Talk:Great Replacement conspiracy theory/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

General approach to the subject

Extended content

I am not, personally, comfortable with the general approach to the subject here. It leans heavily into an emotional characterization of the idea as a "racist conspiracy theory" and does not engage the real argument of its proponents, which means the article will be of little value in public discourse. The main flaw in my view is that it conflates a real demographic trend, on the one hand, with the distortion and misuse of that trend, and the real conspiracy theory which is that the demographics are being intentionally engineered by shadowy elites, on the other. This unfortunate sentence appears: "Mainstream scholars have dismissed these claims as rooted in a misunderstanding of demographic statistics and premised upon an unscientific, racist worldview." With three references, none of which in fact supports the proposition that the demographic change at the heart of the Great Replacement Theory is not happening. This approach to the subject contributes to polarization, as it denies an actual fact and simply smears the people who are concerned about it without engaging the actual fact or the arguments of the people who are concerned about it. The deeper truth here is that race itself is an unscientific concept, and ethnic and cultural change of populations over time is natural and inevitable. Birth rates decline in developed countries, and faster among the better educated and wealthier contingents in their populations, and to less than replacement levels in most developed countries -- that's an uncontroversial fact. It is natural that countries in demographic decline NEED immigrants to keep their economies going, and these immigrants generally enrich and enhance the cultures of the countries they immigrate to -- that's the whole American idea, isn't it? It's harder to persuade people that this is nothing to be worried about, but that is the only honest approach. The article is disappointing -- not up to usual Wiki standards of logic and tone. And the whole article is a serious violation of the Neutral Point of View policy -- it does not at all represent the point of view of the proponents of the theory, much less fairly. In my view it should be scrapped and done over. Csawyer99 (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC) You're confusing this article, which is about a racist conspiracy theory, with information that more properly belongs in the article titled Demographics of the United States. This article should not soften or whitewash the racist elements of the phrase "Great Replacement". Legitimate information about demographic shifts in the United States should be covered at Wikipedia. This is not the article to do it it. There is a proper article. It is Demographics of the United States. --Jayron32 13:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC) I respectfully disagree. The article, in its (understandable) eagerness to condemn the racism of the proponents of this theory, dishonestly and counterfactually brushes aside the grain of truth in what they are saying. You can't deal with the racists without confronting that grain of truth head on. And it's important to deal with the racists. Making this right doesn't require "softening"; it requires more honesty and courage. And don't forget the Neutral Point of View principle of Wikipedia. This is not MSNBC where we get to just rail against and hector people we disagree with. Csawyer99 (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC) I think a better structure for this article could be something like: 1. It is true that the U.S., among other developed nations, is heading towards a "minority-majority" demographic situation on current trends. This is because birth rates reliably fall among better educated and wealthier demographics, and developed countries require immigration to keep their economies going. 2. It is not true, however, that this process is the result of a conspiracy to eradicate "white people"; the idea of "white genocide" is not supported by any evidence. 3. Furthermore, the same factors which reduced the birth rate among the earlier European demographics of North American and European countries, also reduce the birth rate in other countries as they develop. So it is not clear that "minority majority" demographics will actually be achieved, as the birth rate in the whole human population eventually falls below replacement rates. 4. Furthermore, the American experience shows that American culture and society is not defined by the earliest European immigrants; succeeding waves of immigration have all brought their own specific contributions to the culture, which arguably has been made richer as a result, and practically no one today believes that American culture would be better off without the contributions of later immigrants. European countries which welcome immigration to some degree or another -- which is nearly all of them -- have looked to the American experience as a model. In any case, developed countries have little choice but to accept a certain amount of immigration to keep their economies going, as demographic decline is a very severe economic problem. China is now starting to experience this. Something like that. Better written, of course; that's just an outline. The main thing is not to respond to this by denying the one factual thing in what these guys are saying. Like that no one will ever be persuaded. And anyway we should be posting anything factually false in Wiki, which the first above cited sentence is. Csawyer99 (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research, which this all appears to be. As has already been explained to you, this article is about the conspiracy theory, not immigration in general, and not the demographics of the United States. Grayfell (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Csawyer99, you appear to be making an argument that doesn't take into consideration the existence of the article White demographic decline, which discusses the demographic trends you seem inclined to deal with here. The scope of *this* article, by contrast, is "The Great Replacement", as it says on the tin - namely, a conspiracy theory *about* demography. If the relationship (i.e., the distinction) between the two articles doesn't appear to you to be sufficiently clear, then I suggest that would be a more appropriate locus for you to suggest improvements to the article(s). Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Well, if all that is beyond thinking about -- let's at least get rid of the factual error, shall we? It is false to say -- as the article says -- that the decline of "white" people is some kind of "misunderstanding of the demographic data". So-called "white people" are indeed turning into a minority -- that is a fact. Which in my opinion is a great thing! Coming as I do from a multiracial family. At the very least, let's delete those sentences in the article, which are factually false. Csawyer99 (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC) What part of the following is not based on a "misunderstanding of the demographic data": The original theory states that, with the complicity or cooperation of "replacist" elites, the ethnic French and white European populations at large are being demographically and culturally replaced with non-white peoples—especially from Muslim-majority countries—through mass migration, demographic growth and a drop in the birth rate of white Europeans. That looks like a misunderstanding to me. Newimpartial (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC) It's not beyond thinking about, it's just that what you are saying is not even relevant to this article. Calling this a misunderstanding isn't a a factual error. White people are in no danger of becoming extinct, becoming a minority isn't the same as declining in population, and multiracial white people are still white people. This conspiracy theory rests on a lot of pseudoscientific assumptions, including those about racial 'purity' and such that are not even internally consistent. If anything, calling this a misunderstanding is on the generous side. Grayfell (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC) This sentence: "Mainstream scholars have dismissed these claims as rooted in a misunderstanding of demographic statistics and premised upon an unscientific, racist worldview." Refers to: "The original theory states that, with the complicity or cooperation of 'replacist' elites, the ethnic French and white European populations at large are being demographically and culturally replaced with non-white peoples—especially from Muslim-majority countries—through mass migration, demographic growth and a drop in the birth rate of white Europeans" The sentence about "mainstream scholars dismissing these claims" is simply false, and none of the three cited references supports the proposition. There are two claims in that sentence: One is that ethnic French and white European populations are being replaced; the other is about "complicity or cooperation". The first claim is actually true, even if it is true only with respect to current trends. There is no misunderstanding of demographics in that claim. The second claim is that there is a conspiracy to do it. That is certainly false, although hard to prove. The most we can say is that there is no evidence of such a conspiracy. But in any case, the nonsense about "misunderstanding demographics" applies to the first claim, not the second, and this is simply false, and the references cited do not back that up. This is a hot mess and needs to be corrected. If you wrote something like this in a paper in one of my classes that would be an automatic F. This kind of sloppiness does nothing to advance knowledge, or to fight racism. On the contrary, this reinforces the racists. Truth and accuracy are the only effective weapons against racism. What we write should be true, accurate, and carefully crafted. This is none of those. Csawyer99 (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC) — Csawyer99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Actually, all three sources do support the sentence you're questioning. None of the editors who've responded to you agree with you that the article violates NPOV, and now four editors have disagreed with you. Wikipedia depends on sources, not on the personal feelings of comfort or discomfort of an individual editor. Calling a racist theory "racist" is expressing a fact, not an emotion. It's disheartening to hear that you would give an automatic F to a student who disagrees with your POV. This thread is getting repetitive, so I think it has run its course. NightHeron (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Many people who are accused of complaining about "great replacement" are in fact complaining about de-facto trends and not necessarily claiming a specific organized conspiracy to replace white people. This is common of "conspiracy" accusations, where there is no distinction between applying a negative value judgement to a trend and accusing the trend of being caused by some organized conspiracy. Because of this, you may as well broaden the scope of this article. Globe Holder (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC) I don't want to turn this into a debate but "race is unscientific" is semantics here. It's unscientific if you define it as a human subspecies because of taxonomic technicalities but the population clusters that proxy "races" technically exist so you might as well say white, black, asian exist anyway. They exist in an empirical sense (that said, hispanic is cultural; in practice most are a gradient of Native American & Spaniard). Your issue is you don't think people should care because you think delineating between human beings is immoral, probably. It's also your opinion that "enriching" a culture with another one is good. It's a value judgement. Globe Holder (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Britannica?

