Talk:Great Replacement conspiracy theory

Should Elon Musk be under ‘proponents’?

I followed the citation, which led me to an article that mentions an interview. I found the interview and when questioned about it, Elon Musk says ‘I don’t subscribe to any ‘great displacement theory’’

is there any other times where Musk talks about this? Antonymich47 (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Other sources supporting the clasification:

• https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/another-day-another-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory-elon-musk-x
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/technology/elon-musk-endorses-antisemitic-post-ibm.html
• https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/elon-musk-great-replacement-conspiracy-theory-1234941337/
• https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/19/media/elon-musk-don-lemon-interview-analysis-hnk-intl/index.html
• https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/25/24111405/elon-musk-great-replacement-conspiracy-immigration-don-lemon

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If musk directly says that he doesn't support the theory when asked about it, can he be classified as a 'proponent'?

Proponent: A person who speaks publicly in support of a particular idea or plan of action

The articles you linked all talk about the great replacement theory, but nothing musk says in the tweets linked is really about the theory. It's about illegal immigration, which is linked, but I wouldn't say that what he is saying is specifically supporting that particular theory. 2A01:4B00:BC1D:8B00:EC04:6B4:30F3:E215 (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If Elon Musk explicitly says that he doesn't support the great displacement theory then i fail to see how this refute reliable sources saying that Elon Musk support the Great Replacement theory (bold by me). Also from the Verge: «Musk is trying to have it both ways: he wants to send obvious great replacement dogwhistles, but, lest it scare advertisers away, he doesn’t want anyone to accuse him of wholeheartedly believing in what he’s saying.» Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Replacement and displacement was a typo from me, did you watch the interview? 2A01:4B00:BC1D:8B00:4CD0:5514:EA56:AA44 (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, what can be a more reliable source for whether or not someone supports something than asking that person directly if they support something. If he was a proponent, he would be openly supporting it 2A01:4B00:BC1D:8B00:4CD0:5514:EA56:AA44 (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Re: Also, what can be a more reliable source for whether or not someone supports something than asking that person directly if they support something - this is clearly false. Lots of public figures try to maintain plausible deniability about things they demonstrably day and do; the alt-right, for example, was largely founded on this "principle". Newimpartial (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

«Replacement and displacement was a typo from me» => Got it. Please notice that you were not logged in for your last coments so your IP adress is displayed instead an username. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

«did you watch the interview?» => No. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

«If musk directly says that he doesn't support the theory when asked about it, can he be classified as a 'proponent'?» => Yes if several reliable sources say that Elon Musk support the theory (see my last edit of the article Special:Diff/1231302409) and if no reliable sources deny that Elon Musk support the theory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course, Elon Musk should not be added as a proponent. Unfortunately Wikipedia was captured by the left about ten years ago, so this kind of misinformation will not go away. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, here is a tweet in which Elon Musk pokes a hole in the logic of the great replacement theory, explaining why he does not think it is true: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1784388834538762425

However, when he makes arguments that democrats have an incentive to bring immigrants into the city to win long-term voting power, even the left recognizes he has a valid point. Thus, rather than grapple with such an inconvenient truth, they huddle together and throw "racist" and "conspiracy theory" meaningless words at him, and anyone else who holds such a belief. Such is the way of the left, and, since about ten years ago, such is the way of Wikipedia. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The article https://www.axios.com/2024/03/19/elon-musk-trump-endorsement-don-lemon does not support the statement so i removed it. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content

For context, two editors reverted my additions.
The removal: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Replacement&diff=prev&oldid=1235608874
For them I have two questions.
Is white demographic decline/falling white population a real phenomenon? Many references say it is real and there is even a Wikipedia article on it. Does white demographic decline/falling white population relate to the "Great Replacement theory"? If yes, then it deserves to me mentioned.
I welcome any feedback or additional perspectives on this matter. If no response is received within a reasonable time frame then I will assume that everyone is fine with my additions.
Regards, Alexysun (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not aware of any quality sources that specify a relationship between the Great Replacement conspiracy theory and White demographic decline. Any proposed additions to this article must be based on relevant, reliable sources rather than the opinions of editors. Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Can you please re-iterate your argument. I’m not sure I understand and I don’t want to assume what you meant. The Great Replacement theory concerns the falling of the white population and a theory on why it is falling. Is that in contention? “White demographic decline” is the name of an article of Wikipedia concerning the falling of white population. I can rewrite what I wrote and not use the article title if y’all want? Alexysun (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question: unless you have reliable sources that divide the GRCT into an empirical phenomenon and an explanation, it is WP:OR to divide the CT into an empirical phenomenon (which can then be described as "actually happening" or not) and an explanation. Providing a Wikipedia article to explain the phenomenon does not make it self-evidently relevant in the context of this article.

