Parts of the theory are sometimes advanced by somewhat mainstream political figures who may not endorse the racist roots of the idea, but we still call it "Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory", and we still acknowledge the origins of the claim. Attempting to find coherence here is a fool's errand, and it lends too much credence to beliefs that are fundamentally irrational. Nblund ^talk 17:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nblund. Plenty of sources connecting it all. We should apply BLP etc. uniformly across the article, and remove any content as WP:coatrack if and only if its sources don't mention "white genocide". Otherwise it's part of this. wumbolo ^^^ 19:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - unfortunately this suggested move appears to be about making the article do what the sources don't show. Perspex03 (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. While it's important to be clear about what exactly each individual we name believes and what each section refers to (based on the specific things in the relevant sources), I don't feel those sources unambiguously support the division into multiple clearly-distinct conspiracy theories the way this title would imply. --Aquillion (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is one conspiracy theory, well-documented in RS since the 1990s, and including the South Africa element even back then. Nblund's analogy is helpful, and I agree we shouldn't expect coherence here.--Pharos (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: this is a well-documented conspiracy theory (singular); no reason to move to the plural version. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment there doesn't seem to be anything close to a consensus for this move right now, so I'll attempt to make my argument (that this is not a single coherent theory, even by the loose logic of conspiracy theories) one more time. The Atlantic [7] says There is also a parallel, but distinct, narrative of “white genocide” surrounding Rhodesia. Inside Higher Ed [8] quotes George Ciccariello-Maher as saying it is an idea invented by white supremacists and used to denounce everything from interracial relationships to multicultural policies. And of course when Internet trolls are accusing “Star Trek: Discovery,” the newest incarnation of the sci-fi franchise, due to début on television in the fall, of white genocide [9] that certainly should not be considered part of a single coherent theory. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• Move to white genocide per WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:NPOV. The current and proposed title are both unnecessary and ooze POV/conclusions. -- Netoholic @ 10:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  It's POV to give a fringe conspiracy theory the primary topic instead of the actual White Genocide. wumbolo ^^^ 11:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  That's not at all what I'm suggesting. Notice my use of lower-case. -- Netoholic @ 11:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  As was pointed out last time this came up, both use either capitalization.--Pharos (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. None of the proponents of this theory are advocating a coherent, provable viewpoint, so it's a little premature to say that there are multiple theories which differ from each other significantly. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

---

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

BLP Problems, Person by Person and Source by Source

We need to avoid the Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_association_as_an_ad_hominem_fallacy or the Fallacy of the undistributed middle, by avoiding WP:SYNTH. As applied to the facts of this page:

Person A makes claim concerning South Africa "white genocide".
White Supremacists also makes claim concerning South Africa "white genocide".
Therefore, Person A is is associated to the group of White Supremacists and their other views and inherits how negatively viewed it is.

We cannot (per WP:SYNTH), make any claim concerning any individual as to their beliefs outside of South Africa without a source explicitly saying so. We cannot use one source that says that SA is part of the global white genocide conspiracy theory, and another source that says this individual believe the SA claims, to make the claim that the specific individual supports the global conspiracy theory (thats WP:SYNTH). I'm creating subsections for each of the people that I believe the RS do not support such a claim so we can discuss them individually.-Obsidi (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course, if a source calls someone's beliefs about South Africa a "White Genocide" conspiracy theory, that is sufficient to answer your WP:SYNTH objections; that is sufficient to connect it to the topic, which is all we need for inclusion. Your speculation that someone could confuse it for your (hypothetical) "global white genocide conspiracy theory" or for other strands or permutations of the White Genocide conspiracy theory that they did not endorse can be answered by being clear when describing them. But obviously, if a source says "this person believes XYZ, which is a White Genocide conspiracy theory" - as all the sources below do, in some form or another - we have to go with that source; it is not WP:SYNTH to simply reflect what such forces say. If you think they're mistaken or confused in terming these conspiracy theories "White Genocide" conspiracy theories, you'll have to find sources saying that rather than just your speculation. When re-adding these, I will of course take your objections in mind and be cautious not to say or imply that they endorse any sort of "global White Genocide conspiracy theory", merely the version of the White Genocide conspiracy theory that pertains to South Africa. If you are concerned that mentioning these people's endorsement, advocacy, or spread of the South Africa version of the White Genocide conspiracy theory could confuse readers and make them think that these people have endorsed or spread other variations on the conspiracy theory, please feel free to suggest a wording that makes it clear which strand of it they support - but since we have sources mentioning that they've endorsed or supported the "White Genocide conspiracy theory", the burden is on you, now, to produce sources showing that that doesn't fall under this article's broad topic. So far you've failed to do so. --Aquillion (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Look, we have gone round and round on this. I doubt we will be convincing each other any time soon at this point. I thought about going right to WP:BLPN or a RfC, but I don't currently know exactly what text you are planning to add. I would note that I would strongly object to any notion (especially in WP voice) based on the RS provided so far that the four people mentioned below "support" or "advocate" or otherwise "endorse" the White Genocide conspiracy theory discussed in the WP:LEAD of this page. (such as in this version). I just don't believe the RS support that claim. Other then that I will need to see your text to see how close to the wind it sails before I could say if I think your proposed text would meet the WP:V guidelines. -Obsidi (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It's going round and round because reliable sources indicate that the conspiracy theory is a broad definition which includes multiple elements. You appear to relunctantly accept this, but when we produce reliable sources which are declaring an individual's crystal-clear advocacy or evoking of the conspiracy theory, where pertinent in relation to whatever element of many (be it; Canadian racial demographics, or South African land confiscation), you have repeatedly claimed that said reliable sources don't show the individual's advocacy or evoking of the broad definition. This doesn't make sense, because the fact that the conspiracy theory is broad is already established, and the prose included indicates what element of the conspiracy theory an individual is referencing or endorsing. Perspex03 (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You want to say they agree with that element fine, but you are also implying that they agree with the whole conspiracy theory not just that element, and you don't have RS for that. -Obsidi (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson

• The Guardian: The idea that there is a ‘genocide’ of white farmers in South Africa was once the province of conspiracy theorists but, thanks to News Corp’s media promotion, it has moved into the policy realm. On Wednesday night, the Fox News presenter Tucker Carlson once again talked about the alleged plight of white South African farmers on his Fox News program.

This source does talk about the existence of a broader "white genocide" conspiracy theory, but at no time does it say Tucker Carlson agrees with that theory. It instead only talks about Tucker Carlson talking about the "alleged plight of white South African farmers." -Obsidi (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The section is for people who have advanced the conspiracy theory; in context (as an example of "News Corp’s media promotion"), this source clearly says that Carlson has advanced it. See But Trump’s tweet came at the end of a long process whereby the far-right idea of “white genocide” in South Africa had been mainstreamed, working its way from far-right websites and forums, into the rightward edge of mainstream media, and then into policy proposals. News Corp outlets have played an outsized role in that process, which unambiguously indicates that he pushed the conspiracy theory into the public eye. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Specifically limited to South Africa, with no claim otherwise in the RS. -Obsidi (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. So? The conspiracy theory about South Africa is part of the White Genocide conspiracy theory (as the source about Tucker Carlson says, by using that term), so that source is sufficient to answer your objections entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Vox: Trump is referring to a virulent, racist conspiracy theory that has been a pet cause of hardcore white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the alt-right for several years. More recently, Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, one of the president’s favorite conservative cable news pundits, has taken up the cause.

The statement above was in the clear context (given the Trump tweet referenced at the beginning of the quote) of South Africa. It specifically says (in the very next sentence) that The conspiracy theory is based on the very real — and very controversial — issue of post-apartheid land reform in South Africa.. No reference was made to any conspiracy theory outside of South Africa and the rest of the article focus on that. -Obsidi (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

As discussed above, the claims of "white genocide" in South Africa fall under this topic and are part of the same broad conspiracy theory; this article covers that aspect as well. If you read the lead, you will find that the rest of this article focuses on all permutations of the White Genocide conspiracy theory, including the aspects focused on South Africa. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

We need a RS that links this individual to such a broad conspiracy theory. What is the "lead" that you are referring to? -Obsidi (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory about South Africa is part of the White Genocide conspiracy theory (as this source says, by using that term), so that source is sufficient to link them to the broad topic covered by this article. And, indeed, the last sentence of the article's lead already discusses that topic. --Aquillion (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Salon: "They all look to Tucker Carlson as a voice in mainstream media that’s pushing their rhetoric." Lawrence added that Carlson "dances around" using loaded and overtly racist terms like "white genocide" but is “so good at pushing those ideas that those people know exactly what he’s talking about."

Currently "There is no consensus about the reliability of Salon. It is generally regarded as an opinion source." But the only times the phrase "white genocide" is used is to describe how Tucker Carlson doesn't use that phrase, saying he avoids that specific phrase, and how he speaks about the "threats" to "Western civilization" (his preferred euphemistic work-around for "white genocide"). This appears to me to be opinion, and should be attributed if it is used at all. -Obsidi (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• Chicago Tribune Fox News host Tucker Carlson said Friday he's shocked his segments this week on a South African land reform policy should be considered an appeal to white nationalists... "This is not an appeal to a racial group," Carlson said in an interview on Friday. "This is an appeal to universal principles that protect all racial groups that are true regardless of people's color. We don't mete out justice based on what people look like."... Asked about the support of these groups, Carlson said, "Joseph Stalin loved his daughter. I love my daughters. Does that make me a Stalinist? That's such a stupid question I don't know what to say." "I don't know anything about these groups," he said. "I've never had any contact with them or read any of their stuff. I have no idea what they think."

Adding additional source on the topic. -Obsidi (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Michael Savage

• The Guardian: Talk radio host Michael Savage devoted an entire show to the issue, and presented Southern and Katie Hopkins to his 11 million listeners to speak about their own trips to South Africa.