How did a locked article end up using references like Encyclopedia Britannica? 194.102.58.6 (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Far right conspiracy theory

Not sure how this has been designated as a far right conspiracy theory if many of those enacting it have plainly stated their aims. Are these not the droids we are looking for? 159.196.13.167 (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Globalization isn't a conspiracy, but a product of international trade relationships which happens by itself. And the protections for political refugees have been adopted long ago by Western countries, and this cannot be construed as a conspiracy. In fact, writing this from the Netherlands, most Dutch politicians see refugees as less and less welcome. And most immigration to the Netherlands aren't refugees, but EU workers, who enjoy freedom to relocate and seek jobs in other EU countries than their own. Refugees cost money, EU workers keep this country running. Are the US a conspiracy just because people can freely relocate from one US state to another US state? tgeorgescu (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

you aren't addressing his question at all138.88.248.199 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Someone might perhaps simply add a few academic references to the benefits of diversity, and some media articles clamouring to add a bit of popular emphasis to this message. Under a title 'Political narratives for population change' and ground the edit with an academic discourse on migratory politics and its confluence with progressive political tenets. Critical race theory can be offered as a contentious backbone to a theoretical justification for targeted and directed diversity for nations with traditionally white populations. If a social framework has been built around (antagonistically) the concept of whiteness, and political movements have been formed that exclude only a politically charged identification of 'white male' who is considered socially, sexually, and physically part of a group that retards reform and revolutionary justice, we can demonstrate a valid sociopolitical basis for an encouraged movement of peoples into Europe and its connected regions, whereas for other regions this would simply be incidental and not open to being hitched onto any globally-spanning political agitations. This is all assuming an editor can organically detect this narrative from the corpus of relevant texts we have available, and I state it in the interests of provoking further research. A clear objective here would be to fairly counterpose the far-right half of this story with the progressive half. The Great Replacement is not just a far-right conspiracy, it is a far-left conspiracy, and this has troves of backing in academic discourse, alongside prominent media investigation. 'Abolish whiteness' 'Whiteness as a system of oppression' Racial essentialism, racial political blocs, and political parties that support migrations as opposed to those that do not. The Great Replacement could very well be seen as a key, and essential political issue and beyond what can be called conspiracy. Akin to calling a cost-of-living crisis a conspiracy, I think people's perceptions are the key here, not some out-of-date media bulls. What about media outfits like The Spectator and The Telegraph in the UK. A huge business consortium has attempted to buy both, and it was very quickly brought into governmental adjudication in the interests of preserving the UK's vital press freedom and integrity - I doubt such a hoo-ha would be fomented over some rags, and I think the United Kingdom's government can be seen as a reliable arbitrator of viable and trustworthy media organisations.

I also think it may be eminently worthwhile to learn from discourse around the current crisis and conflict in Gaza. Latent attitudes considered veering towards the genocidal have been alleged, and calls for ethnic cleansing have been inferred in political and academic discourse. Whatever precedents have been acquired on those particular subjects for Wikipedia and general media can be repurposed for any similar disputes on this subject here. 89.205.63.123 (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

This whole IP intervention appears to be off-topic for this Talk page - it seems to be essentially a rant in support of the conspiracy theoty (viz. The Great Replacement is not just a far-right conspiracy, it is a far-left conspiracy).

No changes should be made to thus article to promote WP:FALSEBALANCE or to placate conspiracy theory supporters. Newimpartial (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

More material for the article: UN report on replacing migration

I recommend adding a section to this article covering the UN report titled Replacement Migration: Is it A Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations? available at

https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/unpd-egm_200010_un_2001_replacementmigration.pdf.

This report is of significant relevance as it explicitly asserts that, from a demographic standpoint, the ongoing immigration rate will maintain the stability of ageing and decreasing European and US populations.

It's crucial to address this report in the article, as it is frequently cited by far-right groups to support their claims of the Great Replacement. Including a discussion or mention of this report serves informational purposes and ensures a comprehensive exploration of the topic. Chaozn (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

No, the report does not support the right-wing conspiracy theory at all, and our article should not discuss every source that the propagandists for Great Replacement falsely claim supports their POV. The article simply reports on demographic trends and projections, without advocating or describing a policy of artificially increased immigration. You're wrong that it explicitly asserts that, from a demographic standpoint, the ongoing immigration rate will maintain the stability of ageing. It says the opposite: "The levels of migration needed to offset population ageing (i.e., maintain potential support ratios) are extremely large, and in all cases entail vastly more immigration than occurred in the past." NightHeron (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Well according to the report and I think that this needs to be addressed in this post the current number of immigrant would suffice to stop decline of population. Therefore if the current population declines but the number stays the same it means that the number of immigrants will compensate this decline and thus replace the population.

I believe that even these support the claim of a great replacement theory those needs to be adressed in this article. Even if I personally believe that it's a good thing that the migration mix up with the indigenous people of the country.

If you want to have a summary of the article from the UN here is the press release provided by the UN:

https://press.un.org/en/2000/20000317.dev2234.doc.html Chaozn (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The population is also growing taller over time. Is this due to complicity or cooperation of "replacist" elites also? GR theory applies racist reasoning to these stats. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the point you are trying to make.

According to the UN the demographics of migration are sufficient enough to compensate the declining population of the European Countries.

I believe that this should be in the article while adding that the theory that this is promoted and encouraged by a so-called elite is completely False.

There is nothing in demographics but as this is the foundation of the theory it must me tackled in this article. Chaozn (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

No, that report is not the foundation of the theory. The foundation of the theory is anti-immigrant bigotry and racism. Period. The fact that its proponents' warped imagination fancies that some UN report supports their paranoia is WP:UNDUE for this article. It is not our role to refute all the nonsense they spout.

