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)

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)

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)

Hmm... Generally, each Wikipedia sets its own standards, and we can certainly evaluate what else is going on, but we don't need to follow them. From past experience I've gotten the vague, probably incorrect impression that the French Wikipedia has significantly different standards for sources and WP:NOTNEWS than the English Wikipedia. fr:Théorie du complot du génocide blanc appears to be a stub. Incidentally, that article links to fr:Théorie du complot sioniste, which links to fr:Théorie du complot juif. Neither of these have a corollary articles in English, or at least not that have been added yet, despite the many articles on anti-Semitic conspiracy theories Wikipedia has. I think there is a lot of material to use for expansion here, or at least for reorganizing, but that's not a simple task. Talk is cheap.

I'm certainly open to trimming this article, but per the discussion below, I suspect the overlap between the two might turn out to be more significant that it first appears. I'm curious if any other editors have anything to say on this. Grayfell (talk) 06:07, 23 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)

Coincidentally, I came across this recent article from the SPLC which mentions this aspect of the conspiracy theory. It is specifically discussing the theory's widespread support by fake news outlet Infowars. According to that source, the UN study was first introduced to the fever-swamp via WorldNetDaily in 2017, 17 years after it was published.

The SPLC article is the kind of source which is needed to avoid WP:SYNTH, since it is directly linking the UN study to the conspiracy theory. The source would be used to provide context, not as an excuse to include the report as-is. The source mentions nothing about Camus, and is mainly about the New Zealand shooter and his manifesto, which is also named "The Great Replacement". The SPLC source does not imply there is any credibility to this connection, either, which is important. It's also not centrally about the UN report, it's just mentioning to contextualize a related issue.

To clarify, we do not rely on readers to make conclusions themselves when sources already say those conclusions are misleading. That is the exact opposite of what a good encyclopedia should be doing. After all, "conclusions" are almost free and you get what you pay for. If sources explain why something is relevant, we can summarize accordingly. Since this is a WP:FRINGE topic, we need to be careful to follow sources proportionally. Grayfell (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, then I guess there needs to be a link to Replacement migration one way or the other. 2406:3400:319:C860:C596:4013:44E7:C868 (talk) 05:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No, no need. This would belong only if it can be introduced in a neutral way and supported by reliable sources. Introducing an esoteric concept from demography into this conspiracy theory would be giving it undue legitimacy. If there is a connection, explain it according to reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

All of the cited documents that show that this is not a conspiracy theory are rejected because they do not support it being a conspiracy theory. Do you see the inverted logic of doing that? Of course the UN Report and the Kalergi Plan And George Soros' quotes all show this is an active driven effort not a conspiracy theory. And apparently the editors will cite any means necessary to discredit the truth of what's happening. 47.221.166.65 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 26 March 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved: consensus is clear to remove the conspiracy theory part. With regards to the White genocide conspiracy theory page, a separate RM can be started. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Note: per Special:Diff/890659590, there was an edit conflict during the closure. I'm readding the tag which will add it back to the queue, please could another admin, page mover or uninvolved party determine the new consensus? Many thanks, SITH (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The Great Replacement conspiracy theory → The Great Replacement – The current name is inappropriate per WP:CRITERIA in that it is not the WP:COMMONNAME used, too wordy to be a natural search term, is overprecise, and not concise. Undoubtedly it is such, but I think it represents an inappropriate trend in titling conspiracy theory articles by essentially categorizing them in their title, rather than calling them their actual common name and allowing labels like "conspiracy theory" to be relegated to the article text. Conspiracy theories aren't a special class of topics which should be exceptions to our normal titling guidelines, and we don't do our readers or editors any service by featuring that extraneous phrase in the title. I think its also reasonable to say the phrase may also violate WP:NPOV by being pushed into the title outside of our guidelines. This title also artificially constrains the coverage we can give to this topic, in that we would be limited to talking about the conspiracy theory (that this is being done intentionally) without being able to address the broader scope, such as the origins of Camus' theory. I encourage editors to read/translate the French version of the page to see what I mean. Some numbers for comparison between these two phrases (current vs proposed): NY Times 2 vs 16, CNN 0 vs 16, BBC 0 vs 17, Google Scholar 0 vs ~53. -- Netoholic @ 09:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support: per nominator. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support, although this might require some changes in the article. The proposed title is the title of the book, the title of the manifesto, the name of the conspiracy theory, the name of the purported event, and the WP:COMMONNAME. On the other hand, I see a potential NPOV violation in the proposed title as this is a fringe theory, but the "The" mostly makes it obvious that this is about a proposed theory / proper name of a work. wumbolo ^^^ 19:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support: changing the name of the article will remove bias associated with the term "conspiracy theory", making it more objective. Theories are simply assertions of ideas, and should be presented as such, whilst readers are allowed to come to their own conclusions about them. Removing the conclusions presented in the title will enhance the educational value and academic merit readers can derive from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levan Gwerin (talk • contribs) 15:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Are you kidding? This isn't even notable enough for a page. What little information there is of value should be rolled in and merged as a subset of the other White genocide conspiracy theory. But if it's not it should be CLEARLY LABELED as a conspiracy theory in the title. 208.84.155.212 (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Noting that 208.84.155.212 has been blocked. wbm1058 (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Renaming to "The Great Replacement" would be simpler, more appropriate, and possibly more accurate. Aaronfranke (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Netoholic, you call this an "inappropriate trend" in article titles. To-may-toe to-ma-toe: I call this "a reflection of the broad consensus among editors that we should call things what they are". The facts about immigration to Europe can be discussed at the page for Immigration to Europe, but for this page we should follow the example of the pages on birtherism, Pizzagate Cultural Marxism, Chemtrails, and 9/11 "Truth" and identify the thing. Nblund ^talk 18:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nblund. Putting 'conspiracy theory' in the title of unequivocal conspiracy theories has been the standard for a long time now. Additionally, the New Zealand shooter released a document with this title, which has received considerable coverage; this introduces the possibility of confusion and, of course, makes it harder to call this the common name based on simple things like Google searches. --Aquillion (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the well-reasoned policy- and guideline-based arguments of the nominator. I wouldn't mind keeping "theory" in the title, but if exactly who is behind the theorized conspiracy and precisely the means by which they execute their plot to achieve their desired objectives cannot be clearly stated in the article body, then "conspiracy" just has to be removed from the title, as coming to a conclusion not supported by the article. See my comments in the discussion below. wbm1058 (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Hypothetically, would splitting this off so that content specific to Camus was at his article, and the rest was merged with White genocide conspiracy theory solve this naming issue? Sources generally do not seem to emphasize this as a distinct theory except as it relates to Camus. Grayfell (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing any mention of genocide in a large number of sources in this article. I'm not familiar with all of them, but enough that this is not the same (this does not need emphasis in sources to be true). This is Camus's theory, but it's a very controversial one. This article can cover the various uses of it, while Camus's article adheres to BLP standards including avoiding guilt by association where possible (esp. when he denies connection). wumbolo ^^^ 22:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

To clarify for future reference, etc., the Christchurch shooter named his manifesto "The Great Replacement".

Our goal is neutrality, and "guilt" or not, the association exists. Whether we mention this association or not depends on sources. Sources already discuss Camus's supposed influence on the shooter, and if Camus disputes this, it belongs here as well. All articles need to abide by BLP, including this one.