Without sources providing this analysis, it is WP:OR for editors to do so. Newimpartial (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. GRCT is clearly about white demographic decline. NamelessLameless (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Editors' opinions are one thing, but to include any statement about a relationship between the conspiracy and actual demographic phenomena in this article, we need reliable, independent sources that specify what the relationship actually is. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, GRCT is clearly about white demographic decline. NamelessLameless (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Without indepentent, reliable sources we can use in article space, yours is not an actionable statement. Newimpartial (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, GRCT is inherently about white demographic decline. Just any type of fish is a fish. You don't need a source for that. I will implement the edits. NamelessLameless (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I hope the participation of other, experienced editors has convinced you not to insert your own interptetation of a topic without providing direct support for the interpretation in the form of citations from reliable sources.

(Also, I learned years ago not to participate in edit warring, as my account history confirms - there is no need to bring this up again. We try to focus on content on Talk pages, rather than being distracted by our opinions of other contributors.) Newimpartial (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Newimpartial Hi. Just based on your profile I noticed that probably have a history of edit warring. So much so that it's been brought to the administrators. Twice. I have realized it is futile to engage in this argument with you and you can't even respond more than two times in one day due to your restrictions. I want to request an admin to this page as a 3rd voice. NamelessLameless (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ad hominem will not help you. Your opinion about what GR means does not matter. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on your opinion. End of story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is neo-Marxist gobldygook. Dapcards (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

(ec) That's not how this works. It's on you to explain how the cited sources explicitly connect to "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, per WP:PROVEIT. From a quick glance, the edit looked like WP:SYNTH. Generalrelative (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi. See my reply to user above. Alexysun (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Please don't restore these changes without reliable sources. GRCT is inherently and clearly about a number of things, and we rely on reliable sources to guide as about which explanations/details/views to include. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not this again. Great replacement is a conspiracy theory that shadowy groups are deliberately causing population change. That there is population change is already handled in other articles, and has nothing to do with this article unless there are reliable sources directly stating that it's being caused by a shadowy group working in the background. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

(WP:PA deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)) neo-Marxists. They want to destroy this country and create conflict between as many factions as they can create. The flood of immigrates allowed illegally into our country or the deliberate flying in of otherwise illegal immigrants of African descent in record numbers, overwhelming small middle American towns is a fact. So this is not a conspiracy theory. You can debate the motivations for it. But it is happening and no one believes you any more. Dapcards (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

So, how do you think the forced expulsion of millions of immigrants would work for US? US agriculture would be jammed, US medical care would be jammed, and so on. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Again for the hard of understanding. I'm not making an comment on the nature of immigration, or the current level of immigration. But this conspiracy thoery is that a shadowy elite group is changing the population on purpose, that the population is changing doesn't show that it's being done by a shadowy elite to deliberately replace the current population.

If you have prove that a shadowy elite is deliberately replacing the current population take it to the press, it would be the scoop of the millennium. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Added deliberate

Hi to all who may concern, If you read the original theory. It states that the population changes are “deliberate” actions. Therefore I have added this. I have also added a rebuttal. Reference already on page. Alexysun (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Alexysun, the appearance given by your edits is that the GMCT should be presented as a conspiracy theory explanation for a "real" empirical phenomenon. To my knowlege, neither the reliable sources used in this article, nor the corpus of other RS out in the wider world, treat the topic in this way. Therefore it would be WP:SYNTH to do so in this article. Newimpartial (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I have the same concern. I think the current language makes it clear that deliberate action is involved in the conspiracy theory. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2024

This article should be edited. The Great Replacement is not a conspiracy theory of white nationalists or anything of the sort. It is readily apparent and objective. This verbiage should be removed. 168.150.108.136 (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: We have reliable sources for how it is described. We're not going to change it based on an IP's opinion. And please don't raise the same issue twice. Meters (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