This focuses entirely on his claims concerning South Africa and makes no claim concerning a belief outside of one focused on South Africa. -Obsidi (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

As discussed above, the claims of "white genocide" in South Africa fall under this topic and are part of the same broad conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a RS linking Michael Savage to any views about any of this outside of the context of South Africa? -Obsidi (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Since you seem to have conceded, above, that the conspiracy theory in the context of South Africa falls under this topic, I don't understand what you're asking here. If you want to exclude the South Africa iteration of the White Genocide conspiracy theory from the article, feel free to start an WP:RFC for that; otherwise, the sources saying that he has endorsed that strand seem sufficient to include him in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump

• The Mercury News: President Donald Trump’s promotion of a white nationalist conspiracy theory involving South Africa prompted fierce backlash there Thursday and fresh criticism in the United States that he is compromising American foreign policy to stoke his far-right political base.

As applied to Donald Trump, the RS focuses only on South Africa, and no broader claims. It does have various white supremacists supporting Donald Trump, but this doesn't show that Donald Trump agrees with their other views. -Obsidi (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

As discussed above, the claims of "white genocide" in South Africa fall under this topic and are part of the same broad conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

We need a reliable source that makes that claim as to this individual. Do you have any? -Obsidi (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the source we're discussing here unambiguously identifies the conspiracy theory Trump endorsed as the "White Genocide conspiracy theory", which is the broad topic of this article. If you want to argue that that source is incorrect or mistaken, you'll need another source disputing it. --Aquillion (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Times of Israel: US President Donald Trump has come under fire, including from the Anti-Defamation League, for apparently tweeting support for a white nationalist conspiracy theory that whites in South Africa are in danger of genocide.

This source makes no claims of Donald Trump concerning anything outside of South Africa. -Obsidi (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Since you seem to have conceded, above, that the conspiracy theory in the context of South Africa falls under this topic, I don't understand what you're asking here. If you want to exclude the South Africa iteration of the White Genocide conspiracy theory from the article, feel free to start an WP:RFC for that; otherwise, the sources saying that he has endorsed that strand seem sufficient to include him in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

As discussed above, the claims of "white genocide" in South Africa fall under this topic and are part of the same broad conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

We need a reliable source that makes that claim as to this individual. Do you have any? -Obsidi (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this source unambiguously identifies the conspiracy theory Trump endorsed as the "White Genocide conspiracy theory", which is the broad topic of this article. If you want to argue that that source is incorrect or mistaken, you'll need another source disputing it. --Aquillion (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Vox: Trump is referring to a virulent, racist conspiracy theory that has been a pet cause of hardcore white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the alt-right for several years. More recently, Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, one of the president’s favorite conservative cable news pundits, has taken up the cause. ... Here’s what’s going on — and why it’s so disturbing that Trump is now basing US foreign policy decisions on a fringe white nationalist conspiracy theory.

As above the statements are made only in the context of South Africa. It specifically says (in the very next sentence) that The conspiracy theory is based on the very real — and very controversial — issue of post-apartheid land reform in South Africa.. No reference was made to any conspiracy theory outside of South Africa and the rest of the article focus on that. -Obsidi (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

As discussed above, the claims of "white genocide" in South Africa fall under this topic and are part of the same broad conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

We need a reliable source that makes that claim as to this individual. Do you have any? -Obsidi (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this source (which gives us something like three or four!) unambiguously identifies the conspiracy theory Trump endorsed as the "White Genocide conspiracy theory", which is the broad topic of this article. If you want to argue that that source is incorrect or mistaken, you'll need another source disputing it. --Aquillion (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Rolling Stone: The “large scale killing of farmers” is a conspiracy theory pushed by white supremacists who want to believe a white genocide is underway in South Africa. ... As Will Sommer of The Daily Beast notes, the right-wing extremists who have been crowing online about white genocide in South Africa will interpret Trump’s tweet “as another thumbs-up from the president.”

This article focuses only on the conspiracy theory concerning South Africa. While it does say the theory is pushed by white supremacist, that doesn't mean that anyone who supports it agrees with the other white supremacist views (and the RS doesn't say otherwise). It describes the conspiracy theory as The “large scale killing of farmers” is a conspiracy theory pushed by white supremacists who want to believe a white genocide is underway in South Africa. -Obsidi (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

As discussed above, the claims of "white genocide" in South Africa fall under this topic and are part of the same broad conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

We need a reliable source that makes that claim as to this individual. Do you have any? -Obsidi (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this source unambiguously identifies the conspiracy theory Trump endorsed as the "White Genocide conspiracy theory", which is the broad topic of this article. If you want to argue that that source is incorrect or mistaken, you'll need another source disputing it. --Aquillion (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump, Jr.

• The Atlantic: As the Republican nominee seeks to tone down his rhetoric, his son has emerged as a loud amplifier of alt-right memes and views, including “white genocide.” ... The candidate has also repeatedly retweeted messages from white nationalists who allege there is a “white genocide” occurring––the term refers to the white nationalist belief that immigration of non-whites and intermarriage between whites and other ethnicities is leading to the “genocide” of white people. ... The outstanding question now is whether Trump Jr. is a true believer in white genocide or is simply playing one for cynical political purposes, letting the internet’s committed racists know that even if Trump moderates his rhetoric, he still wants their votes.

