Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory

More facts

This article contains a lot of he said, she said, but not enough facts.

I propose a section which factually lists global demographic changes of white people as a percentage of the total world population.

"More arresting is that the white population is shrinking not only in relative but in absolute terms. Two hundred million white people, one in every six on earth—a number equal to the entire population of France, Britain, Holland and Germany—will vanish by 2060."

Source: "Global White Population To Plummet" - The National Policy Institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.147.63.29 (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be quoting a white supremacist lobby group without good reason. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that National Policy Institute is not a reliable source. Additionally, we should not be compiling facts from various sources to support or tear down the conspiracy theory. Rather, we should report what independent reliable sources directly state about the conspiracy theory. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2, 2019: The second sentence of the paragraph following the "South Africa and Zimbabwe" sub-heading is punctuated incorrectly. I cannot fix it because the article is locked. Properly punctuated, the sentence would read:

"In particular, the story of Rhodesia (as Zimbabwe was formerly known), which was ruled by a white-supremacist government until 1980, holds a particular fascination for white supremacists."

Even with the punctuation corrected, the sentence remains awkward. I'd recommend editing it and perhaps even breaking it down the information it contains into two sentences.

As I noted above, I'd take a crack at revising it myself, but I cannot because the article is locked.

POV problem

Well let’s see..., I’m gonna keep it brief: The problem with this article primarily lies in the South Africa and Zimbabwe section which by no coincidence is the largest section of the article. It’s written like a personal essay from the perspective of white supremacists and even (sickeningly) sympathizes with them on the subject whether intentionally or not. Maybe, just maybe, if that section was broken up and formatted in continuity with all others then this article wouldn’t have this editorial bias. Trillfendi (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? Or just make whatever edits you think are necessary and be bold. Marking the entire article as having POV issues out of the blue doesn't really make sense imo. Marking just the section as having POV issues would be more accurate too. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Renamed Critics section to Criticism

Googling [white birth rates Europe] prominently shows the white nationalists' story from respectable looking sites (e.g. [1] and [2]) on the first page of results, with very little indication that they are out of the mainstream, let alone extremist views. Instead of just listing critics, we should expound on their critiques, as in [3] for example. I did a short paragraph for the intro and a somewhat longer one saying much the same thing at the head of the Criticism section, based on that recent news article about a population expert's views on the topic, but we have such a long list of critics that it seems like it should be easy to find more WP:MEDRS-grade sources.... I did find a couple of those. EllenCT (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Coatracking/Original research

@EllenCT: I get the point you're trying to make with your edits, however none of the sources you're using mention the white genocide conspiracy theory or anything close to it. As such, you are adding material to the article that is on a separate but related topic. You are synthesizing unrelated material into the article and it's topic. We cannot do this as editors. We must rely upon reliable sources to do this for us. Those sources must be the ones to make the link between demographic changes and the topic of this article. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I appreciate this opportunity to discuss your deletion of my attempts to balance the article. First, you don't seem to be interpreting policy correctly. WP:SYNTH says, "do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I certainly haven't done that. All of the statements in question simply summarize the reliable, mostly WP:MEDRS-grade sources. (Q.1) Are you claiming that some conclusion not explicitly stated by the sources was included? Moreover, WP:COATRACK is merely an essay, not a policy or guideline, but I haven't violated it either. It states that a "coatrack article ... ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." The two paragraphs in question are pertinent to the article because they refer to the fundamental premise of the conspiracy theory that a low birthrate is harmful or otherwise bad, as stated in the initial introductory paragraph. (Q.2) Is that a different subject or the same subject?

On the other hand, your deletion of those paragraphs violates pillar policies and an important guideline. By presenting the subject without counterpoint (other than a list of critics) your preferred version violates the WP:NPOV pillar policy by showing the reader only the assertions made by the conspiracy theorists, without any balancing critique to provide neutrality. WP:NPOV says, "Articles must not take sides.... which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (Q.3) Do you understand why deleting the opposing point of view, articulated by the WP:MEDRS sources contradicting the fundamental premise that low birth rates are bad, causes the article to take the side of the conspiracy theorists, leaving the opposing side without any representation? (Q.4) What are the societal effects that might be caused by leaving such bias for impressionable readers researching the topic? Furthermore, you have also violated the WP:UNDUE policy by serving to effectively promote an extremist WP:FRINGE point of view. (Q.5) Can you think of any reasons that readers and society at large won't be better served with a balanced article debunking the central assumption of the conspiracy theory with the most reliable sources? EllenCT (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

If it is original research, and I believe that it is, then none of the other policies pertain and it should e deleted. Doug Weller talk 10:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: on what is your belief based? Certainly not WP:OR, which describes it as statements without attribution to reliable sources. Do you think the statement that "Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition," should be removed from the Homeopathy article? EllenCT (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The main thing is that the sources you are using do not mention the white genocide conspiracy theory at all. WP:OR states that:

• "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
• "If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."