Often we end up with multiple articles for the same thing simply because sources do not always use the same terms. I think this might be another example.

One way to address this is to trim the article to be solely about Camus's theory, but this article is already fairly thin, and it seems likely it could be consolidated. If a large number of sources discuss the shooter's fear of "white genocide" without indicating that this is fundamentally different from Camus pseudoscience, well... yeah, that's for a reason. If some use the term "genocide", and some don't, that's not necessarily proof that they are discussing different things. Grayfell (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the content is thin exactly because the article was created using the "conspiracy theory" title. Even a mediocre translation from the French page would be miles ahead of the current article here, which can be better done under the proposed title, as it allows more breadth of coverage. -- Netoholic @ 00:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Netoholic, the principal issue is the title is biased. It would be better as an article about Camus with a side not linking it to the shooting, not as a conspiracy theory linked to islamophobia and white genocide. That's utterly misplaced. An article just focused on "Le Grande Replacement" would be better and avoid this mess which is clearly POV and propaganda. 47.221.166.65 (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

What's the non-conspiracy content we're missing here, exactly? The thesis that Europe is being colonized by non-white immigrants with the help of a "transnational network of uprooted and denationalized people". It's described in a number of sources a conspiracy theory, and it fits the basic mold of an un-falsifiable "grand truth" that links together a myriad of unrelated immigration and demographic trends under a nefarious plot. Nblund ^talk 00:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The lead of the article says: "The Great Replacement" (theory) states that the white Catholic French population, and white Christian European population at large, is being systematically replaced with non-European people, specifically Arab/Berber Middle Eastern, North African and Sub-Saharan African populations, through mass migration and demographic growth.

Facts which can be proven or disproven:

• France currently has a majority white and Catholic population
• Europe currently has a majority white and Christian population
• Non-European (Arab/Berber Middle Eastern, North African and Sub-Saharan African) people are migrating in large numbers to France and Europe for various reasons
  • Escaping "regime change wars" that they may have played no role in starting or fighting
  • Escaping civil wars that they may have played no role in starting or fighting
  • Escaping drought conditions, for their own survival
  • Seeking better economic opportunities than they can find in their native countries
• These migrant populations are producing children at a higher rate than the native whites

From these facts, assuming that they are all true, it may be theorized that:

• If the current trends continue, whites will eventually become a minority demograpic in Europe
  • This is a plausible theory (indeed it has also been predicted that in the United States, non-Hispanic whites will eventually become a minority demographic too)

But, it's not clear to me where the "conspiracy" is. The lead of the article says "The conspiracy theory commonly apportions blame to a global and liberal elite, such as Brussels and the European Union, which is portrayed as directing a planned and deliberate plot or scheme to carry out the replacement of European peoples." You say "The thesis that Europe is being colonized by non-white immigrants with the help of a "transnational network of uprooted and denationalized people". So which is it? Who is behind the "conspiracy"? The liberal elite or the uprooted people?

I'm troubled by seeing "replacement" via more benign means (migration to escape wars or starvation and seek a better life, and birthrate differences) equated with genocide, which literally means systematic killing of substantial numbers of people. Is this really a theory that these starving refugees from Africa and the Middle East are actively conspiring to mass-murder the native whites in Europe? wbm1058 (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that this would not constitute a genocide. However: many advocates of the great replacement conspiracy theory have made that claim, and it is closely related to White genocide conspiracy theory - which is also rooted in a misunderstanding of the term "genocide".

Camus is calling Emmanuel Macron a member of the "transnational network of uprooted and denationalized people" - he's not referencing refugees, he's referencing cosmopolitan liberal elites. He's also probably dog-whistling about Jews, but - as Foreign Affairs documents - Camus has mostly reigned in his overt antisemitism so he can't just say that. Regardless: conspiracy theories usually don't identify a clear culprit or offer a lot of logical clarity, so confusion is totally consistent with the territory.

More importantly, reliable sources call this a conspiracy theory. Lots of them. I'm open to debating the appropriate title or the content, but I don't see much debate on the question of whether this is a conspiracy theory. "Demographic change" happens all the time. Nblund ^talk 15:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

There is both a theory that the replacement is happening (due to simple immigration, birth rates, and demographic shifts) and a conspiracy theory that says it is happening due to deliberate actions (via specific policies orchestrated by governments or political elites) - key word there is "conspiracy" as in there have to be some kind of identified "conspirators", otherwise all you are left with is "theory". It is important not to conflate these aspects when interpreting sources, and important that we handle and explain these aspects clearly for readers. This topic does elicit dog-whistling, and that is true both from the proponents and the critics of the theory and the conspiracy theory. -- Netoholic @ 16:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Facts about immigration and birth rates in Europe are called the "Demographics of Europe" not Le Grand Remplacement and we usually rely on experts like demographers for those discussions, not right-wing French philosophers. The conspirators are an "ill-defined trans-national elite of globalists that Camus has referred to as the 'Davos-cracy', liberal modernists for whom people are infinitely exchangeable units unconnected from notions of 'home' or 'culture'." (source). It sounds like you're arguing that it can't be a conspiracy theory because it's vague about the conspirators. That's par for the course. Who is the supposed culprit behind chemtrails? And where are the reliable sources supporting the claim that this isn't a conspiracy theory? Nblund ^talk 16:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The second paragraph of Demographics of Europe § Total population discusses demographic trends. It says that in most European states a declining and aging population is not offset by the current immigration level. So that may indicate the theory is incorrect. We should compare the theory or theories with facts and point out where the theory is not fact-based. Demographics of Europe § Total population could link to this topic for further information.

Maybe it's better to treat this topic in a similar fashion to Vaccine hesitancy, which although {{Alternative medicine sidebar}} lists it under "Conspiracy theories", doesn't frame the phenomenon as a theory but simply as a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or to have one's children vaccinated. Anti-vaccine conspiracy theories redirects there. Since the "theory" is so vague in defining the conspirators and their motivations, it may be better to focus on the reluctance to welcome mass immigration from Africa and the Middle East, rather than the theory behind the reluctance. There are likely multiple reasons for the reluctance, not just one single "conspiracy theory". Or focus more on what Camus himself says, if he is that significant a writer to be the prime source of the theory and this article shares the same title as his book. If the book is so central to this, then make it mostly about the book and the conspiracy theory proposed by the book. The article as it currently stands doesn't clearly explain the conspiracy the book supposedly espouses. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"Vaccine Hesitancy" is a term that is defined by the World Health Organization. Reasons for hesitancy include complacency and inconvenience, alongside mistaken beliefs about vaccine safety - it's not framed as a conspiracy theory because it isn't one. An analogous entry might be opposition to immigration. This entry, however, does not deal with general opposition to immigration. It deals with an idea that the New York Times describes as "a racist conspiracy theory... which was popularized by a right-wing French philosopher." Editors have provided multiple reputable news organizations and academic texts that offer the same description. I have not found a single source that disputes that characterization. Reasonable people can disagree about article titles, but unless you can find a reliable source that explicitly contests the description of this as a "conspiracy theory" then there's no sense debating that characterization. Nblund ^talk 19:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. The Times uses the term "conspiracy" once in that article, and they don't bother to explain what exactly the "conspiracy" is. Reading between the lines, I'd say they mean that feminist white women are conspiring not to have babies. That's yet a third culprit, after "the elites" and "the migrants". That's the trouble with this "conspiracy theory". It's not just one theory. It's like three or more theories. The Times is just a news source; that story is not based on any academic work. We can say that the Times and other news sources call this a "conspiracy theory" of some ill-defined nature, but we shouldn't call it that in our own voice if we can't find any sources that more definitively define the conspiracy. I'd say the blame is misplaced. These young women are paying off six-figure student loans. They might be facing six-figure maternity hospital bills. And they might be trying to pay for all that on sub-$15/hr salaries. If you want to increase the birthrate, offer them free college, Medicare for all and a $15/hr minimum wage. The culprits behind this are the medical-industrial complex, college administrators, legislatures cutting funding to public colleges, and the too-big-to-fail banks. Go Bernie. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not women per se, but Korte and Wendt actually document this thread of the the conspiracy theory in a chapter from their book. In addition to that academic work there are references in other academic books , journal articles , and numerous other news outlets, which describe this as a conspiracy theory involving a plot by elites to systematically replace white Europeans. I've included a non-exhaustive list (with the relevant quotes) in the section below just in case there's any doubt - but there shouldn't be any question at this point. Nblund ^talk 22:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The New Yorker wrote a piece that never used the word "conspiracy".