No other editor agrees with you about this, and you've been repeating yourself. It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. NightHeron (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Well I don't think that because you and someone else believe that this should not be in the article is a reason for not putting it.

I would like to remind you that wikipedia is free to write for everybody. Plus you don't seem to mention the previous talks on this article which also would like to write a section on this topic.

Even if Renault Camus is anti-immigrant and of far right he is still an intellectual who based his work on some truth which is what is stated in the UN reports Chaozn (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No, you are wrong again about the UN report. It does not provide "some truth" that there's an anti-white conspiracy, which is the central fringe claim this article is about. That's like saying that a report on the large number of deaths among the elderly in the poorly managed U.S. Covid pandemic provides "some truth" to a theory that the policy mistakes were actually a conspiracy against the elderly designed to decrease expenses for social security and medicare. NightHeron (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say that don' be ridiculous.

I am saying that the work of Renault Camus is based on the demographics of the immigrant population versus the indigenous population and this is what the UN report is about.

However it starts to become a complotist theory when the Renault Camus accuses this population of replacing the current population instead of mixing with it. Also this demographic phenomenon to be encourage by elites and governments.

This is why I think that the wikipedia page should be more nuanced about the great replacement instead of having such an obvious bias toward far left. Chaozn (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The UN report summary you linked to was about decreasing populations due to aging and low maternity rates. This is not related to this article. This is a waste of editor time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

immigrant population versus the indigenous population So, applied to the US, it is about European, Asian and African immigrants (starting in the 16th century) and indigenous Americans? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2023

This post provides false information that imposes a false political agenda. Please remove mention of conspiracy or right wing mention as it is unrelated to politics. 2601:5C4:4301:4240:EC37:4560:E077:3BAB (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

What post? - FlightTime (open channel) 19:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This is misinformation

If you look at Frances demographics based on race since the early 1900's this is no longer conspiracy 2601:58C:407F:3450:A040:8B06:8F52:AA31 (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

So, is the French government imposing a one-child policy upon Whites? Guess not. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

How is it relevant to the fact, or not, the original major ethnicity is getting replaced by a foreign ones?

Whether the "great replacement" is encouraged or not by some malicious hidden intent (conspiracy theory) isn't involved to the fact a population is factually getting replaced by one or some others in proportion of population.

And it's not nationalist/racist to observe this phenomenon with objective eyes. 195.101.88.55 (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Framing it as "replaced" certainly is nationalist/racist. Objective eyes call it migration. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we include the figure in the article? I would like to be enlightened and understand whether it's a phenomenon or not. Some say it's a conspiracy theory. I think a figure would be helpful to determine whether that is true or not. 82.147.226.185 (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The goal of a Wikipedia article is not to encourage WP:Original Research, but rather to summarize the description of a topic by all of the significant opinions on a topic.Sadads (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Gemini chatbot race replacement

I recently added this content which I had copied from Gemini_(chatbot).

User:Firefangledfeathers deleted it and commented, "Reverted good faith edits by Mn06hithere227 (talk): This content and the sources cited are not about the great replacement conspiracy theory."

I am curious to hear what others think of this:

In February 2024, users of Google Gemini reported that it was generating images that featured racial and gender diversity in historically inaccurate contexts, primarily among White people such as Vikings and Nazi soldiers, and refusing prompts to generate images of White people. Many conservatives in the U.S. promoted these reports online, citing them as evidence of Google's "wokeness". In response, product lead Jack Krawczyk said that Google was "working to improve these kinds of depictions immediately", and Google paused Gemini's ability to generate images of people.

Mn06hithere227 (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I would have to agree that Great Replacement is not the right place for this content. Great Replacement Theory primarily deals with a purported conspiracy to replace white people demographically in white majority countries. This AI prompting error would appear to be more related to a failure related to corporate diversity efforts. An article in that area might be a more appropriate place for this content. Ottawajin (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

No connection to the subject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Far-right?

Getting to WP:IDHT and WP:NOTFORUM territory with off-topic discussion of whether the far right winning elections means they're now no longer far-right.

this belief has started to shift mainstream into conservative discourse. making a talk page to get consensus on if thats fair assessment NotQualified (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Then again, perhaps it is conservative discourse that has shifted to the far-right. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC) other way round actually. would anyone know any stats on this particularly cause otherwise i have to just go off anti-migrant sentiment? with the rise of meloni, le pen, wilders, orban, tusk (less right than PiS but still), (i could keep going but in short, EU is on track for a major right shift along with trump's 2016 win promising a muslim ban. generally the entire anglosphere besides britain (incohesive right) and new zealand). even ireland, who has never had a "right wing" party in a traditional sense has wildly gone anti-migrant. this has definitely started making in-roads into regular conservative discourse, calling it far-right is inaccurate if we assume a reasonable co-relation between anti-migrant and Great Replacement rhetoric, the overton window has shifted since that. i say we write "the theory originated in the far right, starting in 2011, but has since made in-roads into mainstream conservative discourse." if anyone has more direct polling on this specifically please provide it. NotQualified (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC) No. We're not laundering the far right just because they succeeded in grabbing some power. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC) sorry mate but they literally won elections, unless they were rigged (which you can try to prove) you cant deny that it's now mainstream conservatism. if they were losing, id agree - they arent losing. they are nearly consistently winning, besides le pen who currently has a 10 point lead on macron. macron now started adopting her policies. also, your usage of "laundering" shows bias rather than objective reporting. thats against the rules, i am left wing but i still try to be fair and objective. NotQualified (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC) Rephrasing Simon's reasoning: No, when someone gets lots of votes, or even voted into governments, it does not mean that their opinions are true. Sometimes, lots of people are stupid and gullible, and following majorities is argumentum ad populum, a well-known fallacy. Can you please stop this? Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say and not on what Wikipedia users conclude. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC) i am not claiming it is true or false. you are fighting ghosts. i am arguing it isnt far-right, it is JUST right as it is the mainstream right narrative by popularity. left and right are literally just abstract concept terms that only exist relative to each other. what is right wing in denmark is left wing in america. "Sometimes, lots of people are stupid and gullible" is not an argument, the views they hold are the mainstream of the right and thus it is not far-right but JUST right. you can hate them all you want, you can call them racist and unfounded, but the views are not fringe views that only lunatic who fail to win elections have, they are the views of the parties winning all across europe. > Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say and not on what Wikipedia users conclude i mean this in the least snarky way possible. please look at hipocrisy. you two are literally refusing to edit this as it "launders" an opinion you dont like, rather than looking at the fact they are consistently winning elections while running these narratives. you are the one inserting your opinion into this. the burden of proof is now on you to prove these views arent of the mainstream right wing, otherwise im editing this article to say theyve shifted mainstream, because quite frankly they have and youre just in denial. it doesnt matter if the opinion is bullshit nonsense or not, it is the mainstream view - they are winning, consistently, across most of europe. the overton window has shifted and you need to stop living in fantasy land. if you give me one more emotional argument (pathos) to why this shouldnt be included, rather than a logical one (logos), i am editing this and considering this discussion finished. i have given my reasonings. i am fine with writing something along the crude and slimmed down lines of: "this movement started in the far-right in 2011 and has gradually shifted into mainstream discourse with figures like XYZ winning elections off of them and anti-migrant polling rising across europe and north america". i'll write something like that unless you have an argument of why not, my due diligence is done. NotQualified (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC) two possible arguments for this not being mainstream i can think of (if you can prove them) are rigged elections or low voter turnout not reflecting true mainstream opinions NotQualified (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC) This is meaningless without reliable sources. Acroterion (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC) Agreed. We simply do not look at, say, elections and say that we should use our own analysis instead of sources considered reliably published by our guidelines and policies. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Emphasis from "Replacement Migration," but not vice versa

It's been suggested more than once that this concept is directly linked with published studies such as the UN Replacement Migration papers that disambiguate/emphasize with this Great Replacement article. It is obviously and prominently linked in the lower traffic article, but official editors refuse to acknowledge the inclusion or citation in the opposite direction, from within this article.