Examples of why this is a problem can be found at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Examples. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: in what sense are the effects of low birthrates not directly related to the topic? You haven't shown an example of any synthesis at all. EllenCT (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Low birthrates are one piece of the conspiracy theory. It's related, but sources for this page must include material about the conspiracy theories. We should not include independent material about immigration, abortion, etc. unless the authors of the materials directly link it to the conspiracy theory. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any requirement that a sub-topic of a subject under discussion must explicitly refer to the entire subject in order to relate to the subject. I am happy to include the source making the explicit connection referred to in the RFC below if it will resolve this. EllenCT (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

RFC

Should the deleted criticism of the conspiracy theory be included in the article? 17:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Include as proposer. EllenCT (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Obviously not as an obvious WP:COATRACK. GMG^talk 17:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

If someone publishes an "Elephant overpopulation scourge" theory, would we be forbidden from including sources in its article saying that elephant populations are not growing simply because they don't have the words "overpopulation scourge" in them? Why do you consider the effects of low birth rates to be a separate subject from the conspiracy theory? EllenCT (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The point is, you and I don't decide what's relevant for the subject. The sources do. If this information is deeply relevant, then you should have little trouble finding sources that relate them to the subject. If you cannot, then we operate with the presumption that they are not, or are not yet. If you would like to rectify that issue, because it is somehow a failing of critical thought on the societal level, then you need to publish that information in the types of sources we cite on Wikipedia, and then we may include it here. We do not work backward from here to there. GMG^talk 18:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the article defines the theory as contending that "low fertility rates ... are being promoted ... to deliberately replace, remove, or liquidate white populations." The source cited in support of that definition quotes a source saying, "There is a longstanding anxiety among Russia's nationalists that Russians are dying out because of falling birth rates." Do you contend that this does not relate the topic to the subject? Other sources are extremely easy to find, e.g., Betuel, Emma (January 13, 2019). "CDC Data on Declining US Fertility Rate Is Being Used by White Nationalists". Inverse. Would you be satisfied if the article explicitly made the connection with that source? EllenCT (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the sort of sources we need. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The Infowars article it cites is actually from the Daily Mail, naturally. EllenCT (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• No. This is clearly WP:SYNTH. It's also a bit POV and racist (change "white" with some other race). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 20:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I don't understand. The word "white" does not appear anywhere in the deletions in question here, but it is in the title of the article. There are no corresponding conspiracy theories involving other races or ethnicities, as far as I can tell. Are you satisfied with using the Inverse source for establishing the connection? EllenCT (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Black genocide conspiracy theory has a theme about declining populations because of family planning. Like EvergreenFir said, the Inverse source is completely fine. wumbolo ^^^ 22:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• No. The proposer of this RfC appears to be struggling with the concept of neutrality and seems to want to be able to write their own criticism directly into the article. Oska (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

What do you think is my "own" -- I am being accused of OR for statements taken from MEDRS sources? EllenCT (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Clearly no - Sources which do not directly discuss a topic cannot be used as sources for that topic, as repeatedly discussed above. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• No as I've explained above. The NPOV point made by Oska is ironic given the fact that EllenCT added an NPOV tag to the article. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• No, and EllenCT should be sanctioned for canvassing.[4] EllenCT keeps insisting that the white genocide conspiracy theory contains the idea that low birthrates are bad. This basic error is firmly based on original research and not on what any reliable source says about the WGCT. The actual WGCT consists of the belief that low white birthrates combined with high non-white birthrates are bad, and the belief that this is a a deliberate conspiracy. Neo-nazis who hold this theory would be quite happy if the birthrate of whites went down while the birthrate of non-whites went down farther and faster. The WGCT is still an incredibly stupid and racist conspiracy theory, and there are may excellent sources that say so, but EllenCT is not helping things by misrepresenting what the white genocide conspiracy theorists actually believe. EllenCT is setting up a straw man of EllenCT's own creation, then knocking it down. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

