Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White genocide conspiracy theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 30 days

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative Views B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism B‑class Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Discrimination B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ethnic groups B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Judaism B‑class Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics B‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology B‑class Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 September 2018. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Do not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article White genocide conspiracy theory, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Can we get a vote/poll on the inclusion of demographic change information and its contributing effects on this conspiracy theory?

There seems to be disagreement among editors whether or not we should include demographic statistics and whether or not that contributes to people holding this conspiratorial belief. In other words, a poll should be announced whether or not to include information on demographic change, statistical projections, and how immigration rates contribute or not contribute to the spread and acceptance of this conspiracy theory. Maybe that should be worded more clearly. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there aren't any sources connecting the two, then we shouldn't have an RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is correct, then the matter can be better put to rest in an RfC. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree with Newimpartial. Provide some sources making the connection first, then we can discuss them, THEN we can have an RfC if necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter either way to me, just a suggestion. I think it would be more productive in both the short-term and long-term to have an RfC. This matter was discussed above with little consensus, and it is reasonable to assume it will be brought up numerous times to come. Put it to an RfC, put it to rest. Or not. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this subject area, nothing is ever "put to rest". With or without an RfC, it'll keep coming up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Consensus isn't about sheer numbers. Drive-by comments with more basis in belief in this conspiracy theory than on knowledge of policy or sources do not contribute to consensus. This is one of those topics where, even if we have an RFC, drive-by comments by believers will continue to occur. The only hypothetical benefit would be that we'd have an RFC to point to to shut down discussion after the first comment in a thread. However, the RFC would likely draw off-site coordination by white supremacists, resulting in a bunch of spam in the RFC that future drive-by accounts would point to to claim there "wasn't consensus." RFCs can be very useful in fringe topics to put up a wall that any pro-fringe regulars have to either accept or else mark themselves as disruptive if Arbitration happens. However, unlike other fringe topics, it is generally more acceptable (and a better idea) to simply block or ban someone for acting on belief in white supremacist ideas. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC doesn't mean an abandonment of requiring reliable sources, it just means an attempt to reach consensus or at least mediate dispute. I think your suggestion that an RfC will draw off-site coordination by white supremacists seems to imply an assumption of bad faith editing. My recommendation for an RfC does not make the same assumption. If we're not going to do an RfC, then why not add something in the FAQ about why inclusion of such demographic information/projections is not relevant to the article. State that no reliable sources link the two together. People are going to come here, read the article, wonder why that information is not included. And you're going to be stating the same thing over and over again. At the very least, answer what has already been answered and provide it in the FAQ? Makes it accessible, clear, and concise. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is, indeed, a lot of bad faith editing in this and closely related subject areas. Providing straight-forward and definitive FAQs on Fascism and Nazism hasn't stopped the same tiresome edit requests from showing up day after day. These drive-by editors don't come here to learn, they're here to push an agenda. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the harm in adding it? It's not a perfect solution, but better than nothing, yes? SchizoidNightmares (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Give it up. Not going to happen without a source making the explicit connection, which you haven't provided. Stop wasting the community's time. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else may provide it, I'm only suggesting it. If not an RfC... Then provide the answer for why in the FAQ, as I already suggested. Care to elaborate how I am "wasting the community's time?" Nobody's forcing anyone here to spend time on anything. Participation here is voluntary. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @SchizoidNightmares: I do not assume bad faith from you, but it would be naive to assume no or insignificant risk of members of the alt-right cluttering the RFC. This isn't a general statement of "affiliated persons might clutter any RFC touching on subjects they're not-uninterested in" (which I can AGF in, even if the majority of such users will be utterly clueless), this is specifically because the alt-right creeps throughout as much of the internet as they can. All it takes is one of them seeing that an RFC is going on for others (or just that one over-and-over) to mob the page. "Why aren't they here now?" one might ask. The ones with enough know-how to create socks and mobilize others have enough know-how to realize that right now isn't the time to strike. Right now is the time to let the less-able members or affiliates occasionally wander in just to keep the topic on people's minds. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: An RFC in this case is wood. That would might end up being a wall but it might also end up being fuel for the fire. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was not meaning you implied I am of bad faith, I meant exactly what you clarified (i.e. that others will come with bad faith). SchizoidNightmares (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points, Ian. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. per comments by Newimpartial and Beyond My Ken // Timothy :: talk 21:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree. How can you have a poll without sources? O3000 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this Bill Nye video which has plenty of secondary sources commenting on it now (e.g. [1]) could be useful if we ever figure out what to say about demographics. EllenCT (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Nye's video nor the article commenting on it discuss the "white genocide conspiracy theory", the subject of this article. This article is not about the evolutionary basis of skin color (the topic of Nye's video). This article is not a collection of sources that discuss material that some editors feel may support or weaken the claims. Sources for this article must directly discuss the white supremacist belief that there is a secretive conspiracy plotting to kill off the supposed "white race". - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources for this article must directly discuss" Synthesis of published material already prevents us from using collections of sources to draw our own conclusions: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." ... "precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia." Dimadick (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think SchizoidNightmare's points are valid. The UN released projections on future population change could be added. It would be nice to have that info. You can see that data on the wiki article: Projections_of_population_growth. Also, it's not overtly about race either, so it might be a nice, middle ground, which can only be used to support the "European population is decreasing" claim rather than the "white population is decreasing" claim - kind of takes the edge off. I think the UN is pretty reliable, so I think it's worth debating it. By the way, Ian is not joking when he says he'll ban people. He banned me once, but I won the appeal. Anyway, Ian, please don't ban me again. As I write this, I'm terrified that you will, even though I'm being quite reasonable, haha, so please don't. Have mercy on me. Nate Hooper (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no RS connecting projections of population_growth with this article. O3000 (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And the population of Europe, as a topic, is in no way connected to "white genocide" as a myth or as a (highly hypothetical) reality. Newimpartial (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see your points of view. This article is about a theory about WHY the white population is decreasing (that it's orchestrated) rather than the raw projected numbers, so I see where you're coming from. I just think that the projections are related enough to the theory that it should at least be mentioned. Perhaps we'll agree to disagree Nate Hooper (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not give any credence at all to the white supremacist talking points by violating WP:SYNTH and arguing the numbers. The article already does a fine job of turning it back on them, showing how it's only racists who are talking about it, which is the whole point. No need to change. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the strongest arguments I have ever heard that you should not be editing this site. Please do not tally Binksternet's vote his whole point is to show "how it's only racists who are talking about it" oh dear! you are talking about it!68.134.63.138 (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it must be included to be fair. I know nothing about the great replacement theory. I have know idea how you can arbitrate a "conspiracy theory". I ended up here because a video with an "expert" on the Young Turks said that discussing demographic shift is a dog whistle to white supremacists who believe in the Great Replacement Theory. Minutes later they are discussion how the Democrats will take Texas in 2030 because of demographic shift. How can you not include facts or ink to relevant facts? This is a fine sentence-- The U.S. Census Bureau has projected that the U.S. white non-Hispanic population will become a minority (that is, less than half of the total U.S. population) during the 2040s, resulting in a plurality.^[1]68.134.63.138 (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you know nothing about the great replacement theory - which seems convincing - then perhaps refrain from seeking editorial changes to the article on the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not include material from sources that do not directly discuss the topic of the article. Demographic data from sources that are not discussing the conspiracy theory that there is an active genocide of the mythical white race does not belong here. This is a dead issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "An Older and More Diverse Nation by Midcentury". U.S. Census Bureau. August 14, 2008. Archived from the original on July 24, 2010.