Just because Donald Trump Jr. retweets messages from "white nationalists who allege there is a 'white genocide' occurring" doesn't mean he supports those views. Just because you retweet something from someone doesn't mean you agree with all their other views on all subjects. The last sentence appears to be hyperbole or opinion at best, and specifically says it is an "outstanding question." This is not the kind of RS claim that WP should be endorsing as unattributed fact. --Obsidi (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not an opinion piece; the section is for people who have advanced the conspiracy theory, and "loud amplifer" is sufficient. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The only factual claim made in the body of the article concerns him retweeting people who hold those views, not that he holds those views hismself. -Obsidi (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The article characterizes his behavior as a "loud amplifier" of the conspiracy theory. That is sufficient for this section, provided we are cautious in our wording. It's important to understand that the section isn't about naming-and-shaming people or anything like that, it's about identifying figures who were important in the development or spread of any strand of the conspiracy theory. This source is clearly sufficient for that. (If you feel that the wording is dangerous in terms of assigning blame or beliefs, of course, feel free to suggest alternative ones - but I think that that source, like most of the above, is sufficient to show that Trump Jr. is worth including in the article in some form as a person who contributed to the conspiracy theory's spread and, therefore, as an important part of its history.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It's common for semi-mainstream figures to "just ask questions" as a way of appealing to fringe supporters. I think an analogous case would be people like Cynthia McKinney, who is mentioned as an advocate of 9/11 Trutherism, even though, as far as I know, she's never endorsed any of the more grandiose "controlled demolition" versions of that theory. We should be specific about the nature of the amplification, but something along the lines of "Donald Trump Jr. has retweeted white nationalists advancing the conspiracy theory" seems entirely sensible. Nblund ^talk 18:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Individual has now been restored. Perspex03 (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I had a look at some of the sources used in this article.

Specifically, "#whitegenocide, the alt-right and conspiracy theory: How secrecy and suspicion contributed to the mainstreaming of hate.". It's pretty terrible in itself, but that's beside the minor point I'm trying to make. I don't know how reputable the peer review of this, 2nd issue of this 1st volume of this, apparently brand new.. not sure what to call it, magazine for socilogists, is. I had a look at the actual paper, and when you change format between the abstract (normal lines) to inserting empty lines between the text in the rest it, to me as a biologist, gives off the impression of being a horribly formatted paper. Sure, socilogists and masters in gender 'research' might not have the same standards as the rest of us, that being different standards, but I'd like to know what formatting that is. Sure isn't standard at my university and that's a major university.

Clearly most sources in this entire article are way off the science grid and mostly pseudo-scientific. I guess I just got reminded why my professors used to tell me to never use Wikiepedia (as a source that is, for humor it was allowed). Thank you 146.247.80.189 (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you realize that this is a free encyclopedia which you can edit? See WP:BOLD. I fully agree with you, as the author has an h-index of 1. wumbolo ^^^ 17:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Combining this topic with the main page on White Genocide

White Genocide is an accusation, some claim there is a conspiracy behind it, some claim it's all due to dumb people that took "anti-racism" too far & REFUSE to stop. The creation of the page under the title "conspiracy theory" is unarguably due to bias of the content creator. The "Black Genocide" page is not labeled "conspiracy theory" although there are numerous conspiracy theories within the page's content.

I am one of the main proponents of the accusation of White Genocide, my human rights organization is the 1st page on all the search engines (other than google) when u type in the phrase White Genocide. Nobody within our group ever talks about a "conspiracy" behind it, we SIMPLY DONT KNOW if there is or not & we do not pretend to know. If you are simply going to IGNORE the main proponents of the claim then how can you argue that this page is unbiased?

The intellectually honest thing to do would be to merge this page with the existing White Genocide page, refrain from calling proponents anti-white slurs in the introduction, and have a section of CONSPIRACY THEORIES. YES, there are some people that think there is a conspiracy behind it, just as there are some that think it's just a result of "anti-racists" going way too far and refusing to stop.

There are already issues with this page due to the South African accusation of White Genocide, there are many reasons to combine this topic with the main White Genocide page. There is only ONE reason not to, and that is if you wish to deliberately muddy the waters on the accusation — Preceding unsigned comment added by K3n0bl (talk • contribs) 06:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that you're a main proponent of the claim? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Articles here have to be based on sources; we call it a conspiracy theory because that's what the sources do. We're not ignoring the WP:PRIMARY sources you're talking about - we're covering them according to what WP:SECONDARY sources say about them. Generally speaking I doubt your personal website passes WP:RS, but if you have secondary sources covering you we could potentially add those. Also, if you really are one of the main proponents of this conspiracy theory, you might want to read the WP:COI policy; generally speaking, editing an article on a theory on which you are one of the main proponents could lead to conflict-of-interest problems. --Aquillion (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware that insane leftists have learned to fabricate up shit in papers. They are good at digging up this cesspool of low quality papers (no nature or science references around here for sure) and as long as they have a "source" that's where it's going. Don't waste your time fighting theese windmills of people. Just notice how antagonistically Aquilllion attributed you the possible proponent of this 'conspiracy theory' as if "SCIENCE" had proven it. Jesus. But tbh they are VERY good at doing anal retentive paragraph riding. For sure. Good luck buddy. If they spent half that time actually evaluating the sources, 50% of this pages sources would be removed. 146.247.80.189 (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to remove half of this article's sources almost a dozen times, but was reverted every time. Several other editors also tried that, but were mostly reverted by now-blocked socks. Wikipedia is supposed to be careful with biographies of living people, but many editors are not. And I'm not casting aspersions, as I have been wrongly accused of BLP violations myself, so I know that it is not useful. wumbolo ^^^ 18:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

How many steps?