What is your source for "The actual WGCT consists of the belief that low white birthrates combined with high non-white birthrates are bad"? That is not what the sources which have been in the article for years say. EllenCT (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop asking questions. It is really annoying when you pester me with questions and never listen to the answers. If, as you claim, white supremacists who believe the white genocide conspiracy theory would like a higher birth rate among blacks, why do they call for all blacks and other "inferior" races to be sterilized? Come to think of it, don't answer that. I have zero interest in what your latest WP:OR might be. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• No as it violates WP:NOR. Only sources which address the falsehoods of this conspiracy theory directly and with explicit link to the conspiracy theory should be used. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to closer: EvergreenFir has cited WP:FALSEBALANCE below in support of this !vote. It says exactly the opposite as what he says it does. It requires that mainstream reliable-source supported points of view must be included to the possible exclusion of fringe views, not the other way around. EllenCT (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Falsebalance says: ... all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The sources used here do not discuss the WGCT topic, and thus do not belong in an article on the WCGT topic. This is entirely consistent with what EvergreenFir actually said: False balance would be adding sources which don't mention the topic to present "the other side". They certainly did not say that fringe POV should dominate over mainstream POV. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• No If we find a reliable source that explicitly argues, "Low/falling fertility rates are not a problem and therefore WGCT is wrong", we can include that (keeping in mind WP:DUE and possible need for attribution). But it's not for wikipedians to sythesize such an argument. Abecedare (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Such a source would, of course, also at least have to imply that WGCT thinks that Low/falling fertility rates are a problem. Every source that mentions WGCT and fertility rates makes it crystal clear that they only care about white fertility rates compared not no-white fertility rates, not fertility rates in general. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• No - Agree with the above that this is a NOR problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• No - Came across this from Jimbo Wales talk page. Having read the material proposed to be reinstated, I can see why the author wants to include it as "debunking the theory", but the sources used have no relation to, nor do they address, the subject matter of the WGCT. If you want to include criticism of the theory, then it must come from sources that criticise the theory. Otherwise you're engaging in synthesis. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• No, obvious WP:SYNTH since these sources don't mention the conspiracy theory. If this really is relevant to it, it should be easy to find sources making that argument directly. --Aquillion (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Mnmh, is there any reason to believe that White genocide conspiracy theory afficianados want to increase the overall population? If given the ability of increasing the white population while having a balancing decrease of the nonwhite population (through laws, social policies, sterilization, etc) for no net change in population growth, wouldn't they go for it? But anyway, I don't wish to pile on Ellen. Her heart is in the right place, and that matters, so let's not talk about "sanctioning" as one editor did above. Chill. Herostratus (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

How should the extremist fringe view (which is not held by white genocide conspiracy theorists) that low birthrates are bad be balanced?

The above section heading is not neutral and should be replaced with a more neutral version. It assumes facts not in evidence, and EllenCT has been edit warring to retain it.[5][6]

"Because threads are shared by multiple editors, no one, including the original poster, 'owns' a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc." --WP:TPOC

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing non-neural about the heading. You have been pushing the idea that the conspiracy theory involves complaints that non-white birthrates are too high, but the source in the article used to define the subject and the other sources I've been able to find say no such thing. I've repeatedly asked if you have any such sources. EllenCT (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The sources are in the article.

The article DOES say

"The conspiracy theory contends these actions are to deliberately replace, remove, or liquidate white populations, dismantle white collective power, turn the countries minority-white, and hence cause white people to become extinct through forced assimilation or violent genocide."

The article DOES NOT say

"The conspiracy theory contends these actions are to deliberately replace, remove, or liquidate all populations of all races, dismantle multiracial collective power, keep the existing minority-majority ratios, and hence cause people of all races to become extinct through forced assimilation or violent genocide."

All of the claims that are actually in the article are extremely well sourced. Your WP:OR alternative definition of the white genocide conspiracy theory is not.

Oddly enough, racists are actually racist, and don't spend a lot of time worrying about the fertility rate among blacks going down. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What source says that the conspiracy theorists think the non-white birthrate is too high? EllenCT (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Multiple sources that show them calling for sterilization of "inferior races" --Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that this addition is being called "original research":

Lower fertility rates are generally associated with dramatic increases in population health and longevity. Increasing populations are not necessary to maintain economic growth and social vitality because of advances in automation and workers living healthy lives much longer into old age. Declining populations require fewer scarce resources and pollute less. Fewer dependents mean that families, regions, and societies can achieve more productive uses of available resources and increase their quality of life. While there were in the past advantages to high fertility rates, that "demographic dividend" has now largely disappeared.