Sources

If all of Wikipedia is part of the conspiracy, discussing it here is hardly a way anyone would expect to make progress.

Improper use of sources throughout this entire Wikipedia entry. One reference to a Guardian article is not enough to declare white genocide in South Africa a myth. A single article wouldn't fly on a homeschool paper let alone university. Convenient that editing is locked. Canuck82 (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)— Canuck82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There are 313 references, and the South Africa section has dozens of references. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WTF are you talking about? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WTAF. "Convenient" for who or what? Am I part of a massive, multi-generational, worldwide conspiracy? Why? Are "they" paying me? When do the checks start coming? You are wasting our time. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Canuck82: Amazing, everything you just said was completely wrong. The Guardian is not cited in any sentence containing the word "myth." We've got the SPLC, WaPo, NBC, and many others. Either you didn't read the article or you're deliberately making false accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify my position. Yes my comment on the Guardian was inaccurate, my apologies. Was not intentional but I won't bother explaining that as this seems to be a kangaroo court. To save you all the effort, please don't bother with the stereotypes as I'm not here to do what you all automatically assume. My first concern is the type of sources. Although news articles are primary sources that are great for record of events, they do hold a bias. This article seems heavy on news articles. Secondly, my other concern was specifically in the South Africa portion of the article. Yes, the numbers might indicate a genocide isn't occurring but in light of BLV maybe the truth is somewhere down the middle with some of these murders being racially motivated? My apologies again, I wasn't out to start a firestorm although I will confess my original comments were not well organized and inaccurate. I felt that there was a lack of objectivity although I do realize now I likely chose the wrong topic for that. I came across the article while reading something on white farmers in South Africa. Anyway, hopefully this clarifies that I'm not what you are all trying to tag me with. Thanks. Canuck82 (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the entire article (after TikTok mentioned it was banning this concept) and was going to mention all the misspelled words, obsolete spellings, missing punctuation and how I couldn't correct any of them due to the semi-protect. But, I saw your comment on lousy sources and I agree completely. I was shocked by how many citations were to leftist mainstream U.S. news articles, proven biased NGOs, and other dubious sources. The entire article seems to treat these questionable sources as fact. This is NOT typical of most other Wikipedia articles on contentious subjects which prefer to cite academic or government research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

George Ciccariello-Maher "losing his job as an associate professor" is a false statement, not supported by the mentioned source.[2] He resigned from the post if anything, see [3]. The article should reflect what really happened. 117.99.105.75 (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whitaker's blogs and Counter-Currents

Regarding this edit, I have removed citations to Whitaker's blog, as well as Counter-Currents, which is a neo-Nazi vanity press. It appears the blogs were originally added in 2015 by a user who was blocked the same year for POV pushing and being a timesink, specifically in this article. The Counter-Currents link was later added to support the blogs, but I don't accept this is a reliable source, so I removed it as well. If any specific detail is only supported by garbage sources, we should be willing to throw it out, otherwise we should use reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteshift

An editor attempted to add a link to whiteshift, which I reverted. This seems to suggest that the subject of this article is not a conspiracy theory. Indeed, organic "racial" changes have little if anything to do with the subject of this article. Interested in other opinions. O3000 (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The trend is real, but the speculation for the reasons and motivations behind this trend can descend into conspiracy theories. For instance, Peter Brimelow's/VDARE's claim of politicians electing/importing a new more pliable and more reliable population. Futurist110 (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which trend is real: there are a wide range of hypotheses discussed at whiteshift, and most of them seem to be rather dubious - either falsifiable or not generalizable beyond a single case. I don't think the link belongs in this article; that's for sure. Newimpartial (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteshift could be a valid reason as to why people believe in white genocide. Of course, someone would need a reputable academic source to insert it into the main article. However, I see no reason why it couldn't be listed in the "See Also" section. Many portions of this article already seem to conflate whiteshift with white genocide. I.e., it could be argued that this article is not whiteshift clean.

In regards to, "hypotheses ... rather dubious" ...

More dubious than much of this article? The intro paragraph points to eighteen different possible reasons for people's belief in white genocide. The only consistent reason given throughout the article as a hypothesis is hatred, but the article never states anywhere what the source of this hatred is. The idea that this is due to hatred is mentioned a few times inconjunction with pseudo-science/false science, and psuedo-history/false history. This was stated multiple times throughout the entire article, but seems to finally be attributed to comments by single journalist, Eli Saslow, from a media source with known bias issues, Washington Post, in the "Criticism and resistance" section. Also, I'm thoroughly confused by why the "and resistance" was added onto that section's title. Wikipedia is not in the business of inciting or promoting violence. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral platform.

[CensusMidcentury2008-1] "An Older and More Diverse Nation by Midcentury". U.S. Census Bureau. August 14, 2008. Archived from the original on July 24, 2010.

[1]