Concerning the twitter sentence. The problem is one of six degrees of separation. How many steps does it take? We are not talking things that Trump tweeted or re-tweeted, nor the people he retweeted, but instead if a few of the friends of the people he retweeted used a hashtag. Notice no qualifier on how they used the hashtag. If they tweet "#WhiteGenocide is wrong and stupid" that qualifies. And to complicate this problem a few major accounts have used the hashtag #whitegenocide, meaning all of their followers are included. I pulled my own twitter account to see if any of the people I followed had the hash tag (I've never used it myself). And I found that Mark Steyn had used it [10] (with 223,000 followers), @Popehat had used it for instance in the tweet "For people who doesn't endorse racism, Donald Trump's campaign sure seems interested in the #whitegenocide freaks." [11] But even though he wasn't endorsing the hashtag or supporting it, his 142,000 followers are also included, as he used the hashtag. When there are several links in the chain (like retweeted->at least 3 friends->used a hash tag), the connection becomes so attinuated that there are substantial questions of if such information is useful at all. -Obsidi (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Additionally the text doesn't follow the source. The source was talking about in a specific single week, not an "average week" (the language included in this article). -Obsidi (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

That Mark Steyn used it is no surprise - he's a noted apologist for white supremacists and has endorsed racist trash propaganda. When you lie down with dogs, as Trump has - repeatedly - you get fleas. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

You appear to disagree with the conclusions of the reliable source cited. If you think there is a counter-analysis to be had, you're welcome to cite a reliable source which disputes the conclusions of this one. Your mere disagreement with the conclusions of a widely-respected and indisputable reliable source cannot possibly justify its removal. Let me tell you how easy it is to not follow or retweet anyone who is a white supremacist on Twitter. It's really, really easy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the facts. I disagree that the facts are relevant and deserve the weight given to them in this article. And as I noted above, it isn't just white supramcist your talking about. Its also people who hate white supremacists and use their hashtag to attack them. -Obsidi (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion – continue at Talk:Mark Steyn unless you have sources that he's a prominent supporter of this conspiracy theory. wumbolo ^^^ 15:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(PS He started in the above cite by saying: "Chris Cuomo went on to say that the real problem is white supremacists in America. They are the real monsters. Not these nice hard working illegal immigrants. And that may be well and true...", go read his WP article Mark Steyn, you will find a lot of criticism and he is far-right but he is not usually referred to as a white supremacist by reliable sources) -Obsidi (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Dude. He whataboutismed undocumented immigrants by saying they're worse than white supremacists because "they're not American." If you pick white supremacists over immigrants merely because they happened to be lucky sperm on one side of an arbitrary line, you're a white supremacist sympathizer at the very least. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC) So by your logic, if you pick illegal immigrants over legal residents, you're an illegal immigrant sympathizer at the very least? See the problem with the argument? wumbolo ^^^ 15:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Nope, there's no problem with that, because sure, I sympathize with illegal immigrants. Call me an illegal immigrant sympathizer all day. Of course I sympathize with people who come here looking to improve their lives. We white Americans were illegal immigrants from Day 1, coming here looking to improve their lives. Or did you think the Pilgrims asked for green cards from the Native Americans? No, we came over here without asking and stole this entire continent from the indigenous people who lived here. The United States exists because of genocide. Those of us who got lucky enough to be born here have no special moral claim to the land. In fact, people illegally trying to get into this country because they want to be Americans is about the most American thing you can think of. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

We are also talking about a single week two years ago. This is not a "report" that examined Trumps twitter feed extensively over a long period of time (as the current text implies). -Obsidi (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a snapshot in time. If reliable sources covered it, then I don't see an issue to bar inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Same as above. WP:DUE weight says we should cover things in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. A brief search shows that lots of reliable sources mentioned this analysis. Most of them mention it in the context of Trump's @whitegenocideTM retweet. Your personal belief that the analysis was bad just isn't going to persuade any editor who isn't predisposed to agree with you - and it's counterproductive to keep raising issues on that basis. Nblund ^talk 21:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence edits by Forbitcoin

I am concerned that Forbitcoin has twice removed well-referenced content from the lead sentence of the article without an explanation. This requires consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

They removed the material twice without comment. It was restored twice. If they do it again, escalating warnings should be given, leading to a block if needed. There's nothing to discuss if they aren't willing to collaborate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson section.