References

It's plain that none of those statements aren't supported by the high quality sources cited.

Should the assertion being parroted by the article that low birth rates are bad be balanced at all? If so, how? EllenCT (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

No. This is an article about a conspiracy theory, not about the negative or positive effects of lower birth rates. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Black helicopter has a "Possible explanations" section. Chemtrail conspiracy theory has a "Interpretation of evidence" section summarized in the introduction. New World Order (conspiracy theory) has a nine paragraph substantive "Criticism" section summarized in the intro. Antisemitic canard explains in detail why, as the intro says, the accusations are "unfounded rumors or false allegations which are defamatory" in every section. Controversies about Opus Dei has an "Objections to critics" section with three sub-sections. 9/11 conspiracy theories has a nine paragraph substantive "Criticism" section. Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories has an "Analysis" section debunking the theories. AIDS conspiracy theories explicitly debunks each conspiracy theory in each of their sections. MMR vaccine and autism debunks the conspiracy theory in the introduction, and includes "Disease outbreaks" and "Impact on society" sections. Climate change denial has five sections on counter-point and an "Effect" section showing the problems the conspiracy theories cause.

Many if not most of the references used in those sections to debunk the conspiracy theories do not refer to the theories themselves. Is that wrong? EllenCT (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Chemtrails, NWO, etc. all have sources which clearly link the article topic with their related evidence/criticisms. I know, first hand, that WP:RS and WP:NOR can be tough to wrap your head around when it comes tot stuff like this. But the sources must be the ones to make any links. For this article, to include any information about demographic changes, fertility, fecundity, etc., the source must also include information directly addressing the white genocide conspiracy theory. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You skipped the black helicopters article because exactly none of the sources debunking that conspiracy theory mention it at all. It's not the only article like that. EllenCT (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@EllenCT: please check the edit history on Black Helicopters. 1 source did belong. If you see other articles like that, please fix them. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid reason for adding to this page though. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• There is a misconception that we should balance the POV of a conspiracy theory with evidence that discredits the theory. That is the wrong approach, as it is not WP’s job to discredit theories. Any discrediting needs to be attributed, so the reader knows who is saying that the evidence discredits the theory... otherwise presenting the evidence is original research. What we need is an intermediary. A source that says “here is evidence that discredits the theory”. This can be difficult, because many conspiracy theories are so obviously whacko that no one bothers to explicitly discredit them. Yet that is indeed what is required. Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Blueboar: That is not what most of our articles on conspiracy theories do. WP:NPOV says to include "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic," and when we describe what 9/11 or chemtrail or black helicopter or Sandy Hook or AIDS or anti-vax or climate change conspiracy theorists say which is contradicted by reliable sources, we say so even when those sources don't refer to the conspiracy theories.

NPOV requires that false assertions be balanced by reliable sources debunking those assertions. Where is the requirement that such sources must refer to the false assertions?

@Doug Weller: do you believe there is any such requirement; if so, where is it stated? EllenCT (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"NPOV requires that false assertions be balanced by reliable sources debunking those assertions" is incorrect. Please see WP:FALSEBALANCE. I am rather flummoxed that a senior editor like you does not seem to understand these foundational rules. And don't ask Doug when I've already pointed out where it demonstrates this requirement. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: are you saying WP:FALSEBALANCE suggests ever removing mainstream viewpoints in favor of fringe claims? It says to omit the extreme fringe views and keep the mainstream views in. Again, is there any requirement that sources balancing incorrect views as required by NPOV have to refer to the incorrect views instead of merely presenting the mainstream view? Consider me even more flummoxed at the extent to which you are doubling down on this. EllenCT (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

False balance would be adding sources which don't mention the topic to present "the other side". EvergreenFir (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE says, "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Which part of that rule do you think implies that an opposing mainstream view must refer to the minority view which it balances? EllenCT (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Refusing to listen to what multiple veteran editors are telling you is not a valid argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Debunking sources which explicitly refer to the conspiracy theory

I don't understand why WP:MEDRS sources which do not refer to the conspiracy but contradict its tenets aren't preferable, but what do people think of these proposed inclusions?