In Camus’s view, Emmanuel Macron, the centrist liberal who handily defeated Le Pen in a runoff, is synonymous with the “forces of remplacement.” Macron, he noted acidly, “went to Germany to compliment Mme. Merkel on the marvellous work she did by taking in one million migrants.” Camus derides Macron, a former banker, as a representative of “direct Davos-cracy”—someone who thinks of people as “interchangeable” units within a larger social whole. “This is a very low conception of what being human is,” he said. “People are not just things. They come with their history, their culture, their language, with their looks, with their preferences.” He sees immigration as one aspect of a nefarious global process that renders obsolete everything from cuisine to landscapes. “The very essence of modernity is the fact that everything—and really everything—can be replaced by something else, which is absolutely monstrous,” he said.

"Synonymous with the forces of remplacement" doesn't mean "conspiracy". "Nefarious global process" doesn't mean "conspiracy". It's not a theory that Macron "conspired" with Merkel to let Muslim refugees into their countries. It's a fact. These elite world leaders may simply have empathy for the plight of these escapees from war and starvation that Camus seems to lack. So I suppose he also thinks it's "absolutely monstrous" that cell phones have replaced a lot of landlines and that some nefarious forces conspired to make this happen. Just because a lot of "reliable" news sources claim that this is a conspiracy theory doesn't necessarily make it so. Most of the media have been saying for months that Trump conspired with the Russians, but then Mueller didn't find that he did. Trump may be corrupt and may have done some illegal things (Southern District of NY is still investigating), but he didn't need to conspire with the Russians to do any of that stuff. Hah, maybe he conspired to employ illegal Mexican maids in his hotels (because they're cheap labor) while at the same time advocating to build the wall and close down the border (because that plays his base to win him votes). wbm1058 (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Accepting Muslim refugees is not a "great replacement". You need sources that explicitly support the claim that this is not a conspiracy theory. Nblund ^talk 14:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to prove a negative. These liberal-media sources (controlled by the elites) are using the term "conspiracy theory" as an epithet (i.e. an abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrase) to delegitimize the concerns of Camus and his followers. You should be able to cite a primary source (Camus or one of his notable followers) actually using the word "conspiracy", and not just ranting about "forces of replacement" or "nefarious global processes". Playing a bit of a devil's advocate role now.

What's the conspiracy supposed to be again? How about this? The elites want a low wage source of labor. So they go bomb Libya and topple their government, for committing the sin of trying to sell their oil for some currency that's not US dollars (which is a threat to the American economy and Empire). This has the intended side effect of creating a lot of refugees who conveniently flee across the Mediterranean to supply the needed supply of low-wage labor. Or is it that Macron is an undercover Muslim who is intentionally conspiring with the refugees to turn France into a Muslim country? Are the conspirators forcing these Muslims to have sex? I understand the concerns with "forces of replacement" and "nefarious global processes". I just don't see where he has formed a theory that these forces and processes are coordinated and planned in a systematic way that makes them a conspiracy. wbm1058 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you think we go around hunting for crackpots like David Icke to use the term "conspiracy theory" before we can call them conspiracy theorists? I shouldn't have to cite this, but read WP:RS. I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to prove a positive by providing a single source that disputes the characterization. Unless you can do this, you're wasting talk page space playing devils advocate and sharing your personal opinions. Nblund ^talk 16:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with David Icke and didn't know that there even was such an occupation as "professional conspiracy theorist". Again, I cited The New Yorker which didn't say he was one. What do you expect them to say? "Camus has spent most of his career as a critic, novelist, diarist, and travel essayist. He is not a plumber, pharmacist, accountant, scientist, or musician. Nor is he a conspiracy theorist. If he were a songwriter, you would expect a source to be able to cite at least one song he wrote. wbm1058 (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

References for Conspiracy theory

References

---

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.

Replacement theory

In 1962, Richard Klein (paleoanthropologist) enrolled as a graduate student at the University of Chicago to study with the Neanderthal expert, Francis Clark Howell. Of the two theories in vogue then, that Neanderthals had evolved into the Cro-Magnons of Europe or that they had been replaced by the Cro-Magnons, Klein favored the replacement theory. That term is ambiguous, and I'm disambiguating it. wbm1058 (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Have this article reflect most accurate as possible

Have this article reflect most accurate as possible, if you have a high dislike or like of a subject please remove yourself from editing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Death911u (talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. In addition to systemic biases, all editors have personal biases. Ignoring these biases, or dismissing perspectives based on how strongly they are felt, is not productive and will not improve the project.

The article reflects reliable sources. If you dispute this, you will need to explain exactly what the problem is. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed citation

• Sowerwine, Charles (2017). "The Far Right in a Neo-Liberal Age: Pessimism, Sexism and Racism in Modern French Thought" (PDF). French History & Civilization. Perspectives on Politics. 7. George Rudé Society: 190–203. Retrieved 24 September 2018. ...the Grand Remplacement (Great Replacement), a lunar right - or is the term now "alt right?" - conspiracy theory about a plot to effect "the progressive replacement, over a few decades, of the historic population of our country by immigrants, the vast majority of them non-European.