I personally feel it is already disingenuous to suggest the GR theory is a "conspiracy theory," and not an ideology or response to an ideology about immigration, demographics, etc. To completely ignore or dismiss the real, studied, and cited basis for this response to an idealogical solution to a complex problem, appears to be it's own bias.
 Im sure this is improperly formatted, and lacking all the bespoke Wiki vocabularly, links etc. Im also not qualified to make an actual edit, if it's even possible. However, I hope that showing up here and presenting a decent argument for a less bias Wikipedia can be appreciated in good faith, and that someone else will be able to improve the actual articles. 2601:603:381:7640:216E:301C:9767:74C2 (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You think "I personally feel" is "a decent argument"?

Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not on the feelings of random people on the internet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, since it is "random people on the internet" like you and I who decide what constitutes a "reliable source" on Wikipedia (a badly chosen term since this in no way suggests they are indeed reliable,) Wikipedia articles are indeed based on feelings. It is important to keep this in mind when editing articles, and when considering related consequences like WP:NOTRIGHT. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:4D3:6C22:A77C:B1EF (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources are judged by policy and guidelines not by editors feelings. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Well said. It should be mentioned - directly in the preambule, not at the bottom - "White demographic decline" article and pro-immigration policy in EU as background / fuel, why do not mention it? Clearly biased. Feww2 (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I repeat: Get reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Every unbiased native speaking editor can find them. It's common sense. That when Merkel invited 1 million migrants in Germany, it fueled "replacement" sentiment. Feww2 (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

If it's so easy, then bring them. You are the one who wants to add something that confirms your opinion. It's your job to find a foundation, you cannot delegate that to others. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Somebody has no idea how to cite sources, so I'll do it for him:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10109-018-00290-y

Depopulation is projected, with the opposing outlier being immigrant fertility. The demographic picture is not in question, the conspiracy theory here merely lies in the assertion of some sort of perverse motivations to allow this, or an ideology in response to demographic change, rather than that demographic change itself. 172.59.186.91 (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

There we go. How could this be worked into the article, User:Hob Gadling? It has been 17 days since this paper was linked, yet I don't think I see it in the article? I could try to help out in some way if that's possible. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:4D3:6C22:A77C:B1EF (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The source has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory, so it won't be used. If you want to add details about demographics there are many different articles dealing with such matters. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Figure?

Would it make sense to add a figure showing the absence or presence of displacement over time in various countries? I'm guessing this kind of data must be available for countries such as Germany, France and Sweden? 82.147.226.185 (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Demographic changes naturally occur. That's not what this article is about. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

What O3000 said. The conspiracy theory is the cause of the change. Not the change itself. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This sentence confused me at first because of slightly clumsy wording. It should be: The conspiracy theory is about the cause of the change. (The conspiracy theory did not cause the change.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The elephant in the room (which you are carefully tip-toeing around) is that the reason this conspiracy theory exists at all is because of that demographic change. To neglect to even mention said change can only be a misguided ideological motivation, and, I would argue, this has backfired and contributed to perceptions of minorities as a larger proportion of the population than they really are in most countries, multiplying the divisiveness. 172.59.186.91 (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That'd be kind of WP:SYNTH though. This isn't an article about demographic change - it's an article about a white-supremacist delusion surrounding demographic change. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

explain to me how it is delusion when Labour literally admitted to it https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10055613/Labour-sent-out-search-parties-for-immigrants-Lord-Mandelson-admits.html NotQualified (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Does that article mention the "Great Replacement"? (I cannot read it.) If it doesn't, we cannot use it because of WP:SYNTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

by name? no. because the term hadnt been popularised by then. is it describing in detail what the conspiracy entails, yes. it is a labour offical literally admitting to breaking immigration barriers to replace white working class voters as a voting base after they lost to thatcher. this argument is just semantics rather than substance, even if in good faith. is commentary on muhammad ali invalid if an article only mentioned cassius clay? no, thats silly. the issue here is one of semantic change rather than the article being wrong in any manner. am i missing something here or can we re-include this NotQualified (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Then it is not useable in the article because of WP:SYNTH. You cannot just add random sources because you imagine a connection to the subject. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Bah. If that demographic change went in the other direction, the sort of people who believe in that stuff would find another excuse for xenophobic conspiracy theories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

while i agree with you somewhat Hob, thats not relevant and youve just admitted bias. if youre not capable of writing about this impartially, dont. the demographic change has massively changed in europe and you have no actual justification for not including it besides your own beliefs. even beliefs that are not nice must be written about impartially. NotQualified (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, bah. Instead of trying to disqualify other users from editing by accusations of bias, editors should use valid non-ad-hominem reasoning. The article is still about the conspiracy theory and not about demographic changes. Regarding "impartiality", read WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

hob, you dismissed the inclusion because you think it's a xenophobic excuse. this is literally about demographic change and youre choosing not to add it. if im interpreting correct. please clarify how i used non-ad-hominem reasoning. again, this is a conspiracy about demographics and youre rejecting the inclusion of those figures because it's a "xenophobic excuse" even though those figures are literally the root cause of the conspiracy itself. NotQualified (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

this is literally about demographic change - "this", as in your contribution. Not "this" as "this article". Your contributions are off-topic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

can you explain to me how a conspiracy about people being replaced by another group of peope is not about demographic change then? NotQualified (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Population shifts done intentionally by a sinister cabal arranging that, and called "Great Replacement" by the source: on topic. Population shifts happening naturally or without any reason given: off topic. Simple. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

> Population shifts done intentionally by a sinister cabal arranging that

this i will honor as it is a very fair term, if proven i want figures to be shown, and if not, i will begrudgingly accept no figures being shown however i do not speak for everyone, just me.