1. White genocide is a myth based on false science, false history, and hatred. There is no evidence that white people are dying out or will die out, or that anyone is trying to kill them as a race or ethnicity. The concept of white genocide is an insult to Jews, Rwandans, Armenians, and all actual victims of genocidal attacks. -- Saslow, Eli (September 2018). Rising out of hatred: the awakening of a former white nationalist. Knopf Doubleday. ISBN 0385542879.
2. Evidence that white people are in danger of being wiped out by genocide is nonexistent. The purpose of the white genocide conspiracy theory is to terrorize white people in countries that are diversifying and justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda. "The Turner Diaries," for instance, is responsible for inciting many violent crimes, including those of Timothy McVeigh. -- Marcotte, Amanda (27 August 2018). "Donald Trump's "white genocide" rhetoric: A dangerous escalation of racism". Salon.
3. There is no evidence that white genocide is occurring. White supremacists claim that ethnic diversity is equivalent to genocide. -- DeVega, Chauncy (5 September 2018). "Author and activist Tim Wise: 'The Republican Party is a white identity cult'". Salon.
4. White supremacist men are threatened by women's choices to forgo childbearing for careers, use birth control, and marry nonwhite men, so they claim to be trying to save the white race by attempting to control the behavior of women, attacking interracial couples, lesbians, and feminists. White supremacists are successfully constructing false narratives of terrorization by genocide to incite violence at an increasing rate. At the national level, the movement preys on white men who feel displaced and economically defeated, using them as expendable foot soldiers to accelerate violence and serve the political purposes of corrupt elites. The rate at which such radicalization and violence is entering the mainstream should be cause for alarm. -- Perry, Barbara (November 2003). "'White Genocide': White Supremacists and the Politics of Reproduction". In Ferber, Abby L. (ed.). Home-grown hate: gender and organized racism. Routledge. pp. 75–95. ISBN 0415944155.
5. The US Republican Party as led by Donald Trump has repeatedly and openly courted white supremacists and endorsed the falsehoods they promote, including those of white genocide. -- Taylor, Keeanga-Yamahtta (16 February 2018). "The White Power Presidency: Race and Class in the Trump Era". New Political Science. 40 (1): 103–112. doi:10.1080/07393148.2018.1420555.
6. White supremacists feel so threatened by the potential loss of power among their leaders that they fabricate paranoid claims that the very survival of whites is threatened, for example by, "individualism, celibacy, feminism and other forms of sex-role confusion, misplaced environmentalism, and white demonization and guilt," all of which are described as promoting reproductive failure. -- Pannell, Justin; Brod, Adam; Horton, Reina Hirose (2018). "The Conception of Race in White Supremacist Discourse: A Critical Corpus Analysis with Teaching Implications" (PDF). TESOL Working Paper Series. 16: 40–61.

Are there any objections to those? EllenCT (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly object. You keep claiming things like "...which do not refer to the conspiracy but contradict its tenets", but you have completely misidentified their tenets. You believe -- with zero evidence to back up your belief -- that the white genocide conspiracy theorists think that low birthrates are bad. They actually believe that low white birthrates combined with high non-white birthrates are bad, and would be quite happy if the birthrate of whites went down while the birthrate of non-whites went down farther and faster. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The article says that the white genocide conspiracy theory is, in part, that, "low fertility rates ... are being promoted ... to deliberately replace, remove, or liquidate white populations." The source cited in support of that definition quotes a source saying, "There is a longstanding anxiety among Russia's nationalists that Russians are dying out because of falling birth rates." There are no sources in the article or that you have provided saying anything about "low white birthrates combined with high non-white birthrates" -- do you have any sources saying anything like that? Moreover none of the six proposed inclusions above say anything about birthrates. EllenCT (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

So in your fantasy world the white genocide conspiracy theorist are really concerned about worldwide low fertility rates -- that they are oh so very concerned about there not being enough blacks, jews and asians in the world -- and that the whole idea of "white genocide" isn't something that the neonazis have been talking about for decades? Go ahead and pull the other one. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source supporting your assertion, or are you asking that we synthesize it from other statements? EllenCT (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I don't understand your objection to this last point and these sources. In this case EllenCT is asking if there are objections to using sources that explicitly address the fallacies of the white genocide theory. If those sources are mischaracterizing the theory, perhaps other sources can be found to make that point, but that wouldn't mean these sources can't be used. -Darouet (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