I've removed the above citation as being of questionable quality. French History & Civilization is an output of the George Rudé Society (https://h-france.net/rude/), but Google Scholar finds exceptionally few reciprocal citations for any articles from them, and none for the specific article in question. This is a red flag for a potentially unreliable source. The removal doesn't much affect the article. -- Netoholic @ 16:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

theory and conspiracy

@Netoholic: regarding this edit: It seems like you're sort of just ignoring the ongoing talk page discussion that addresses this issue. In this section I included multiple cites that explicitly called this a conspiracy theory, and I haven't seen a single source that disputes this characterization. Sources 1 and 7 explicitly reference Camus as the originator of a conspiracy theory. Can you cite a single source that supports the claim that far-right groups "later" turned Camus' theory into a conspiracy theory? Or that supports distinguishing "conspiratorial" and "non-conspiratorial" variants? Nblund ^talk 17:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• note I've posted a request for additional input on this and the article name discussion on the NPOV noticeboard here, not trying to move either discussion to that page.Nblund ^talk 17:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I have returned the article to status quo ante; Netoholic needs to gain consensus for their proposed changes. Sources are fairly clear that it's a conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure, I am not sure it is a conspiracy theory, but conspiracy theories have grown up using it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Even if you don't speak French, you can use a machine translation on the French article and see how much more extensive, informative, neutral, and nuanced that it is. I trust that, as a primarily French topic, they have had a lot of these discussions and debates already. I am fairly new to this topic (finding just based on the Christchurch news items), and was kind of shocked to see the disparity in article quality between the English and French. I am absolutely sure there are conspiracy theories that have arisen out of this topic, but that is not the same thing as saying the topic is entirely a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory requires some named conspirators though, and Camus and others, based on the sources used here and others from the French article that will likely be incorporated someday, say that the "great replacement" is largely Camus' subjective opinion. Camus theorizes that immigration will endanger or replace French culture - not because there an intentional plot to do so, but a consequence. Unfortunately, in this English article, the term "conspiracy theory" has been used here for a long time as a dog-whistle term, its certainly set the dogs a-barkin' here. I would ask that you at least take a machine-translated read of the French article and consider that your passions with regards to this topic may be overblown. The former name of this article was a barrier to its improvement, and so to is the plastering of the term "conspiracy theory" across the lead. -- Netoholic @ 17:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and the current lead of the French article also describes it as a conspiracy theory and describes Camus calling it "more or less deliberate" elite policy. We have multiple reliable sources that call it a conspiracy theory without reservation, and you have provided no sources at all to support your contention that there is some distinctive non-conspiratorial version of the theory. If you can't provide sources, then what is there to discuss? Nblund ^talk 01:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: OK, now this is the second time you've said "Wikipedia isn't a reliable source" and I'm close to losing my assumption of good faith about it. Its a childish statement and shows utter disrespect to fellow editors to make it. No one is saying we cite the French Wikipedia. Clearly. The French Wikipedia article on this topic though is far more developed and we should seek to emulate its basic structure, and incorporate its sources and nuanced handling into our version. There are plenty of sources, pointed out above in the RM discussion and in the article itself, and among the sources used in the French article which discuss aspects of this topic without using the term "conspiracy theory". Of course, its easy to cherry-pick by plugging "conspiracy theory + Great Replacement" into a search engine and pretend you're doing fair research about it, so demanding that we hold your hand and point out sources which don't is unfairly asking to prove a negative - but OK I'm up for the challenge. Using Google Scholar, the number of mentions of "Great Replacement" and "Renaud Camus" which do mention "conspiracy" is ~11 but the number that do NOT mention "conspiracy" is ~15. As should be obvious, this is simply not the monolithic topic topic you think it is, and NPOV coverage of it demands that we not make over-reaching statements from the outset. If you can't get that, and if you continue to make stupid statements like above, then I anticipate you are not here to actually improve this topic at all, and prefer our version of this article to stay stunted. I'd say its pretty clear where you stand in opposition to this concept, and consider that it may be tainting your chance at a neutral approach to it. -- Netoholic @ 04:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

You're saying we should add information to the Wikipedia entry on the basis of another Wikipedia entry. If you're not suggesting that we should cite Wikipedia then you're suggesting we should plagiarize it. In either case, you're still using Wikipedia as a source, and that won't work. I'm asking you to prove a positive by providing a source that explicitly supports the claim that that Camus's version is a distinct non-conspiratorial version of this theory. If the French Wikipedia has sources for this claim, find them and cite those. Assume whatever you want, but this fairly basic stuff. Nblund ^talk 14:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to take the advice at the top of this page and deny further recognition of someone who dares to make an accusation of plagiarism against another editor of good standing as a personal attack. -- Netoholic @ 02:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but you still need to seek consensus for your proposed changes. I went ahead and posted an additional request for outside input at WP:OR/N. Please refrain from edit warring in the meantime. Nblund ^talk 12:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your options are to file an RFC or drop the stick, not edit war because others disagree with your preferred version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Since its been requested that we cite sources which do not describe the Great Replacement as a "conspiracy theory", here are four[1][2][3][4]. These also happen to be the same sources recently added by Nblund, so I'll anticipate he has no problem with the lead being a little less monolithic in its description. Thanks Nblund. -- Netoholic @ 19:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

That isn't sufficient, since we have numerous sources describing it as a conspiracy theory and none of those contradict it. More importantly, your "have developed" version implies there's a clear distinction between the two topics (a conspiracy theory, and an expression), which doesn't reflect the huge amount of sourcing that covers the entire topic as a conspiracy theory. You must find sources unambiguously making that distinction if you want to state it as fact in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Another set of requirements that is simply moving the goalposts. We have numerous sources which are very critical of the concept, but do not describe it as a conspiracy theory. Also, I've shown above that most academic sources do not describe it that way. This all demands that we not state it unequivocally as such. If you really want sources that "contradict it" as a conspiracy theory, then those will come from far-right publications which specifically endorse his views... which I for one don't look forward to delving into and of course you'll likely reject anyway, and move the goalposts again. The "conspiracy theory" dog-whistle has you all dancing, and I can't help but notice its the same people that voted "oppose" to the recent RM. Pinging other participants to get their views - Wei4Green, Wumbolo, wbm1058, Aaronfranke, Grayfell. -- Netoholic @ 20:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I asked for sources that explicitly supported the claim - this is part of WP:STICKTOSOURCE. You may have misunderstood what I was asking for, but no one's moving the goal posts. A google scholar search is not a systematic method of determining weight. Nblund ^talk 02:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• We already beat this to death in the RM. A conspiracy is a secret plan or agreement between persons (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason, especially with political motivation. So, lots of sloppy sources call this a conspiracy without bothering to identify either the secret plan or the conspirators. We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid news source. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard. If we cannot find one single reliable source that specifically identifies the conspirators and their secret plan, then we simply cannot call it a conspiracy. It's as simple as that. And it doesn't matter whether you find ten or a hundred sources that call it a conspiracy without identifying the specific conspirators and their plan. At minimum, you must find one source that does identify the conspirators and their plan. wbm1058 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• If the article is titled "The Great Replacement", it is a theory; otherwise it's about an expression. This is both obvious and the way it's used by sources. Here's a source disputing that it is necessarily a conspiracy theory:
  "This vision illustrates the front-line interpretation of the theory of the great replacement, defended internally by the party right. While rejecting the "conspiracy" dimension, according to which there would be a deliberate and organized approach to substitution of peoples, the most conservative fringe of the FN deems the "great replacement" as a factual demographic phenomenon." Le Figaro
  We should consider Marine Le Pen's statement where she basically calls this a conspiracy theory ("Le concept de grand remplacement suppose un plan établi. Je ne participe pas de cette vision complotiste." [5]) But I don't think that Le Pen is a reliable source. wumbolo ^^^ 21:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  This source also cites that same interview, and has a nice summary paragraph of Marine Le Pen's views on great replacement, which like many politicians, changes a bit based on the audience. But I do like that the author has a nuanced take on this: "she acknowledges its core precept: a great replacement is in the making, but it is not a great conspiracy". --Netoholic @ 22:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• wbm1058 I believe I already supplied sources that attribute the conspiracy to cosmopolitan elites. More importantly: WP:V doesn't say we only include things if we agree with them. Can you cite some kind of policy-based reasoning? The discussions of La Pen get a little closer, but it seems like a stretch to say that Per-Erik Nilsson is endorsing some kind of fundamental distinction - it seems like the larger point is that, while La Pen publicly claims to not believe in the "great replacement" envisioned by Riposte Laique, she more or less endorses the idea of a conspiracy in less public settings. Nblund ^talk 02:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

and so the great failing of Wikipedia is perpetuated. It is that people wishing to put a particular slant on something which happens to coincide with the way in which the media slants attitudes overlook Wiki guidelines about neutral ledes and label something in a way which is known to be non-neutral. I am not a believer in the Great Replacement theory, not by a long chalk. But I stand by the need to present information without initial labelling. Sources such as The Guardian (whether this is one of those sources which call it a conspiracy theory or not, it might just as well be) are almost by definition going to call it a conspiracy theory. So I edited to remove the contentious word and my edit was almost immediately reverted. Ridiculous. Boscaswell talk 21:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

