Talk:Great Replacement

Statistics

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)

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)

Splitting the two forms of the theory?

I don't have the required political knowledge to do this accurately, but it is clear from simply reading the page in its current form that the article kind of lumping two theories together. I wouldn't necessarily advise for the page to be split, but two subsections and revised wording in the lead would definitely be called for, I think. (To be clear, this isn't an attempt to excuse the one over the other; I'm exaggerating, but take it as a "the President can't simultaneously be a lizard-person and Hitler's grandson, those are different conspiracy theories" kind of thing.)

On the one hand, the original Renaud Camus theory speaks of a passive replacement — that immigration will continue up until the point that the descendants of immigrants outnumber the long-term citizens; and that the current government of France is deliberately encouraging this process. (The French page, I see, is much more about this version, and speaks of the other one as more of a footnote; the current English page is doing the opposite.) On the other hand, there is the far more extremist idea that theorizes the planning of a "white genocide". I don't think Camus ever advocated that the latter was true, and the article as it stands kinda implies he did. Again, I don't give much credit to Camus's theory; but I feel very uneasy seeing an admittedly fringe, but essentially 'sane', theory, being lumped together with 9/11-truther-style ravings. I could imagine a reasonable, educated person coming to believe the Camus version; I can't imagine anyone in their right mind being taken in by the genocide version.

Just a humble two cents: again, I leave the decision, and logistics, to people more knowledgeable than I. Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This is NOT a conspiracy it is a real theory supported by statistics and clear evidence. Calling it a conspiracy is nutters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.166.65 (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The second form is definitely a conspiracy theory. The first, original form is more ambiguous I'll grant you, but even that has been referred to by sources Wikipedia deems reputable as a "conspiracy theory" also, so our opinion matters very little. If you can find statements in other Wikipedia-approved sources to the effect that Camus's version's status as a conspiracy theory is debated, that would be mighty nice of you, but in the meantime, repeating your opinion like that won't get you anywhere.

Any thoughts on the actual point of my message to which you replied? --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I've thought about this split also, but I'm skeptical that it would be a good idea. We already have an article for white genocide conspiracy theory, which closely overlaps. Do sources actually make a distinction between versions of this specific theory? Almost all conspiracy theories are presented as a series leading question instead of a single specific claim, so I think splitting them would be giving undue legitimacy beyond what is supported by sources. I don't necessarily think that these sources are concerned with dividing its adherents into 'intentional genocide' vs. 'accidental genocide' camps or similar, and the shared underlying premise of fear-mongering and sloppy science suggests this is still a fairly skinny spectrum. Grayfell (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about English-language sources — but as I said, I'd recommend snooping around the French page. It skews much more towards the 'first' theory in my above split, which suggests the French sources do too. And considering this is originally a French theory, one would imagine the French sources would be notably more numerous and detailed, and therefore trustworthy — though I could be misunderstanding Wikipedia policy on this point.

Actually, if I may… the fact that we specifically have a white genocide conspiracy theory page does, in fact, seem to me like kindle to the fire of reducing coverage of that side of the theory here, and focusing on the “unduly encouraging immigration for sinister purposes, but nothing more than that” that was the nucleus of Camus's original idea. We could then add a shorter paragraph linking to the main "white genocide" article, saying that many defenders of the 'great replacement' go even further.

I'm caricaturing of course, but the way we're doing it seems a little to me like if the page about 9/11 truthers was almost entirely about the Illuminati, because a number 9/11 truthers think the Illuminati are responsible for the supposed cover-up — even though that is not really the key element of that conspiracy theory, and there's a perfectly good Illuminati page elsewhere. Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Bat-Ye'or: "Swiss-Israeli"?!

"The novel, along with the theory of Eurabia developed by the Swiss-Israeli writer Bat Ye'or in 2005," She is a UK citizen, born and raised in Egypt, who has lived in Switzerland for almost her entire adult life. In what way can she be described as Israeli? -- 76.15.128.196 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

UN report

I can see a user trying to get a reference to the UN report on replacement migration from 2000 and it keeps getting reverted. Mélencron and Grayfell, can you please explain yourself? Surely you can't pretend the report never existed? What wording would accept for the inclusion of the report reference? 59.100.194.126 (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Uh huh. It's not about wording, it's about reliable sources. This source is not about the conspiracy theory, making this WP:SYNTH. Misrepresenting this report is also a popular talking point among the theory's advocates. Did Lauren Southern start this meme, or merely signal boost it? Regardless, it is not an accurate or proportionate summary of this obscure source to say it supports the conspiracy theory. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but if it's popularly cited by supporters of the theory, shouldn't that be worthy of note? --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

UN report is not a reliable source? It might not support the theory, but is definitely relevant. Without trying to synthesize or conclude anything, inclusion of the report in the Origins section would provide additional context. The readers can make conclusions themselves. Your namedropping is a complete non-sequitur.2406:3400:319:C860:C596:4013:44E7:C868 (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)