EllenCT's sources do not in any way establish that the white genocide conspiracy theorists think that all low birthrates are bad. All of the sources clearly establish that they actually believe that low white birthrates combined with high non-white birthrates are bad. That's what the white genocide conspiracy theory is. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in the six proposed inclusions above have anything to do with birthrates. EllenCT (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Even if they established that, it would still be WP:SYNTH. "These people believe X.[cite to source establishing they say it] In reality, Y.[cite to unrelated source establishing Y]" is textbook WP:SYNTH. In order to rebut or critique a belief, you have to use a source that directly references that belief, fullstop. You can't assemble an implication or underlying chain of logic on your own, not even something as simple as that. Doing that sort of synthesis can contain unintended assumptions about the applicability or nature of the conspiracy theory; it also gives the impression that the conspiracy theory is taken more seriously than it actually is (ie. someone skimming the article and not checking the sources would mistakenly believe that these high-quality sources take it at least partially seriously, whereas the sources are generally clear that it is flatly unsupported nonsense cobbled together out of generations of racist tropes rather than anything remotely approximating reality.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That's absurd. If some fringe theory says 1+1=3, you can balance it with a mainstream source that says 1+1=2. The reliable source doesn't also have to say 1+1≠3. There has never been any policy, guideline, or even an essay that says anything like that requirement. Those claiming there is have had ample time to quote such a rule and have been unable to do so. EllenCT (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Unanimously editors (all experienced) have called this OR/SYNTH. WP:OR has been quoted repeatedly. If the aren't clear, I'd recommend proposing edits at WT:OR or WP:VPP to added text that would help you and others in the future understand it easier. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Not listening does not constitute a counter argument. GMG^talk 14:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Criticism section inclusion

There have been no objections to these individual inclusion proposals so I am proposing making this two paragraph addition to the "Criticism" section:

White genocide is a myth based on false science, false history, and hatred. There is no evidence that white people are dying out or will die out, or that anyone is trying to kill them as a race or ethnicity. White supremacists claim that ethnic diversity is equivalent to white genocide. White supremacist men are threatened by women's choices to forgo childbearing for careers, use birth control, and marry nonwhite men, so they claim to be trying to save the white race by attempting to control the behavior of women, attacking interracial couples, lesbians, and feminists. They feel so threatened by the potential loss of power among their leaders that they fabricate paranoid claims that the very survival of whites is threatened, for example by, "individualism, celibacy, feminism and other forms of sex-role confusion, misplaced environmentalism, and white demonization and guilt," all of which are described as promoting reproductive failure.

The purpose of the white genocide conspiracy theory is to terrorize white people in countries that are diversifying and justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda. White nationalists use evidence of a declining birth rate in support of their extremist views and calls to violence. White supremacists are successfully constructing false narratives of terrorization by genocide to incite violence at an increasing rate. At the national level, the movement preys on white men who feel displaced and economically defeated, using them as expendable foot soldiers to accelerate violence and serve the political purposes of corrupt elites. The rate at which such radicalization and violence is entering the mainstream should be cause for alarm. Literature propounding the white genocide conspiracy theory has incited violence; The Turner Diaries, for instance, is responsible for inciting many violent crimes, including those of Timothy McVeigh. The US Republican Party as led by Donald Trump has repeatedly and openly courted white supremacists and endorsed the falsehoods they promote, including those of white genocide.

References

Are there any objections to that specific two paragraph inclusion? EllenCT (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• If we're being generous, maybe ten percent of this suggested addition is actually about the subject of the article. GMG^talk 16:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Which parts do you think are not, and why? All of them specifically refer to the white genocide conspiracy theory. EllenCT (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The bits that are broad commentary on white supremacy in general, and not this conspiracy theory in particular. GMG^talk 17:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Which bits are those? EllenCT (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of what EllenCT wrote above is NOT based upon the white genocide conspiracy theory, but rather on EllenCT's purposeful distortion of the white genocide conspiracy theory.

To list a few of the places where EllenCT's basic error caused them to suggest wording that is only supported by their WP:OR:

• "White supremacist men are threatened by women's choices to forgo childbearing for careers, use birth control..."

Wrong. White supremacist men like it when black women forgo childbearing for careers or use birth control. In fact, they advocate sterilization of blacks while also advocating denying birth control to white women. This is easy to find in their lierature. — Guy Macon 17:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

• "White nationalists use evidence of a declining birth rate in support of their extremist views and calls to violence."