"Contentious" according to whom? If reliable sources say it's a conspiracy theory, but far-right neo-fascists say it's not a conspiracy theory... those two claims are not equal, and they are not entitled to equal validity or credence in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

so @NorthBySouthBaranof: you are accusing me of being a “far-right neo-fascist”. There can only be that conclusion to your statement. You need to take a good hard look at your ability to see things only in terms of black and white. Alternatively, you’re on report to the Admins. Boscaswell talk 02:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This admin sees no such accusation: stop personalizing the discussion, and stop using this talkpage as a soapbox. Acroterion (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I am making no such accusation. I am observing that your argument is a non sequitur to Wikipedia. You appear to be arguing that the mainstream reliable sources, such as The Guardian, which are describing this as a conspiracy theory, are doing so in a calculated effort to "slant attitudes... in a way which is known to be non-neutral." Assuming, arguendo, that you are correct... that is a problem we cannot solve. Foundational policy requires us to base our articles on what is published within mainstream reliable sources, weighted in accordance with the sources. If those sources are biased, our articles will be biased too. That is a risk we assume. What we cannot do is decide, unilaterally, that the sources are wrong and ignore them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You all seem to see it as being absolutely cast iron 110% essential that the theory be labelled the moment anyone reads even one sentence about it. I could say many things about that. It seems that the weight of opinion on here sees it as being necessary. This is wrong.

Take a quick look at the article Nazism. In the first paragraph of the lede, and this is the part of the article we’re discussing which I’ve been arguing about all along, there is no use of any emotive word at all. Now contrast that with the apparently essential use of the emotive term “conspiracy” in the first para of the lede here.Boscaswell talk 03:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Nazism is described as a far right ideology in the first paragraph. And as "fervently anti-Semitic", "pseudo-scientific", "racist" and as disdainful toward liberal democracy in the second. WP:NPOV does not prohibit us from using words that have a negative connotation when those terms accurately describe the subject. It actually says just the opposite. Nblund ^talk 03:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

“Far right” is not an emotive term. “Conspiracy” and “conspiracy theory” are. Please don’t confuse the issue by saying these other terms are in the second paragraph of that article (so it must be alright). My point has always been about the very first one and an apparent desire to, no, insistence, on including an emotive term in the very first sentence of the first paragraph. You’ll note also that the first sentence, which is the first paragraph, of the Nazism article doesn’t even state that it is far right, it merely makes that clear in a more subtle way by use of the phrase “other far right groups..” Perhaps everyone will be able to agree that it is exceedingly well-written, and that its avoidance of the blunderbus style which is so often prevalent is exemplary. Boscaswell talk 06:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you're defining "emotive terms". "Far right" has negative implications. Historically "ideology" has had negative implications. There's no particular policy based reason for avoiding any of those terms in the first paragraph, and it probably makes sense to be forthright about the nature of the idea. Nblund ^talk 12:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC) edit for a more direct comparison look at: Chemtrail conspiracy theory, White genocide conspiracy theory, Moon landing conspiracy theories, Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory, War against Islam conspiracy theory, Eurabia, New World Order (conspiracy theory) etc. This is really quite normal. Nblund ^talk 16:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Centralized discussion regarding possible bad information added to this article

Please see the discussion started by User:Pudeo here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracists?

I see this called a conspiracy theory but I don't see who the espousers think is conspiring. Is it some great plot? Are there international bankers or Lizard people behind this? Or is it just racists are mad because other people are migrating where they don't want them to? Are we just using the informal definition of conspiracy theory to mean kooky theory that supposedly explains stuff that happens? 50.27.72.253 (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't decide what to call things - we follow the sources. If the reliable sources call it a conspiracy theory (just did a quick spot check - they do) then that's what we call it. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 01:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

could not find a proper academic source in the article, so I've added one myself (Taguieff). As said in the edit history: "We should avoid using journalistic sources in controversial articles (unless necessary), and rely instead on academics" Azerty82 (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Then where is your academic source for calling this a conspiracy? Fefil14 (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

"Nephew of nazism" > newsweek misinterpretation

As another editor Tjluimes has pointed out, the source, Newsweek, is referring to this FB post in their article: "Camus wrote on Facebook that it is not enough for Clear Line candidates to say they are not Nazis or extreme right [...] Camus then claimed the 'great replacement' is the 'nephew' of Nazism: They share the same genealogy of horror. We can not be associated with that'. " But when we read the original post in French, Camus is not labeling the "Great Replacement" the "nephew of Nazism" but—to the contrary—he is talking about the "replacist elites"!

Quant au nazisme, non seulement nous n’avons aucun rapport avec lui mais je le vois pour ma part comme le plus atroce épisode d’une histoire commencée avec la révolution industrielle, aggravée par le taylorisme et le fordisme, et qui hélas n’est pas finie : celle de l’industrialisation de l’homme, de sa déshumanisation, de sa réduction à l’état de produit, importable, délocalisable et remplaçable à merci. Le remplacisme global, l’idéologie économiste qui promeut le Grand Remplacement et tous les autres, n’est pas le fils du nazisme, mais il est son neveu. Ils participent de la même généalogie de l’horreur. Nous ne pouvons être associés à cela.