> and called "Great Replacement" by the source

this one is an unfair goalpost due to how recent the term has been coined. for sources that are around 2011, this will not be honored. if i source something from around then and it doesnt say it outright but quite describes it to a tee im happily sourcing it and the WP:SYNTH argument is silly. if however it is a recent source, i will consider that mostly fair (with obvious exceptions e.g. different language or synonmyous term or undeniable description of conspiracy). to recap, semantic change takes time, respect that. you cant expect every coined term to be popularised in a few years from total obscurity.

is the above sound?

for my own safekeeping, i am providing this unreliable source i do not intend to use. it's just useful for quotes i can backtrack and ensure later on. ignore the link please. [1]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2326352/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Peter-Mandelson-admits-Labour-brought-migrants-losing-working-class-votes.html NotQualified (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

this one is an unfair goalpost I give up. You want to ignore the rules and refuse to listen, so I will just wait until you are banned indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

fine, i wont edit it and will let other editors decide. i am not trying to be in breach of the rules. i will ask around that wp synth forum if semantic change is considered for sourcing. i dont want to ignore rules. i have tried to listen, i didnt just go edit the article and start an editing war. i get my tone is sterile, sorry, but theres no need to be mean. NotQualified (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

i have gained consensus that semantic change is not against the rule WP:SYNTH. i might be missing something so i will re-read in an hour NotQualified (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You may have "gained consensus" on something abstract, but if you do not link the actual case (which I did just now), people will not know what you are talking about. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

people know what we're talking about, it's been specifically mentioned. the argument that it needs the title in verbatim is based off of nothing and the editors dont even think it's worth mentioning in the rule because it should be obvious already on precedent. furthermore, none of them agreed with your interpretation. im not trying to abscone you so sorry for my tone, but if you continue with this i'll perceive it as railroading. when i get the time, i'll edit the article if appropriate. NotQualified (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Others may see you as bludgeoning and if this continues don't be surprised if you get blocked - or topic banned. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

i havent even edited the article yet and im already dismissed. let me collect sources, and write a piece, and i'll post it here. until then, stop it. i dont appreciate being sent on a goosechase for your intial bogus claim. NotQualified (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure you have read the discussion in question correctly. Regardless, you do not have consensus here to add an WP:OR map that is off-topic for this article - an article about a conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Newimpartial on this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

hold on, im arguing it's not off-topic becausw it doesnt include the article name in the source in verbatim yet it outlines exactly what this article is about. NotQualified (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• im arguing AGAINST the idea that it is off-topic solely due to the lack of the title in verbatim in the source.

NotQualified (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an an argument that is simply reversible. If "not mentioning the article title" isn't a valid reason for exclusion, that doesn't mean that everything that doesn't mention the article title can be included.

The material you want to include doesn't seem to me (and some other editors) to be relevant to the topic of this article, which is a conspiracy theory about migration. We do not think it outlines exactly what this article is about. Unless you can obtain consensus at this Talk page that your proposed material is relevant to the topic of this article, its inclusion would not be permitted by policy. Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

i understand this argument. i wasnt trying to imply that just because the 'title in verbatim' argument had been dismissed that every source was suddenly valid. i'll collect sources and write a new piece and post it to talk page for consensus, dont worry. NotQualified (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this still going on? The material is clearly not relevant to this article, an article about a conspiracy theory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

a source that says the blair government intentionally broke down migration barriers and actively searched and brought in migrants to replace the indigenous working class vote, citing quotation from a high ranking labour cabinet member confessing as such, is not a relevent source??? justify this. what source specifically are you referring to. if youre referring to the one im thinking you are, genuinely how are you making this utterly untenable claim? like that is quite literally the whole conspiracy theory in detail from start to finish, and confessed, and thats not relevent...? NotQualified (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

i concur, not mentioning demographic change for a conspiracy that came to fruition because of it is ludicrous and does not make any sense. if you agree with it or not is irrelevant as we are supposed to be impartial and this is blatantly ideologically motivated. i would like better reasoning, or add it to the article. NotQualified (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Migration issues and demographic change are mentioned in the article, in the first paragraph of the "Background" section and the first paragraph of the "Analysis" section. That's enough, since, as other editors have pointed out, the article is about the conspiracy theory and not about demographic change. Of course, it would be possible to write about all the reasons why demographic change occurs naturally over the years and decades and centuries, and about the effects of immigration -- mostly beneficial -- but that would amount to a systematic refutation of the racist nonsense that the Great Replacement theorists are pushing, and that would deviate hugely from the proper focus of this article. NightHeron (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

> Migration issues and demographic change are mentioned

apologies i misspoke you are correct. *"not mentioning the figures of demographic change" is what i meant to say.

> is about the conspiracy theory and not about demographic change.

the conspiracy is about demographic change, thats the whole point of it.

> Of course, it would be possible to write about all the reasons why demographic change occurs naturally over the years and decades and centuries, and about the effects of immigration -- mostly beneficial -- but that would amount to a systematic refutation of the racist nonsense that the Great Replacement theorists are pushing, and that would deviate hugely from the proper focus of this article.

i never said any of this, i simply said the figures should be included, because again - that is literally what this conspiracy roots from. i dont find your "some other xenophobic excuse" rebuke valid. NotQualified (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Suppose we gave demographic figures without context or analysis based on reliable sources, followed by a description of Great Replacement theory -- which is apparently what you want the article to do. That would give the impression that the racist conspiracy theory is a rational response to data, which is false, and it would violate WP:FALSEBALANCE. NightHeron (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

again i dont even think it's fair to call it a racist conspiracy theory when the link i provided literally shows labour actually tried and did do this, unless my link is wrong. also, people obviously do believe in it due to the changing demographics and showing those demographic changes isnt a validation that those changes are intentional or not, thats your own perception. this does not violate false balance as again, it literally is the root cause of the theory. this is literally a theory about being replaced demographically and youre arguing show the stats of that is off topic or / and racist. i dont want to start some edit war but i feel like we're hitting an impasse here between you not wanting to offend and trying to say it's because it's "not relevent" and me saying it's literally the root cause and we can report on that maturely while still not condoning or condemning it. again, a wiki of a conspiracy about demographic change is not allowed to show the demographic change - youre failing to justify this. NotQualified (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I have been following this story, but for me, to actually place it in the realm of the conspiracy theory, there would have to be some sort of racial or otherwise explicitly demographic component. That is, advocating for immigration in general doesn't actually support the theory unless there's advocacy for certain kinds of immigrants. Perhaps there has been reporting along those lines, but if so, I have missed it. Can you point me to any? Dumuzid (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

> to actually place it in the realm of the conspiracy theory, there would have to be some sort of racial or otherwise explicitly demographic component

i disagree, simply showing the demographic changes will let people make up their own mind on if theyre dramatic enough, we arent meant to be biased but again - this is what the theory is about.

