Talk:Great Replacement

Statistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Less biased framing

While it is impossible to disprove the theory, it is apparently true that indigenous peoples are being replaced through open immigration policies and a low native birthrate plus a higher birth rate of immigrant populations. The disagreement comes from the causes of it, and the reasoning of support for the theory. A less biased framing of most of the article is necessary as the theory can be proven with simple statistics. People who are not "Nazis" or "White nationalist" can also believe the theory. On another note, the article has a left-leaning bias when it is supposed to be neutral. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

indigenous peoples - that word does not mean what you think it means. The indigenous peoples of Australia and the Americas were not white, and were, in fact, intentionally genocided by white settlers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

He is talking about Europeans, to which the majority of this article is devoted to and are indigenous to Europe. Tweedledumb2 (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References