Since there seems to have been some dispute over this, my thoughts. His role in bringing it into the mainstream is well-cited and discussed by most sources that focus on that aspect; it's obviously WP:DUE and ought to be the first sentence of his paragraph. It could be reworded a bit, but it's what he's most notable for in this context. Note that the source quoting his response reinforces the significance of that controversy; most of its text is devoted to covering its timeline, not his response, so citing it just for what he said there is itself WP:UNDUE. Also, while he stepped down as Editor in Chief, Carlson remains the owner of the Daily Caller, so the source is correct to refer to it as 'his website', and it is misleading to water that down to "website he founded", let alone to remove it based on that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

My WP:DUE problems are only with the SPLC part (the rest appears DUE to me). The source you cite says He will maintain his ownership stake in the publication. The words "ownership stake" means he owns a part of it, but not all of it. I own stock in hundreds of companies, that doesn't mean they are mine unless I own a majority of the shares. -Obsidi (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: what are the issues with the SPLC content? It seems fine to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Simply describing this as undue doesn't make it undue. The SPLC is very widely cited as an expert on white nationalism and extremism. Further, the SPLC story was republished by Salon, which demonstrates that this is perceived as at least slightly significant by other reliable sources. It's also not the only outlet which has made connections between Daily Caller and very thinly disguised racism. Not by a long-shot.

The Daily Caller is not, as far as I know, publicly traded, and regardless of who technically owns it, it would break credulity to claim that Carlson isn't a major, defining influence on the site. So why, exactly, is this undue? Grayfell (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It's remarkable that SPLC passes RS muster because "The SPLC is very widely cited as an expert on white nationalism and extremism." Is there any other topic like that? Are climate change denialists taken to be the leading experts on climate change, for instance? It seems to work from the other end as well: primary sources are deemed "unreliable" *because* they are consanguineous with the topical object. 18:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notanipokay (talk • contribs)

If this were a section on Daily Caller it might be Due, but it isn't. Its a section on Tucker Carlson. He resigned his position at Daily Caller and as far as I am aware has no involvement in the content of the Daily Caller at all. If you have a reliable source that says otherwise show me. -Obsidi (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The cited SPLC article calls it his "flagship website" - so obviously this source is connecting Carlson to the Daily Caller. Nblund ^talk 16:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Carlson co-founded the Daily Caller, he was the editor in chief, so in that since he was connected, but he stepped down a few years ago and has had no involvement since so he isn't responsible for their actions anymore. -Obsidi (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It's clear that the SPLC thinks that he might have some continuing responsibility for what gets published on the website he founded. It seems like you personally disagree with that view, but that's not really a policy-based reason to remove it. His name is still closely associated with the Daily Caller, and multiple sources have argued that its current coverage reflects his influence in one way or another. Nblund ^talk 17:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Both of the sources you provided are opinion pieces. That's not enough for a section, and if we accepted these kinds of sources, there are also opinion pieces connecting Andrew Breitbart with Bannon and Orbán [12]. wumbolo ^^^ 18:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course they are opinion pieces - the question of whether or not Tucker Carlson bears some degree of personal ethical responsibility for the things that get published on the Daily Caller is largely a question of opinion. The SPLC's opinion is that The Daily Caller is Carlson's "flagship publication" - even though Carlson had already left his position as editor when the SPLC published that article. Reasonable people might disagree with that argument, but the statement is not being treated as a claim of fact, it's being attributed to the SPLC in-text. We can't remove prominent opinions just because editors personally disagree with them. Nblund ^talk 19:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The second piece you cite starts its very first line as: Tucker Carlson no longer has a day-to-day role at the Daily Caller now it goes on to say his sensibility still pervades the site, but it is still drastically unfair to tar people in guilt by association like that. WP:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance notes Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. -Obsidi (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"It's not fair" sounds like an WP:JDLI argument if I've ever heard one. Like I said, I don't think we can remove a viewpoint just because you personally disagree with it. For my part, I don't think it's all that unfair to associate Carlson with the company he founded and owns, but it doesn't hinge on my personal view either - if you want to raise an issue of WP:DUE, it might be worth considering, but your personal opinion on the validity of the SPLC's viewpoint doesn't have any real weight in the discussion. Nblund ^talk 19:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I cited (and quoted) BLP Policy, that is like the opposite of a WP:JDLI argument. -Obsidi (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: if Carlson still owns Daily Caller (which it appears he does), then SPLC's opinion is certainly due. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

He does own stock in the company, but he isnt the sole owner, and we have no reason to believe he is a majority shareholder. -Obsidi (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

He's still an owner, isn't he? He can't disclaim responsibility for a company that he co-owns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he can, he has, and it is appropriate for a minority shareholder to do so. That is why we have a corporate veil, because (unless rare circumstances occur), minority shareholders are not usually responsible for a corporations actions. -Obsidi (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

See for example:

Fox News' 8 p.m. host, Tucker Carlson, remains a passive co-owner of The Daily Caller, even though he gave up his role as editor in chief. But even though both anchors have sought to distance themselves, they are still associated with the publications they founded. That lingering connection could cause headaches for their employer, Fox News, which wouldn't comment for this story but pointed to press releases clarifying their reduced roles.