> That is, advocating for immigration in general doesn't actually support the theory unless there's advocacy for certain kinds of immigrants

is this a requirement outright for the theory that it has to be a specific type of migrant on racial grounds? the article i linked was more about them trying to find them based off of ideological grounds to replace the working class votes they lost. i disagree. as labour is britain and i guess thats what we have proof it was done with, muslims generally vote labour at 80-90 percent rates consistently but thats not even a race thats a religious group and theyve just split off into independent groups due to starmer's israel stance. can you re-evaluate and be specific on what conditions need to be to be placed "in the realm of the conspiracy theory"? i dont know much about this theory to begin with, im only here cause i was editing another article and came here. can someone more knowledgeable provide info? NotQualified (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

So, in order for there to be a replacement, there would have to be some kind of uniting factor, I should think. Immigration in general is not "replacement" because it doesn't have any sort of cohesive demographic effect. Again, the conspiracy theory at issue is that some sort of cultural or political elites are trying to replace white European populations with some other group. Simply throwing open the doors is not "replacing" anyone. When you say "trying to find them based off of ideological grounds," I am not quite sure in which sense you mean--does this mean "Labour's ideology led them to seek more immigrants" or "Labour sought out immigrants of a certain ideology"? The former seems obvious to me, the latter I haven't really seen supported, but I could have missed it. Again, no expert here, but the Lord Mandelson brouhaha has seemed very much to me about immigration at the highest level of abstraction, i.e., how many immigrants is optimal for the U.K.? If you could point me to sources that talk more about the specific kinds of immigrants sought, that would help. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

> "Labour sought out immigrants of a certain ideology"

yes this is what i mean but the former was also true.

> Again, no expert here

me either, i didnt expect to get into such heated arguments over this. for god's sake im a leftist hahahaha.

> sources

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2326352/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Peter-Mandelson-admits-Labour-brought-migrants-losing-working-class-votes.html

this one is too dodgy to include, it's by the daily mail and thats not an accepted source on wikipedia. if i can either verify it somehow (way too lazy but feel free anyone else) or find another similar source that backs what is said, it'll be proof and i'll be adding it to the article that labour actually did do this according to mandelson. NotQualified (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is being asked in terms of having a "figure" added? If this is about a statistical graph showing immigration to 'X', 'Y', and 'Z' countries from year to year, then said figure wouldn't necessarily be relevant to the article and wouldn't be worth including as an illustration. Unless, of course, said graph or an alternate form of it is utilized by a legislator in some sort of political presentation or otherwise gets directly connected in notable terms. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Accuracy

The "great replacement" conspiracy theory is a misnomer, it is intact named replacement migration and is an economic policy that has been in place since 2000.

The United nations noted most of the western nations (and others) had sub replacement birth rates and as such would have a negative economic effect as time goes one, as such multiple nations began mass importing of migrants as workers from other nations.

You can find the document here on Google as Wikipedia has blacklisted it for some reason.

UN replacement migration 2000.

here you see the UK government officially adopts the policy

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a797506ed915d0422068986/migration-report-july-2000.pdf

While the migration observatory tracks a clear trend showing the native English population will become a minority in a relative short period.

minhttps://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-impact-of-migration-on-uk-population-growth/

As such the page should be updated to show this is in fact not a conspiracy theory linked to neo Nazis but a government policy recommended by the United nations and implemented by the UK Labour Party under Tony Blair and continued under the Tories under David Cameron Et-al Formosa1701 (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read the entire article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

None of the documents cited say anything like the conclusions you draw from them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

the Oxford Observatory directly states given current demographic projections the native English will become a minority.

The UN replacement migration policy is also clearly the influence of the 2000 policy on migration under the Blair government even using the same data and information. Formosa1701 (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is not about demographics, it's about a conspiracy theory that it's all a plot. See the big red notice at the top of this page about drawing your own conclusions and presenting them as fact. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The Article is indeed about demographics as how those demographic changes are feeding this "conspiracy theory", the facts however show that demographic change is indeed happening and that government policy based upon the UN replacement migration report is the reason.

The oxford migration observatory data also backs this up as since 1997 the start of mass immigration in the UK has only increased as this policy was carried forward by multiple governments. Formosa1701 (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You would have to define "native English," which the Oxford report does not do; the Replacement Migration UN document from 24 years ago is a report, not a policy; and similarly, the UK document from 24 years ago, cites to the UN for basic facts. Not only are you peddling unsupported and unpersuasive arguments, the arguments are laughably out of date. Dumuzid (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The United Nations defines native as

“Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them"

This would make the white English, Welsh, Scots and Irish natives in this context, the report is the origin of the policy, the policy has clearly been implemented across multiple western nations and we are seeing the result, this policy cannot be out of date if it is still in use as shown by the current Tory government policy allowing over a million legal migrants per year.

The facts and data speak for themselves. Formosa1701 (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Your analysis of old data isn’t admissible on Wikipedia. Reliable sources describe a conspiracy theory, whose proponents turn up here regularly to promote. Acroterion (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The data is current and ongoing, you are incorrect in calling it "old data" as the Oxford migration observatory keeps very recent records. The UN replacement migration report is still also still current as it is still used to underpin current policies.

Reliable sources show that replacement migration is happening as per the report and as such the Wiki should be updated with a tab to reflect that this report exists, is implemented within government policy and trends show that native people are being displaced due to this policy.

this will aid in allowing free flow of information for people to be better informed in their voting choices as this page existing is spreading misinformation claiming government migration policy is a "far right" conspiracy theory. Formosa1701 (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Evidence the report is still current

A key question widely debated in policy circles, particularly at international level, is whether migration is a possible solution to the economic and social challenges associated with population ageing and decline – i.e. the sustainability of pension systems, the provision of long-term care for older people, labour and skill shortages, higher labour cost, a decrease of the relative influence in the global economy. The question has been brought to the attention of policy-makers at the beginning of last decade by the United Nations’ report on ‘replacement migration’ (United Nations 2000) – although several earlier studies had already explored the issue (Blanchet 1989, Coleman 1992). The general conclusion of these studies has been that, although highly positive net migration can contribute to sustaining population and workforce growth, in the long run it cannot prevent population ageing under any plausible and politically sustainable scenario.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/primers/demographic-objectives-in-migration-policy-making/ Formosa1701 (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Even granted that it's true, it does not concern this article. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

No one is arguing about demographic data, not even the sources in the article. The article is not about the population changes per se and does not suggest that said changes are false or misconstrued or that people who point it out are conspiracy theorists. Rather, the article is about the conspiracy theory related to those data, namely that there is intentional complicity by certain elites with the goal of decreasing the precent of the White population. That's it. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Your analysis of new data isn’t admissible on Wikipedia either. Why don't you just read the rules about WP:OR? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the article and its sources? It's about the conspiracy theory, not your interpretations of demographics. And again, read the big red notice, which says the same thing. Acroterion (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I have read the article, it directly references demographics as the source for the "conspiracy theory" and makes the claim "the great replacement" is a conspiracy theory, it is not, it is a misnomer, as such the article should be updated to include the fact that this "conspiracy theory" and is in fact misunderstood due to misinformation, keep the data referencing the conspiracy theory but also include the data showing the correct information on the subject to better inform people.

Wikipedia is about educating without bias and inclusion of the replacement migration report will aid this. Formosa1701 (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The source of the conspiracy theory is conspiracy theorists. Demographic change is simply the "event" they use as described here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Formosa1701 is surely veering into forum territory and this should be hatted I think. Doug Weller talk 13:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention this is a single purpose account wasting our time. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe you should relearn your British history. This description makes the English a colonial power. So perhaps you should be championing England for the Welsh? Remember, Hengist and Horsa were invading immigrants. Dumuzid (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

«The "great replacement" conspiracy theory is a misnomer, it is intact named replacement migration» => Replacement migration is named «replacement migration» and is the subject of the Wikipedia article titled Replacement migration. The subject of the Wikipedia article titled Great Replacement is the narrative created by far-right activist Renaud Camus under the name «Grand Remplacement» («Great Replacement»).