I have consequently removed the sentence until clarification or consensus for reintroduction with that correction. Azerty82 (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 September 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to Great Replacement. There are a few strands of discussion here which are more deadlocked – whether the term conspiracy theory should be included in the title, and whether the word replacement should be capitalised, which I can't see there being a consensus for. However, removing the definite article does have a consensus. I suggest that any editor who wishes to add "conspiracy theory" into the title opens a fresh RM to be discussed without prejudice to prior requests; for what it's worth, I don't see a consensus in the prior RM for removing the term. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The Great Replacement → Great Replacement – Fails WP:THE. Compare Great Depression, etc. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support Per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Move back to The Great Replacement conspiracy theory instead per the comparable language we use for similar conspiracy theories. This RM underlines the fact that the title used here is a descriptor for how it's usually covered; and it's generally covered, in reliable sources, as a conspiracy theory under the name "The Great Replacement". The previous move was closed very quickly and didn't really get enough discussion. The issue raised in this RM is caused by that careless move, which gives the impression that this is an "official" title when it is not. --Aquillion (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  Per WP:CONCISE, it doesn't need to be called "conspiracy theory" when there is nothing to disambiguate it with. For example, Roswell UFO incident does not append "conspiracy theory" despite it not being clear there was a real UFO there._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  Its also the (translated) title of Renaud Camus' book and the title of the Christchurch shooter's manifesto. Nblund ^talk 17:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Nblund: That's true, but when sources mention the "great replacement", they usually mean the broader conspiracy theory. So it seems like a valid primary topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Move to: Great Replacement (conspiracy theory) the definite article is unnecessary, but "great replacement" is too vague.Nblund ^talk 17:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In that case, either Great Replacement conspiracy theory or Great replacement conspiracy theory might be better natural disambiguation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current title with "The" is the clear WP:COMMONNAME of the subject and satisfies WP:THE, especially because it is also the English title of two infamous written works closely-associated with it. Editors suggesting to add "conspiracy theory" in any form are doing so just as an end-run around the clear consensus of the last RM on that exact subject, and probably for non-guideline reasons like wanting to, in some way, further delegitimize the concept more than it already is. As an RM, we should only be concerned with application of WP:TITLES, and not this sort of external desire. -- Netoholic @ 18:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  Are you saying you oppose the term "conspiracy theory" because it makes the conspiracy theory look too much like a conspiracy theory? It shares a name with two written works, which is why it needs disambiguation, and NPOV is also a valid consideration for article titles. Nblund ^talk 19:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  The theory is inexorably linked to the Camus book, and are covered together in a single article. If someday the two are to be separated, then the article for the theory would be called replacement theory. -- Netoholic @ 02:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  Well, its really linked to two different books by different authors. Camus himself calls it a "phenomenon", and its clearly not a "theory" in the conventional scientific sense, its a demographic conjecture from someone with no knowledge of demography. Replacement theory" refers to an actual theory about human evolutionary origins. The article is about the concept, not the book, it should be broad enough to define the scope of the article. Nblund ^talk 14:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  That the title is shared by two infamous written works closely-associated with the topic is exactly why it should be clarified. I'm also seeing problems with the consensus of the previous RM, given that at least a couple supporters of the move seemed to think the term conspiracy theory itself violates NPOV. It doesn't, if published RSes back it up. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC) {(edited 05:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC))

• Move to Great replacement conspiracy theory (sentence case, omit the) as an unambiguous and neutral but descriptive title, consistent with Pizzagate conspiracy theory, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, Chemtrail conspiracy theory, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Moon landing conspiracy theories, GMO conspiracy theories, Big Pharma conspiracy theory, and especially White genocide conspiracy theory. Even without using the exact phrase, published RSes generally qualify the concept as a conspiracy theory; many were presented in the earlier move discussion.
  Per WP:THE, we generally follow published sources; if the is capitalized in running text, we include it in the title, otherwise not. I'm seeing a fair number of sources cited in the article that don't capitalize the, and that put "great replacement" (or the French equivalent grand remplacement) in quotes or italics by itself: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20].
  Sources are split on whether to capitalize Great Replacement; many of the news outlets capitalize both words, but the more academic works seem to favor a lowercase r in replacement. I think sentence case (only the first word capitalized) looks more natural in a descriptive title. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  (edit: as No such user points out, "Great Replacement" is a valid WP:POVTITLE. Changing my !vote therefore to Support the move as proposed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC))

  @Sangdeboeuf: How does the "Great replacement conspiracy theory" differ from White genocide conspiracy theory? If this article shouldn't be about Renaud Camus, then what's the difference? The history here is that a Rockypedia sock called Eurostatter (talk · contribs) added similar content to both articles. --Pudeo (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what this has to with the requested move. This article is about the concept of a right-wing conspiracy theory called the "great replacement". We generally title articles according to what published sources call them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  Each article's contents are, in part, determined by the article's title. As the article currently states: The "Great Replacement" is included in a larger white genocide conspiracy theory. It is unclear how the white replacement conspiracy theory would differ in its scope from this conspiracy theory. IMO, it would be clearer to have an article about Renaud's book and its influence, and put the rest in the other article. --Pudeo (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  Then open a discussion on merging the relevant material. Article contents are determined mainly by what published sources cover. Plenty cover the "great replacement" as a concept that transcends the book itself, as I've already indicated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Note: I've alerted members of WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Sociology to this move request. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any moving to any version recommended here, the details and evaluation should be dealt in the article's content, not the title.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC))

  This is a bizarre statement. Titles can't communicate all this information, but that's not to say they shouldn't even bother. The WP:THE question is a style matter anyway, so keeping or removing it really doesn't speak to "details and evaluation" at all. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  In case you referred to my statement and I understood you correctly, I did not say we should never bother, I expressed my opinion particulary for this case. However, i.e. Great Replacement Theory could be fine, indeed.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC))

  If by "details and evaluation" you mean calling it a conspiracy theory, that's a perfectly valid description to use per WP:NDESC. If you think theory alone is a better descriptor, can you provide some published sources that call it a theory (and not a conspiracy theory)? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  I see, because I did not enter to the details, I cannot answer your question recently, my opinion was formed just and only about the move and some opinions/proposed new names presented.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC))

• Neutral on the original proposal, but do not move to any variant containing "[conspiracy] theory". The current title is the name of that thing ("the" included or not), and titles are not a place for editorializing. If and when the article about the eponymous book is split (not that I advocate that), then we can discuss about disambiguation, but the current title satisfies all five WP:CRITERIA. No such user (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  It's not editorializing to call things what they are actually called according to reliable sources. It's fine to call a spade a spade. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  And wikt:editorialize defines the verb as To express one's opinion as if in an editorial, or as if it were an objective statement. I agree that this is a conspiracy theory, but not that a [widely held] opinion to that effect should be placed in the title. I do not quite understand the apparent moral panic in the recent trend of labeling conspiracy and fringe theories in the very title, but I'm opposed to it, on the long-standing policy basis: all five WP:CRITERIA about article titles favor "Spade" over "Spade (tool)" (which is what the proposed "Great Replacement conspiracy theory" amounts to). No such user (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, but that's a false equivalence. Spade (tool) is not a natural English-language description. And some "opinions" have more weight than others. If a nebulous élite remplaciste orchestrating a grand remplacement of Europeans were just a matter of opinion on which reasonable people differ, it should be easy to point out equivalent mainstream sources supporting both sides, as it were. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  Strawman. WP:POVTITLE is clear: When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name... Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title... In such cases, the prevalence of the name,... generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. WP:NDESC that you advocate is generally used when the thing does not have a common name, which is not the case here. No such user (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  Apologies if I've misconstrued your argument, but reducing the dispute to a question of opinion vs. not-opinion is somewhat glib. Apart from easily observable facts, nearly everything in science and academia could be described as someone's "opinion". There is plenty of reliable sourcing for the label conspiracy theory, whether we use it in the title or not. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support move to Great Replacement. The definite article "The" turns the article into one about something that exists or once existed – that is, an actual entity. This theory, which springs from one author, has not been proven to be a process that is underway. The definite article therefore gives the theory more legitimacy than it should be entitled to and is misleading. I would also support Great Replacement theory for the same reason. Akld guy (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose far to vague. I'd support Great Replacement conspiracy theory or one with a lower case "replacement". If we are to move it it needs to be clear that this is a conspiracy theory. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This needs to be placed on hold until Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC on the use of the term "conspiracy theory" is closed RfC withdrawn

The outcome of this RfC is likely to have a material effect on this discussion. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@BDD: what do you think? Doug Weller talk 08:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It's already been withdrawn, but I don't think the result would have affected this page much anyway. The RfC proposed "broad" and "narrow" definitions of the term conspiracy theory. There are plenty of RSes, including scholarly works, describing the "great replacement" as a conspiracy theory, and none that I can see offering any supporting evidence for it. Many were already presented in the earlier move discussion. So the use of the term here would fall under the "narrow" definition in any case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't looked again today. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 9 October 2019 (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.