Source: [13]. If Carlson had sold off his share and repudiated all that the Daily Caller stands for, I would buy it. But the sources are not convinced. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The question is more BLP policy and its requirements under balance, not what a given source thinks. As you both sound insistent on this, I'll ask at BLPN. -Obsidi (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is the link: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Minority_Shareholders. -Obsidi (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory? No, it's just not.

I think it is rather unfair to brand this article a "Conspiracy Theory" on two major footholds. 1) It is technically not a conspiracy theory, unlike other well known ones like Roswell or 9/11 which are revolved around government coverups etc, and 2) It is (in a way) racist. If it was called "Black Genocide Conspiracy Theory" then people would be flipping tables for days. Calling it a conspiracy theory because it is made by right wingers and people whos political opinions isn't fair whatsoever, and going by the title, it's hardly built on a Neutral Standpoint either. And what this article is about, (making the native white population a minority) is far FAR from a conspiracy theory, it is blatantly obvious that it is taking place. So if one would (kindly) change it so it is 1) Not targeting the right wing population and 2) Factually correct without straight up targeting people and calling bullsh*t on any counter claim. EDIT: And in fact, having a quick scan through of this, I firmly believe this was in fact written by a left wing SJW who detests straight white males. I personally, am Right Wing, I believe in this stuff, but I am not a Nazi/Neo-Nazi, which this article appears to claim that I, and anyone else with the same views are. Cheesy McGee (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You're right that "demographic change" is happening. But "white genocide" is a conspiracy theory rooted in a misapplication of the definition of the term.

1. Genocide involves the killing or elimination of another group: voluntary changes in population proportions within a country are not genocide. You can't commit genocide by having more children or immigrating.
2. Every definition of genocide specifies that it must be deliberate: so claiming there is a "white genocide" implies that there is a deliberate, coordinated effort (a conspiracy) to eliminate white people through immigration.

I don't think everyone who ascribes to this view is a Neo-Nazi, but it is a spurious claim invented by Neo-Nazis. Nblund ^talk 18:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to this page, Mr. McGee. As somebody who is arguing that there are at least two different conspiracy theories discussed here, I disagree with your opinion. While demographic shifts can be discussed outside of a conspiracy theory, everything I have seen discussing "white genocide" is clearly referring to conspiracy theories. If you will make productive edits based on references, and not resort to ad hominem attacks (written by a left wing SJW who detests straight white males), hopefully you will be able to aid in improving this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

If this conspiracy theory is engendered by the misapplication of 'genocide', why do so many sources lack this distinction when drawing lines to so called 'proponents'. For example: ' Steve King has used rhetoric that Mother Jones and Paste Magazine writers described as invoking the conspiracy theory, saying that "We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else's babies" and using the phrase "cultural suicide." '

While there is a worthy debate over these comments, I do not believe the frontline should be Wikipedia. In no way do these sources or quotes explicitly refer to a 'white genocide', but to the aforementioned choices of low birth rates and multiculturalism. I'm sure there are plenty of real proponents of this theory without needing sensational evocations from VOX. 80.234.154.215 (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Off topic chat

Extended content

UN Definition of Genocide In article II, section (c) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf, it states a form of genocide to be "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". An example of this would be where Han Chinese are being moved into Tibet to gradually displace the indigenous Tibetans, which in the long run results in the physical destruction of that ethnic group "in whole or in part". Now in terms of majority white Western nations we see a similar pattern; in the United States we've had immigration post-1965 shifting to almost entirely non-white countries (as opposed to previously only white ones) mainly central American, Hispanic etc. In Europe post-1945 we've had large movements of Africans, South Asian and middle-Eastern people entering. In both cases the percentage of whites in the respective regions has rapidly decreased. In the US the white percentage dropped from around 87% in 1965 down to around 65% as of the latest census, and set to be an absolute minority by about 2045. Something else to bear in mind is that all of these movements are deliberate. We see in Japan, Hungary, Poland and Israel for example that it is perfectly possible to stop mass immigration of people; it is not "inevitable". All of these nations mentioned are effectively ethnostates who desire retaining a majority of one ethnic group to function properly. In conclusion I would like to suggest that this entire article seems to be a massive gaslight against whites and needs to be edited to reflect reality, it is clearly not a "conspiracy theory". Jeffsmith01 (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC) @Jeffsmith01: It's interesting that what you quote to back up your claim says that genocide is deliberate. Who do you think is deliberately inflicting immigration on the United States? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Well that would be the politicians in the US as they control who is and isn't allowed in, especially the ones of the Democrat party, although to be honest Trump has been the first to clearly oppose the globalist system as even many neocon republicans have wanted to avoid the immigration question. But yes it is deliberate as we don't see the same happening in all developed nations around the world. Israel being a major example who actually restricts immigration to those of Jewish decent, which arguably screams of JEWISH SUPREMACY, of course nobody would dare make that accusation at the risk of being labelled an "antisemite". Jeffsmith01 (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC) @Jeffsmith01: Israel doesn't actually do that! You can become a naturalised citizen of Israel by being a permanent resident there for 3 years in a 5 year period and completing their naturalisation process. Where did you get this information? PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC) @PeterTheFourth: If you've been there for 3 years how did you originally get in? Are you claiming I could simply move there and remain undetected for 3 years and then demand citizenship? However the main point here is Israel understands they need to maintain a large Jewish majority to function properly, currently around 80%. They would never condone measures to reduce that below 50%. That goes for Japan likewise who accepts barely any asylum seekers each year despite 10's of thousands of applications - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/16/japan-asylum-applications-2017-accepted-20, compare that to Angela Merkel who allowed around 2 million migrants/refugees to flood into Germany in a completely undemocratic decision. Jeffsmith01 (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Absolutely 100% not going to happen. We're not going to rewrite the article based on a your mis-interpretation of the definition of "genocide". If you can't provide reliable sources that specifically support your claims, then you're wasting people's time by asking for it on the talk page. Nblund talk 15:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Seconded. Jeff, stop using asinine conspiracy theories to enable neo-Nazis and Klansmen, that's all you're doing. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. Sources used in this article and associated discussions must refer to the white genocide conspiracy theory, the subject of this article. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is not biased at all.