«a clear trend showing the native English population will become a minority in a relative short period.» => Which is not the phenomenon alluded by the Great Replacement narrative. Which word you do not understand in «replacement»?

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

please review this before i add it in. if something needs to be added or removed please tell me

Labour politician and former Cabinet minister Peter Mandelson said that Labour 'sent out search parties' to bring migrants to Britain at the Blairite think-tank Progress stating "in 2004, when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country." Journalist Richard Littlejohn alleges that this was done to compensate after losing the votes of the working class while journalist Alex Hern argues that Mandelson "sounded like he was talking about the sort of programmes which were aimed at getting high-skilled immigrants to come to Britain" and that "the argument that Mandelson’s search parties “made it hard for Britons to get work” isn’t based in fact". Mandelson stated ‘we were almost... a full employment economy’ but, he admitted: ‘The situation is different obviously now... we have to just realise... entry to the labour market of many people of non-British origin [makes it] hard for people who are finding it very difficult to find jobs, who find it hard to keep jobs.'

Lord Mandelson’s remarks came three years after Labour officials denied claims by former Labour adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain saying that the policy was designed to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’. After Labour came to power, more people moved to Britain than in the entire previous millennium. Labour politician Ed Miliband said that the Labour government was not “sufficiently alive to people's concerns” over immigration and his party got “the numbers wrong”. Tory chairman Grant Shapps said that the admission that Labour had let immigration “spiral out of control” was “yet another damning indictment on their record on immigration.” NotQualified (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

References

before anyone says, yes this is obviously relevant. sources that say the blair government intentionally broke down migration barriers and actively searched and brought in migrants to replace the indigenous working class vote, citing quotation from a high ranking labour cabinet member "potentially" confessing to it as well as another labour official literally admitting it, is relevant and if i need to get wikipedia mods in to review this i will. that is quite literally the whole conspiracy theory in detail from start to finish, and even "potentially" confessed to. what i wrote was fair and balanced and tried to take both sides into account as i know this has been contentious. NotQualified (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

What sources mention “Great Replacement “? Doug Weller talk 20:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

this conversation was had before and im not doing it again. i went on a one week long goose chase to debunk this. is this your only concern? NotQualified (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

ive just reviewed, you were IN that conversation. you know full well this is debunked and this has now become clear-cut WP:POV railroad, particularly "Policy Misuse". you have been wrong about the rules and stated, prior to me even providing the edit, that "... if this continues don't be surprised if you get blocked - or topic banned." this is a debunked requirement. genuinely stop. off-topic but i just reviewed your profile, sorry about your parkinsons i genuinely hope youre doing well.NotQualified (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@NotQualified: Doug is one of the most trusted and respected members of this community. You will get nowhere by dismissing his concerns. And you have most certainly not "debunked" anything he's said. If you are not satisfied with the response here, you are welcome to take this to a noticeboard such as WP:NORN or WP:NPOVN. Generalrelative (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#for_WP:SYNTH,_is_semantic_change_relevant? there was a discussion on this a month ago, the title of an article does not need to appear in a source for that source to be relevant. if i have interpreted the discussion incorrectly, please inform me. NotQualified (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I saw that discussion and have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion. There are instances where the subject of the article does not need to be mentioned in a source for that source to be relevant to the article, but this clearly isn't one. Again, the proper place for this, if you're not satisfied with the answers you've received so far, would be a noticeboard. (Wikipedia talk:No original research, where the conversation you linked above took place, is for discussing possible revisions to the policy; for questions about the application of the policy, go to WP:NORN.) Generalrelative (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

> is for discussing possible revisions to the policy;

yes it was discussed if we should add "semantic change is not relevant to WP:SYNTH" and the general response was that it was so obvious it didnt need to be added. i wasted a week of my life on that.

> I saw that discussion and have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion.

because the responses i got told me as such, in a non-ambiguous cut and dry manner: the title of an article does NOT have to appear in a source for it to be sourced.

however im not sure if you actually mean by "... this clearly isn't [an example in which the source doesnt need to contain a title]" as my 'conclusion', that you believe what i wrote wasnt relevant. in which case, ive already provided my reasoning for coming to the 'conclusion'.

here it is again:

"yes this is obviously relevant. sources that say the blair government intentionally broke down migration barriers and actively searched and brought in migrants to replace the indigenous working class vote, citing quotation from a high ranking labour cabinet member "potentially" confessing to it as well as another labour official literally admitting it, is relevant"

even if those sources are blatantly wrong, this is a conspiracy theory. if conspiracies had to be true the flat earth wiki would be completely empty. the above is discourse in multiple well known publications about something that is obviously about Great Replacement Theory.

i will go to the WP:NORN notice board to see what is thought there. NotQualified (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be an WP:IDONTHEARTHAT violation.

As the editor who made perhaps the strongest statement in thr NORN discussion that the title of the article need not be mentioned in a source for it to be relevant, I also said the following:

my statement about SYNTH at NORN

I'm not sure what precisely you're referring to, but a constantly recurring problem with articles like Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Great Replacement is that editors arrive and try to impose their BOTHSIDES interpretation of NPOV, where one of the "sides" has no significant support among WP:RS. What typicallly happens is that either those editors will seek the inclusion (for "facts") of what are at best WP:RSOPINION sources, or they will do their own "research" into a topic the conspiracy theory is interpreting and seek inclusion of related statements in the article, as if to say, "here is the actual phenomenon that the conspiracy theory is interpreting". The problem with the latter is the inevitable WP:SYNTH violation - unless reliable sources actually tie the conspiracy theory back to real world phenomena (usually by contrasting one with the other), editors are forbidden from doing so in articles. What is more, even if one source does this, it may be WP:UNDUE to mention in article space if the vast majority of sources do not see a clear connection between thr conspiracy theory's claims and actual phenomena. And WP:FRINGE tells us to be very careful about allowing wikipedia articles to become amplifiers for fringe claims, including those by conspiracy theorists. So while the key question is not actually, "does the source name the article topic?", there are lots of sourced statements that would be completely inappropriate to include in articles - especially articles on FRINGE topics - because of SYNTH concerns.