Completely wrong. The source that EllenCT chose clearly says what the white nationalists say that "the much smaller proportion of immigrant-born women are having more children". More, not less. They, of course, get their facts wrong, but that is their position, and EllenCT is ignoring what the source say. — Guy Macon 17:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

• "The US Republican Party as led by Donald Trump has repeatedly and openly courted white supremacists and endorsed the falsehoods they promote, including those of white genocide."

Repeatedly and openly? So the opening paragraph of our Racial views of Donald Trump article is wrong when it says that Trump has denied accusations of racism, saying, "I am not a racist. I'm the least racist person you will ever interview"? Even Trumps harshest critics and worst enemies claim that he is secretly a racist while claiming not to be one. There is zero evidence for this "repeatedly and openly" claim. — Guy Macon 17:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

• "The purpose of the white genocide conspiracy theory is to terrorize white people"

Nonsense. They aim to scare white people with false claims that the white people are being terrorized by those who want to eliminate the white race. Not the same thing. — Guy Macon 17:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

The definition of terrorize is to, "create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress." If you are convinced that someone is trying to exterminate your entire race, is that extreme fear or just a scare? EllenCT (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• "the movement preys on white men who feel displaced and economically defeated, using them as expendable foot soldiers to accelerate violence and serve the political purposes of corrupt elites."

Not supported by the evidence. Most white nationalists appear to know exactly what they are doing and what their goals are. You don't have to trick racists into being racists. — Guy Macon 17:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

• "Literature propounding the white genocide conspiracy theory has incited violence; "The Turner Diaries," for instance, is responsible for inciting many violent crimes, including those of Timothy McVeigh."

Clearly EllenCT has never read our article on The Turner Diaries. Yes, that book has incited violence, but the book does not describe genocide against whites. Just the opposite, actually: "[In the book] all groups opposed by the author, such as Jews, non-whites, 'liberal actors' and politicians are exterminated." EllenCT is confusing a book that describes genocide against non-whites and says that this would be a good thing with a conspiracy theory that imagines a mythical genocide against whites and says that this is a bad thing. They are both racist concepts, but they are not the same thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The Turner Diaries discusses both white genocide and the genocide of other races by whites, in the context of an "all-out race war." I recommend the synopsis at RationalWiki to show how much of the plot our article on the book omits. EllenCT (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

...and once again EllenCT misrepresents a source. What a shock. The RationalWiki synopsis has zero discussion of white genocide. How could it? The Turner Diaries was written in 1978. Very few people -- even white supremacists who read a lot of white supremacist literature -- knew about the white genocide conspiracy theory before David Lane popularized the concept with his White Genocide Manifesto in 1995 --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Guy, you have obviously not read the book and are just making shit up. See my detailed excerpts below. EllenCT (talk) 07:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Guy Macon, I sure hope that "The purpose of the white genocide conspiracy theory is to terrorize white people" was a typo, or some other kind of error. Otherwise it's inexplicable. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Don't hold your breath waiting for EllenCT to admit to an error... --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• I believe the intended meaning of "terrorize" here is "to motivate through fear", and is mostly overly colorful language. GMG^talk 19:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• If that's the case, then there is quite a bit of "overly colo[u]rful language". The rate at which such radicalization and violence is entering the mainstream should be cause for alarm <- this is an encyclopedia, not the Daily Mail online. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Wait... what? You mean we are not supposed to make Wikipedia into another Daily Mail??? Oh man. I have been getting it backwards all these years... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: While it is a paraphrase from two different sections of its 2003 source, I would be glad to also cite current hate crime statistics in support of it. However, I get the feeling that you would prefer it reworded and I am more than open to suggestions. EllenCT (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Responded inline above; again, if you are convinced that someone is trying to exterminate your entire race, is that extreme fear or just a scare? EllenCT (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleted responses

@Guy Macon: you deleted my inline response to you, where I used the {{interrupt}} tag as per its instruction, claiming that I edited your comments. I did not edit your comments. This is the first time I've seen anyone complain about the use of that tag. Oddly, you left the interrupt templates in your text. In any case, my replies to each of your points are here. EllenCT (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Henry Jackson Society source

Pages 21-23 and 39-43 of Gaston, Sophia (November 2018). "Out of the Shadows: Conspiracy Thinking on Immigration" (PDF). The Henry Jackson Society., has many more examples of the subject than the article currently contains, mostly about the UK, which we don't cover at all presently (the "United Kingdom" section is three sentences on Katie Hopkins talking about South Africa) but also Germany, Poland, Norway, Sweden, Hungary, Austria, and origins in an apparently widely cited 1925 book by Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi entitled Praktischer Idealismus (practical idealism, pertinent excerpts of which are quoted in his article), none of which the article covers, along with many additional details on the US that the article is missing. EllenCT (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Does The Turner Diaries specifically mention the white genocide conspiracy theory?