Requested move 13 October 2019

Great Replacement → Great replacement conspiracy theory – Moving to "conspiracy theory" is more consistent with the WP:CRITERIA on:

1. Consistency: there is an undeniable widespread convention of identifying conspiracy theories in the titles of articles. Birtherism, Cultural marxism, White genocide conspiracy theory etc. Many of the editors who favored removing "conspiracy theory" in the previous discussion even noted that they were going against the common practice on other pages, and no one has made an argument for why we would deviate here.
2. Precision: This is not an article about the phenomenon of the "great replacement". We spend almost no time discussing the substance of Camus's theory. Instead, we focus on the effects of the "great replacement conspiracy theory". By the same token: we don't have an article on The faking of the moon landing, because that would invite WP:FRINGE content. Instead, we have an article exploring the cultural impact of moon landing conspiracy theories. Our article on Pizzagate conspiracy theory is not substantially about the allegations made by Pizzagate supporters. It is about their impact on the world. Nblund ^talk 22:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 11:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Strong oppose - "identifying conspiracy theories in the titles of articles" is not part of WP:TITLES policy, and is a bogus agenda on its face. This proposed move is nowhere close to being the WP:COMMONNAME for this subject, which is identified most often as The Great Replacement based on the translated title of the Camus book. I'll point out that this is just a sour-grapes rehash of the very recent #Requested move 26 March 2019, which removed the extraneous labeling from the title. Speedy close as already handled recently. -- Netoholic @ 13:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this article about the book? If you're confused about why I opened a new discussion, you should read the close of the most recent RM. Nblund ^talk 14:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I am contesting that close currently. Yes, this article is about a book and the ideas presented within it, which is why the best title is the proper name of the book. -- Netoholic @ 20:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That might be your preference, but it clearly isn't how the article is currently written. The opening line defines it as a conspiracy theory rather than a book, and there's very little detail on Camus' work itself. Many sources, like this Washington Post article, only mention Camus' book in passing when they discuss the idea. Nblund ^talk 22:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• In the last RM, I changed my !vote to Great Replacement, since the discussion seemed to be trending that way, and I wanted to avoid a "no consensus" result if possible for the sake of adherence to WP:THE. However, I still support the proposed title here as the best choice for descriptiveness and consistency, especially vis-a-vis the closely related White genocide conspiracy theory. I remain agnostic on whether to capitalize "replacement". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin: This discussion is an effort to break the deadlock of the immediately preceding RM, and should be read together with that discussion to determine consensus. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per points made by Netoholic. Its WP:COMMONNAME is simply "Great Replacement", and whether or not it's a conspiarcy theory can be discussed in the body, it does not need to be identified as such in the title.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose there is no other "Great Replacement" to disambiguate it from, as there is for Reptilian conspiracy theory._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Came here from FT/N. WP:NPOV is a central pillar of Wikipedia and we should make plain when a conspiracy theory is such (so, to counter some arguments above, we have Chemtrail conspiracy theory and Big Pharma conspiracy theory). Since this is a conspiracy theory (/racist myth), we need to be up-front about that per WP:PSCI. Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support – (Came here from NPOVN.) I think it’s important to specify conspiracy theory in the title when there are many adherents and particularly when the theory makes accusations against living people, as in Pizzagate, or are racist in nature, as in this article. As for a guideline, WP:TITLES states that the title is about the article. This article is about the conspiracy theory, not about replacement. O3000 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose If it is or is not a conspiracy theory is irrelevant, page titles should reflect common usage, its not as if there is another great replacement readers will get confused about.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I've gone back and forth on this. I think Nblund makes a good argument for precision. This isn't about Camus' book with this name, it's not about the manifesto with this name, and we're not just talking about their ideas; it's about the broader conspiracy theory and how it exists in culture. That said, most of the other examples of when we use "conspiracy theory" add it to a name we already cover on Wikipedia (at least ostensibly a disambiguator). It may be worth discussing this at some more central location like the talk page for WP:TITLE or WP:FRINGE to talk about how to handle titles for fringe theories regardless of disambiguation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per NPOV and the fact that the article itself is about the conspiracy theory, the title should be explicit. As it stands it is likely to confuse people. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Calling it a conspiracy theory adds Wikipedia POV; Wikipedia should remain NPOV. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC).
• Kinda support. There is no "great replacement", and the article title should really reflect it, but whether conspiracy theory is the correct term, rather than, say, white supremacist narrative, I would not like to say, and I think an RfC might be an idea. Guy (help!) 21:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Regarding WP:COMMONNAME: There's no clear favorite among the various forms of capitalization, but all lower casing appears somewhat more common. Most sources specify that it is a conspiracy theory in some way, and nearly all of them use scare quotes around the term for at least the first mention of the term:

List of RS mentions of great replacement

• New York Times the El Paso gunman’s manifesto mentioned the “great replacement,” a conspiracy theory that warns of white genocide.
• Washington Post The unifying thread, analysts say, is the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory,
• Newsweek Renaud Camus, the French philosopher who popularized the racist "great replacement" conspiracy theory...
• The Guardian Researchers have found that organised far-right networks are pushing a conspiracy known as the “great replacement” theory
• Al JazeeraThe term is associated with a racist conspiracy theory popular in far-right circles, known as the "great replacement".
• The Independent It refers to the so-called “Great Replacement”, a white supremacist conspiracy theory
• Haaretz[Brenton Tarrant] was fearful of “the great replacement” – a conspiracy theory revolving around the alleged replacement of whites by nonwhites.
• Telegraph Renaud Camus has expounded on the “great replacement” theory
• Time The so-called ‘Great Replacement’ theory argues that white populations are being replaced at an ethnic and cultural level...
• The Hill we also need to confront the so-called “great replacement” theory

If anything, the most common name is "great replacement" (with scare quotes included). Obviously that won't work for a title, but, unlike real historic events like the Great depression, reliable sources take steps to ensure that readers are not given the impression that it references a real phenomenon. This is also true in the sources cited in the previous RM. Nblund ^talk 22:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a valuable point; the "common name" actually includes the scare quotes used by most RSes – not just news outlets, but scholarly works such as Far-Right Politics in Europe by Jean-Yves Camus and Nicolas Lebourg, Heroism as a Global Phenomenon in Contemporary Culture, and The Oxford Handbook of the Radical Right, The quotation marks tell the reader that these authors are distancing themselves from the phrase because it's attached to an unsupported conspiracy theory, or as another author puts it, a "paranoid fantasy".