In other words, just because sources that don't mention the article title can be relevant doesn't mean they always are. And when it comes to "facts" presented in support of what RS describe as a conspiracy theory, we have to be especially careful not to lend our article text to a BOTHSIDES interpretation in violation of WP:NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

i made the discussion there when i was informed by Generalrelative. that isnt a violation. "...just because sources that don't mention the article title can be relevant doesn't mean they always are." yes, i concur. i have agreed with this stance since the very beginning. the difference i presume is we disagree if what i wrote is relevant. "And when it comes to "facts"..." just to be clear, claims inside a conspiracy dont have to be true, what is true is the claims have been made. i have written "alleged". "And when it comes to "facts" presented in support of what RS describe as a conspiracy theory, we have to be especially careful not to lend our article text to a BOTHSIDES interpretation." i do not believe i have violated this protocol. what i have written largely sources direct quotes of official Labour and Tory candidates and makes clear what the media response was around those. my sources also are handpicked as they reference one another, and the writing is careful to prevent a "hit piece" violation by offering the media counter-argument. do you have any more concerns? NotQualified (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question (in a way): you haven't at all addressed my main concern, which is that the sources you have assembled have nothing to do with the topic of this article. Your assertion that they do seems to me to go beyond WP:SYNTH and amount to some kind of leap of faith. Newimpartial (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

'the difference i presume is we disagree if what i wrote is relevant.' okay so this is the concern. right, well ive already established my reasoning to how it is relevant. 'Your assertion that they do seems to me to go beyond WP:SYNTH and amount to some kind of leap of faith.' i have sourced discourse in media journals that quote labour politicians saying they intentionally looked for migrants and how that discussion was argued and counter-argued to be an effort to replace the working class indingenous vote they lost. again, how is that not relevant. how is this a 'leap of faith'. NotQualified (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, I know of no reliable sources stating that the Great Replacement conspiracy theory involves Labour politicians recruiting migrants to shore up their vote share. This alleged connection therefore looks to be a leap of faith. Newimpartial (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This is OR of course. Also, the sourcing is poor. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

why is sourcing poor. NotQualified (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

the sources were handpicked as they largely reference one another NotQualified (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

why is this OR? NotQualified (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if the sources discuss the Great Replacement theory (they don't) the majority of the sources cited are unusable for this topic, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Additionally, the article should focus on longer-run analyses of the type covered in scholarly sources, rather than short term news items that you are likely to find in a newspaper. (t · c) buidhe 01:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Neither the text nor any of the (poor) sources mention the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. I searched each one for "replac" and found nothing. To add the proposed text would be WP:SYNTH because the editor, not the sources, are connecting the politicians' actions with the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This misses the same point as the last thread about this, the content has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory. Multiple references to poor sources that don't have any mention of the conspiracy theory in no way changes that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Actions by users NewImpartial and Dumuzid

Wrong page for this discussion O3000, Ret. (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since I am unsure of where else to take this (I am not very familiar with how to deal with such strange situations) I will post this here, but feel free to inform me of where else to take this: I want to take fault with users NewImpartial's and Dumuzid's false and (in the former case's) repeated reverts of a comment of mine on someone's false interpretation of policy that I posted with the intent to further the improvement of the article. I am seeking both comment and explanation by the two users and other users' input on this matter. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC) There was nothing wrong with their reverts as your edit was not correct, not related to this article, and not constructive. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC) How so? Reliable sources are what Wikipedia relies on and what are required for edits that are worthy of remaining on a Wikipedia article and the discussions I mentioned are easily accessible and viewable by any person interested in checking out the perennial sources page. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC) The policies at WP:V WP:RS are rigorously followed. If you have a problem with a source, you can take it to WP:RSN. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC) That neither answered my questions nor addressed the reverts made by users NewImpartial and Dumuzid. Please explain your reasoning in detail. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC) You can take general questions to the teahouse O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC) The page you recommended is explicitly made for beginner-questions related to basic Wikipedia editing and therefore unrelated to the questions I repeatedly asked you now and the reverts being talked about. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC) This comment [2] is actively and obviously wrong. Content is not decided by vote. Whether it needed to be removed is perhaps debatable, but not worth the bytes that are being expended here. You are wandering into WP:SEALION territory. If you have a case to make for a referenced constructive edit, please do so. This is not a forum for general conversation about Wikipedia policy (which was Dumuzid's point). There's a big red notice at the top of the page concerning sources. Comment on content, not other editors. Acroterion (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC) The comment I made is actively in line with Wikipedia policy, as a response to which you cited an essay, which is not the same as policy and simply opinions by an editor. I also feel like it comes across as dangerously close to a personal attack, since it makes bad faith assumptions about my motivation for editing Wikipedia, which also goes directly against Wikipedia policy. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Here's another essay, which documents general practices and expectations on Wikipedia: WP:SATISFY. And a policy: WP:NOTBURO, meaning that editors who demand that a specific legalistic process be strictly adhered to are unlikely to find satisfaction. And the two fundamental policies WP:RS and WP:V, from which everything else derives, and which should answer what appears to have been your original question. Acroterion (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) The policy you linked specifically mentions consensus, which I am trying to achieve here and which neither you and I yet have? Also, if anything, this policy provides more rationale for the very basis of my argument, funnily enough, that the reliability of sources is dependent on consensus, not some supposedly strict, clear outline? - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC) So, first of all, you really should have notified NewImpartial and myself--but aside from that, were we to engage with your comment and general conversational tack there, it would be extremely 'forum-y.' It seemed clearly to be headed in the direction of "is Wikipedia's reliable source policy actually good?" There are places to discuss that, but individual article talk pages are not it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Sorry about not notifying you. I assumed that happens automatically. I don't really know how to notify other editors, but if I did, I would have. I see another editor making a false statement that actively contradicts Wikipedia policy to the detriment of editors wanting to improve the article, and I corrected that comment. My, correct (given the obvious and easily accessible discussions on the perennial sources page) comment was reverted, while the false comment that contradicts Wikipedia policy and discourages other editors from making proper edits and changes remains up. I have yet to get a comment that explains this. At this point, I'm honestly just confused by how that can be. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC) The comment I removed was this one, which (to paraphrase closely) asserts that discussions to be found at WP:RSN and WP:RSP are based on vote by editors who are considered to be "random people on the internet" whose decisions about sources are not judged by policy and guidelines and that the resulting evaluation in no way suggests they are indeed reliable (all words from the one exchange). If any of this is true, the places to discuss it would be the village pump or a policy page such as WP:V. If it isn't true, it doesn't need to be discussed at all. But regardless of the validity of these allegations, they have no place at this, or any, article Talk page where they can do nothing except waste editor time (mine writing this reply, for example). Newimpartial (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC) The reliability is judged, as I wrote, by the editors' feelings on the reliability of the sources. In fact, WP:RS in particular goes into detail about how much this depends on the judgement by editors, explicitly pointing towards the responsibility of editors in the judgement of such a source. So the policy explains in detail how my comment is in line with what I outlined in my comment. So I don't see how I'm wrong? Nor how the anti-policy statement remains in place? - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC) You appear to be confusing judgement with feelings and unanimity with consensus. If other editors to this article don't share your concerns about the way this article uses sources (and I don't believe they do), then you will need to take your concerns somewhere else - preferably to one of wikipedia's many "competitors". Newimpartial (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC) (Just a note: I gotta go to bed now, unfortunately, so I won't be able to reply for a little while, but I will when I can again! Just letting everybody know! - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)) Whether your statement is correct or not (I would disagree with it) is beside the point. Things can be true and inappropriate for a talk page discussion. Again, there are places to go into such broad inquiries into Wikipedia workings, but it is not here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)