The Turner Diaries has long been a favorite among racists, white supremacists, Neo-nazis, and other random chuckleheads and assclowns. In the discussions above, our favorite Original Researcher claims that you can find the white genocide conspiracy theory in The Turner Dairies but in The Atlantic J.M. Berger[7][8] of The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague (ICCT) says this:[9]

"The Turner Diaries is notable for its lack of ideological persuasion. At one point in the novel, its protagonist, Earl Turner, is given a book to read. Turner claims the book perfectly explains the reasons for white supremacy and the justification of all of The Order’s actions. Importantly, this magical tome’s contents are never specified."

and

"The Order [was] a real-life terrorist cell that was directly based on the organization described in The Turner Diaries. In a yearlong spree starting in 1983, The Order killed three people and stole millions of dollars, much of which was then distributed to white nationalist leaders and never recovered. Members of the group referred to Turner as their 'bible'. "

"One member of The Order, David Lane, became a prolific writer in prison after authorities broke up the gang in 1984. Although he wrote a number of lengthy ideological tracts, one of his most important works was the three-page 'White Genocide Manifesto,' which took Pierce’s dislike for complex ideological formulations to new heights, instead arguing from a platform of 'Nature's laws, common sense and current circumstances.' The manifesto argues that 'racial integration is only a euphemism for genocide,' and that the 'white race' is on the verge of extinction due to interbreeding with other races."

The White Genocide Manifesto was written in 1995. The Turner Diaries was first serialized the mid 1970s and the first printing in paperback was in 1978.

So you won't find any specific mention the white genocide conspiracy theory in The Turner Diaries, but it clearly planted the seed for Lane to popularize the white genocide conspiracy theory among white supremacists 17 years later. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Guy, have you actually read the book, or are you just guessing from second-hand accounts of it? Firstly, as per the previous section, the white genocide conspiracy theory did not originate with David Lane, it's from a 1925 book by Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi entitled Praktischer Idealismus (practical idealism) which has been widely cited by white supremacists throughout the 20th century. The Turner Diaries complains of "the growing percentage of non-Whites" in Chapter 2, and Chapter 5 contains this passage:

But one thing which is quite clear is that much more than our freedom is at stake. If the Organization fails in its task now, everything will be lost-our history, our heritage, all the blood and sacrifices and upward striving of countless thousands of years. The Enemy we are fighting fully intends to destroy the racial basis of our existence.

No excuse for our failure will have any meaning, for there will be only a swarming horde of indifferent, mulatto zombies to hear it. There will be no White men to remember us-either to blame us for our weakness or to forgive us for our folly.

If we fail, God's great Experiment will come to an end, and this planet will once again, as it did millions of years ago, move through the ether devoid of higher man.

Chapter 6 has similar passages, like, "the majority of those who wanted a solution, who wanted to preserve a White America, were never able to screw up the courage to look the obvious solutions in the face." Chapter 8 says, "many young Whites, instead of opposing this new threat to their race, have apparently decided to join it." Chapter 10 says, "By terrifying the White population they will make it more difficult for us to recruit, thus speeding our demise." Chapter 14 has this:

Each day we make decisions and carry out actions which result in the deaths of White persons, many of them innocent of any offense which we consider punishable. We are willing to take the lives of these innocent persons, because a much greater harm will ultimately befall our people if we fail to act now.

Chapter 20 gets into the all-out race war, which I won't quote from because it's so stupid. Chapter 21 has several paragraphs on cannibalism of Whites by Blacks, which are far too disgusting to quote. Chapter 22 is all about saving Whites from their otherwise inevitable mass starvation. I have no idea whether the diatribe about whether to preserve, "very light Blacks-the almost Whites, the octoroons and quadroons, the unclassifiable mongrels from various Asian and southern climes," counts as pertaining to white genocide or not.

Then the whites win, and then they hang all the white women who ever dated non-whites, then everyone nukes each other. The End. EllenCT (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)