More crucially, in light of WP:NPOV, the phrase itself is a piece of propaganda, especially since it's become a white-supremacist terrorist meme. Our best option therefore is to use a neutrally-worded descriptive title that contextualizes it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• ZXCVBNM: Cultural Marxism and Chemtrails are not labeled "conspiracy theories" for disambiguation purposes as far as I can tell. I can see reasons why editors might believe that the common practice is inappropriate, but I don't quite see why editors would choose to deviate from the convention for this specific article. If we're going to title conspiracy theories as if they are real phenomena then why not move Reptilian conspiracy theory to Draconian domination of earth and Pizzagate conspiracy theory to D.C. ritualized child rape? Nblund ^talk 19:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Titles are not about distinguishing between fictional and real. Anyone can read whether it's fictonal on the page itself. Death Star is not Death Star (fictional space station). Lightsaber is not Lightsaber (fictional energy weapon)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• But surely you would acknowledge that we generally do make this distinction when dealing with conspiracy theories, correct? So why would we do something different here? If we just don't agree with the common practice, then we should be having a wider community discussion about the titling conventions for conspiracy theories.

Ultimately, it's not about "labeling" things as fiction, it's a question of article scope. I think a better analog for this entry would be something like Witchcraft accusations against children in Africa: that article does not concern itself with a detailed discussion of how "witchcraft" supposedly works. Instead, the article is about how the belief in witchcraft has impacted society. Adolescent witchcraft in Africa would not be a good description of the scope of the entry. Nblund ^talk 21:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That's because the alternative would be an POV title. "Great Replacement" does not strike me as particularly POV. Wikipedia is not endorsing the fact that there is a "Great Replacement". We don't have to clarify something like Legend of Atlantis rather than just Atlantis._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It stands out as particularly POV given that similar articles use the term "conspiracy theory" in their title. It gives the impression that this conspiracy theory is more credible than closely related conspiracy theories like White genocide conspiracy theory. I've seen no evidence to support that view. Do you just generally object to the Wikipedia convention of using the term "conspiracy theory" in conspiracy related titles? Because if that's the case, then I think it should be addressed with a far broader discussion among editors rather than arbitrarily applied to this page alone on the basis of a poorly attended move discussion. Nblund ^talk 00:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: How is "(The) Great Replacement" not POV? It posits a demographic "replacement" that reliable sources say is not happening, and adds the adjective "great" for dramatic effect. The entire utterance is propaganda. –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Is the whole article about a conspiracy theory? I have just glanced at the top two topics on this talk page, headed "Statistics" and "Splitting the two forms of the theory?", as well as the earlier page move discussions, where is a suggestion that "This page is about a [Renaud Camus] book". Well the page title is the (translated) title of the book, although it would be better with "The" restored. In the "Splitting ..." topic it is suggested that there is firstly a theory set out in the book that the make-up of the population of France (and perhaps by extension Europe) is changing - a theory which can be tested by statistics. And secondly there is the conspiracy theory which says that these changes are being deliberately engineered by some human or non human entity somewhere on the planet = which can't be tested in that way.

Furthermore, the page White genocide conspiracy theory gives in the lead an alternative name white replacement conspiracy theory. So that page already claims to cover the replacement conspiracy theory. Perhaps this page should be scaled back to discuss the theory as originally outlined in Camus' book, and conspiracy -related material should be moved into that other page. In general (WP:CONTENTFORK) Wikipedia does not like multiple pages covering the same ground. Sussexonian (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"White genocide" is generally covered as a separate (but closely related) conspiracy theory. The "testable" portion of Camus' theory is generally considered nonsensical by demographers. If your argument is "actually, this isn't a conspiracy theory", I think you're wasting your time here. The sources overwhelmingly indicate that it is. The only question is whether we are going to properly indicate that in the title of the entry. Nblund ^talk 00:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Note I've listed this RFC at WP:NPOVN and WP:FRINGEN in the hopes of getting additional participants. Nblund ^talk 16:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• We have to be wary of seeming overly needy in our "desperation" to lead our readers into knowing this is a load of old dingoes kidneys. If we are seen to be pushing a POV (not matter how correct that POV maybe) it will have the opposite effect to what we would want.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  Funny, but I don't see "Be careful not to look desperate" stated anywhere at WP:NPOV. "Describe fringe theories accurately" is, however. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Describe, we do that, but it has to be done in depth, explain why it is and how. But that description is not helped if we say "conspiracy theory" every 15 words. We can achieve this "describe it as a conspiracy theory) and leave the page title unchanged.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

But that doesn't address the problems of consistency or precision. Calling it a "conspiracy theory" is not really a POV, it is an apt description of the status of the claim and the scope of the article, similar to Woody Allen sexual assault allegation or Balloon boy hoax. Also: "conspiracy theory" is added to articles that do not need to be disambiguated. I think that convention got started with Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which isn't a disambiguation at all. Nblund ^talk 18:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Intentionality

Suggested edit to the lead - where it reads "is being progressively replaced by", should we add 'intentionally', to read "progressively and intentionally"?

As I understand it, one of the key tenets of the conspiracy theory is not only that this "Great Replacement" is happening, it is being done *deliberately* by some shadowy cabal of Jews and self-hating white gentiles to weaken white power and Western civilization. In other words, that the demographic change is organized and purposeful, not just that it exists. Thoughts? Ganesha811 (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we get at this point by saying that it is taking place "with the complicity of 'replacist' elites". Nblund ^talk 15:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I agree that that phrase is useful, but I'm not sure "complicity" fully covers the belief of the conspiracy theory. To me, it connotes that the 'elites' in question are allowing it to happen, not causing it to happen. I understand this is a matter of opinion and phrasing, but just my two cents. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the phrasing should be "either with the complicity or intent of 'replacist elites'"? I see your point, but I think the advocates of the theory are vague on the precise role played by elites. The Camp of the Saints/Eurabia version of the conspiracy implies that the elites are feckless and the real conspirators are the migrants themselves. Nblund ^talk 19:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Lack of demographic data

There seems to be a lack of demographic data to universally debunk this. It's worth noting that ethnic Europeans are projected to become minorities in certain historically majority-European countries, according to reliable sources, so this theory has at least some plausibility. We should change the article to reflect that. At this time it has an overly critical tone. White Britons are projected to become a minority in the UK, for example: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/white-britons-will-be-minority-before-2070-says-professor-8600262.html https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world Fraser Anning's predictions are supported by data from Australia's 2016 census: https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/census-2016-milestone-passed-as-australian-becomes-more-asian-than-european-20170627-gwz3ow.html Maxime Bernier's and Lindsay Shepherd's claims are supported by John Ibbitson's reporting on Statistics Canada: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-politics-of-2036-when-canada-is-as-brown-as-it-is-white/article33814437/ The president of the Dublin City University has speculated that ethnic Irish could become a minority by 2050, as reported by the Irish Times: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irish-could-be-minority-ethnic-group-here-by-2050-professor-1.424517

More generally, there is this article discussing Europe including "massive populations from Africa and the Middle East, as well as Asia", from Foreign Policy: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/25/the-end-of-an-era-for-white-males/ Peter Sutherland has actually advocated "undermining national homogeneity" in EU states. That sounds a lot like support for "Great Replacement" https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395 Finally, it is well-known that White Americans are projected to become a minority by 2045: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/ Presently, there are 4 sources debunking the Great Replacement theory as "misreading of demographic statistics". Maybe we should add a Support section, discussing demographic changes in specific countries. Drbogatyr (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)