Griping by IPs intent on promoting the conspiracy theory
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Like totally not biased. You should "Nazi" a couple more times in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.112.8.48 (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Ignoring your sarcasm, you're right -- it's a conspiracy theory advocated by Nazis and people who have been tricked into accepting their ideas. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Even if true, Nazi is not a neutral term. Also, why isn't Russiagate branded a far left conspiracy theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.112.8.48 (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Please come back when you've joined reality. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Spoken like a true left wing ideologue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.112.8.48 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC) You're the one objecting to labeling Nazi beliefs as what they are. It's not "Nazis vs leftists," or "everyone (including Nazis) vs leftists," it's ultimately "Nazis vs non-Nazis." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC) The article is clearly biased not only in tone but also in structure. There is a section about the critics of the so-called `conspiracy theory` yet absolutely no discussion about the facts supporting it (white people's share of the population of the West declining significantly exactly as a result of immigration and demographic policy, which `coincidentally, is exactly what the supporters of the 'conspiracy' claim. But I guess that happens when leftist ideologues like ian thomson are allowed free reign over supposedly objective open-source `encyclopedias`. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.236.253.39 (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC) This is not a forum for discussing the pros and cons of the white genocisde conspiracy theory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Lack of legitimate sources

Nearly all of the sources listed in the White Genocide 'Conspiracy Theory' page are from magazines and opinion blogs with no legitimate academic sources relying upon empirical research whatsoever (a disturbing trend on wikipedia). To quote: "Ian.thomson,"

"Not done Wikipedia relies on professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, not on unsourced personal interpretation. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)"

Nearly everything posted in this page is interpretation, besides dates. Simply because an academic publishes a book in which he or she expresses her opinion, or a opinion blog or news article does the same, does not mean these sources are academically or journalistically substantiated by real data...

Pewresearch did a population projection trend in the USA based upon current demographic growth and declination rates that is entirely mathematically valid (you can do the same projections with excel yourself) showing that the United States will be minority white and majority non-white by 2050. Brookings EDU found similar results as well as additional trends regarding American youth. Both of these findings are supported by the US Census Bureau. There is no mention of this, or any other valid article that utilizes mathematically correct methodology to come to an alternative view to the general prescribed theme in this page. No where in the entirety of this page is a valid alternative argument offered, nor any means to insert any kind of objective oriented reasoning that presents an alternative argument, into what is obviously a thinly veiled attempt by the writers and moderators to marginalize open discussion. The very premise that shifting demographics in the West is inherently a conspiracy theory is a kind of biased self confirmation at best. I request I (or any other) be allowed the above information regarding US demographic statistics into the US section of this page, otherwise I support the motion for deletion opened in 2018, as this page is a complete romp. -WolfHook (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Perhaps a bit of clarification. "Wikipedia relies on professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, not on unsourced personal interpretation." The sources mentioned must actually discuss the topic. Yes, there are thousands of sources available that discuss changes in population and the forces driving them. This article, however, is not about changes in population, the forces that drive them and what you think all of that put together might mean. Sources for this article must directly discuss the neo-Nazi/alt-right/white supremacist conspiracy theory contending that various forces/trends are being promoted to deliberately reduce white populations/white power/etc.

Independent reliable sources providing interpretation are entirely welcome. Editors' personal interpretations are not.

The article uses professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. These include University of San Jose, Lawrence and Wishart, Berghahn Books, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, Salon, Altamira Press, SAGE Knowledge, NBC News, University of Minnesota Press, Ashgate Publishing, New York Daily News, Huffington Post, Southern Poverty Law Center and about 150 others.

Wikipedia is not a forum for "open discussion". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, reporting what independent reliable sources say about notable subjects. This article reports what the independent reliable sources say about the hate groups' beliefs that there is a conspiracy at work. You may not agree that it is a conspiracy theory. You may want to discuss "shifting demographics in the West". That's fine material for your blog or various other forums. Wikipedia is not that forum. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)