Nothing of value in this WP:NOTFORUM digression

How is the term "conspiracy theory" still justified? The ethnic/demographic changes across the West are well documented and either critized or applauded (depending on political orientation). Furthermore the political aim of "increasing diversity" during the last 2 - 3 decades at least can also not be denied. The only point of contention is whether the results of these demographic changes are a net positive or negative. And if the electorate should have a say in this process. This hardly justifies the designation as a "conspiracy theory" imo. So what part execatly of the demographic change in the West is a "conspiracy theory"?? Felixkrull (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Some of the sources call it a conspiracy theory. It's not up to wikipedians (us) to decide if it is a conspiracy or not. Masterhatch (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC) The conspiracy theory is that a shadowy 'elite' are working in secret to replace the population, so demographic change on its own doesn't show that it's not a conspiracy theory. You need to show that it's a deliberate effort by a secret group with nefarious intentions for this not to be a conspiracy theory. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC) It isn't a point of contention -there's broad consensus among economists and other social scientists that immigration and diversity yield positive benefits, and overwhelmingly so. This is only 'contested' by racists and credulous people who've been fooled by GR conspiracies. The conspiracy theory denies all of these benefits and claims these policies are pursued to supplant native populations. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC) What nonsense. According to an article from TV 2 (Danish government-owned TV channel), calculations by the Danish Ministry of Finance show that in 2018 non-Western immigrants and their descendants cost the Danish tax payers DKK 31 billion (EUR 4.16 billion) (down from DKK 33 billion in 2017). How is this a benefit? And where is the conspiracy theory? Because these people were indeed allowed into our country by a powerful pro-immigration elite, namely our politicians. Sanger is right: Wikipedia has become badly biased. A "reliable source" has simply come to mean a "source whose biases align with those of Wikipedia". Article: https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2021-10-15-ikke-vestlige-indvandrere-og-efterkommere-koster-staten-31-milliarder 85.203.217.206 (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 15 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Frost 03:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Great Replacement → Great Replacement conspiracy theory – The article is not about a "Great Replacement", it is about the "Great Replacement conspiracy theory" and therefore the article name should change to reflect what the article is about. The title was changed from The Great Replacement conspiracy theory to Great Replacement as the result of an RM about 5 years ago. In that RM, the primary argument against using "conspiracy theory" in the article title was WP:COMMONNAME. Since then, it seems that reliable sources have shifted usage, and that "Great Replacement conspiracy theory" or similar is now the norm. Some examples:

• News: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
• Academic: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
• Advocacy: [15][16][17] TarnishedPath^talk 02:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• support per nom—blindlynx 00:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note. In addition to the 2019 RM cited in this proposal, there was another RM to reverse the move at Talk:Great Replacement/Archive 3#Requested move 16 May 2022. - Station1 (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Supportper nom. Masterhatch (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support . If we get a strong consensus for this change, which is really just a clarification, then hopefully there'll be fewer trolls taking up people's time trying to argue that the page should say that the conspiracy theory has some truth in it. NightHeron (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Nom's case is strong. The more recent sources speak for themselves. For the sake of transparency, I should link to the move request I filed here back in 2022, which ended in "no consensus". Generalrelative (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom, because of the overwhelming usage by RS. Llll5032 (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CCC. DN (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is intriguing to bring up opposed advocacy groups and their usage of the term. The "Great Replacement" is firstly a political concept that can be traced to at least one French author (Renaud Camus) and a lot of talk on social media afterward. Some of these strongly imply some centralized evil being consciously at work (something something the Jews...), while others mean to use it as a pseudonym for white or even culturally Western demographic decline. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the general usage on social media should outweigh anything else. Roggenwolf (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  From WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)". Not sure how claims to common usage in social media fits into that. TarnishedPath^talk 23:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources. I read the 2019 move request expecting to find some critical argument for moving it to the current name, but the arguments were pretty weak. Whatever the case the common usage in reliable sources, as shown by OP, is now with 'conspiracy theory'. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:RS. We follow the sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support per discussions above, Sadads (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support WP:FRINGE would encourage us to clearly identify conspiracy theories as such regardless of how common the name without "conspiracy theory" is amongst the conspiracists who discuss this conspiracy theory. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment There is a separate discussion going on to the effect that the present move request is almost an exact copy of the 2022 version.[18] This looks like partial grounds for a procedural closure. Roggenwolf (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think you're misinterpreting the findings of that separate conversation. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  That discussion was obviously about something else originally; it is still inappropriate. Roggenwolf (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  There's no Wikipedia regulation that says it's out of process to create an RFC with broadly similar language two years later on the basis of a continually evolving perception of a topic. Simonm223 (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Absolutely correct. The main mistake I made was not attributing. Wikipedians regularly make use of the words of other Wikipedians. Ps, for clarity this RM reasoning isn't an almost exact copy of the prior, it's an almost exact copy of a comment left by the mover during discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 00:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support Common name used in WP:RS. WP:FRINGE also applies. मल्ल (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom and other comments here. Some versions of this conspiracy theory are less overtly conspiratorial than others, but this doesn't matter at all. Some proponents of this conspiracy theory directly accuse, while others indirectly hint and insinuate. These tricks don't make this any less of a conspiracy theory. Grayfell (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The new name is in common usage. Jikybebna (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support for all the reasons noted above. Doctor Shevek (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.