Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

This page should not treat opinion pieces from Salon and other partisan websites as authoritative information.

This page is currently woefully inadequate in that it makes many sweeping, partisan assertions based on opinion pieces and other non-official sources. Examples of this are sources 1, 2, 8, 19, 22, and 25.

Using left wing partisan opinion websites such as Vox, Media Matters, Salon, and the Huffington Post is an extremely poor way to inform people about this topic. It would be like creating a page about a similar topic quoting only Breitbart News, The Federalist, and the Daily Wire as sources. Edit5001 (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit5001 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources are not deemed reliable or unreliable based on what an editor like you alleges is their political leaning. Sources are deemed reliable or unreliable based upon their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ValarianB (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

And what group determines the reliability of fact checking and accuracy? This is also not "alleged" by me, Media Matters, Vox, Huffington Post, and Salon are well known extremely politically partisan outlets. Edit5001 (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The opinions of people you agree with are generally not relevant here. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the place to go; f you feel Vox, Media Matters, Salon, and the Huffington Post should not be used, file a case there. ValarianB (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Who/what group determines the reliability of fact checking and accuracy of a given media outlet? Edit5001 (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

A good place to check for stuff like that is WP:RSP which tries to summarize past consensus on certain sources. Now something to keep in mind is even if they are generally considered reliable their opinion on the matter could be WP:UNDUE. PackMecEng (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't you see the problem with what are effectively partisan political opinion pieces being cited as "factual" information here to make sweeping claims? Edit5001 (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

To be honest I have not looked at how the sources you cited are used yet. Though I would not be surprised. I should be able to check this afternoon though. PackMecEng (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

They are not being "cited as factual", that is a rather disingenuous assertion. When, say, Vox, is cited, it is phrased so the reader knows it is in their voice, and not as an authoritative, definitively factual voice. Vox has reported on Coulter as one of many providing a platform for "the 'white genocide' myth"". That does not mean that the Wikipedia article is stating firmly that Ann Coulter provides a platform for the white genocide myth, but rather it is the assertion of the Vox journalist, which is generally regarded as a reliable source. That's what the Wikipedia does; reflect the sources. ValarianB (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing the WP:RSP, The Daily Beast, Media Matters, Salon, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and The Huffington Post (all used in this article to make sweeping claims of facts) are listed as partisan/biased sources and needing to have their statements attributed. This article should be edited in a way where these sources are no longer used to make sweeping statements and all of their claims are attributed. Edit5001 (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Depends entirely on how it is being used, there's no one-size-fits-all applicability here. If you have a specific passages and their citations that you find to be problematic, then bring them here for discussion. ValarianB (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

What are your top three most egregious examples? I think the SPLC is an authoritative source for this article, even if they got filibustered at WP:RSP. EllenCT (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Why do you think that fact is disingenuous, and what are you saying it isn't linked to? It seems related to the claim the article is making in that sentence. Indeed, this fact seems very relevant to the entire article, and should be included somewhere in it, (doesn't have to be that exact sentence).Edit5001 (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC) @NorthBySouthBaranof:

I assume you are talking about this edit. NorthBySouthBaranof is correct. The source is about a projection and not a hard fact, doesn't mention this conspiracy theory or anything about any race "dying out" anywhere, and doesn't mention this being a "dramatic" change. It is disingenuous to misuse a source to introduce editorializing and tangential language. Grayfell (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Whites declining across the Western world as percentages of the population is basically the entire essence of the idea of white genocide. A website called "Fightwhitegenocide.org" literally has a countdown clock of when whites become a minority in the US. The Vox source (among other sources) being quoted in the article's first paragraph cite fears of being outnumbered and demographic replacement as a reason behind people believing in white genocide.

Further, about half of American whites believe America becoming minority white will "weaken American culture". It's pretty surprising that facts about demographic change are hardly mentioned (if at all) in an article about white genocide. Edit5001 (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing as white genocide. If you want to find some real victims of genocide, I suggest you talk to Jews and Native Americans - both of which suffered actual genocide at the hands of white people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The point here is that there is a such thing as demographic change happening across several majority white countries, and this directly relates to the idea of white genocide. Those demographic facts should thus have a place in this article. Edit5001 (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thats a bizarre and irrelevant reply. It ignores that 400,000 Americans, the vast majority white, gave their lives in a war that stopped Nazi genocide against Jews. Also, while there are no shortage of sources calling the treatment of indigeneous people in now US territories "genocide", by the numbers it falls far short using the standards of references debunking white genocide in the article. 10 million indians are estimated existing in 1492, today, its 5 million. If that was genocide they did a very poor job of it. I dont personally believe in a white genocide but the article would be more credible if it had less biased sources that acknowledge events in South Africa, for a start. Youtube has clips of Nelson Mandella marching with crowds singing "kill the whites" as well as completely nonsensical apologia by its government dismissing concerns about violence against farmers. This lends no credibility to the article if it doesnt recognize there are factors that have caused beliefs in it.Batvette (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to open an RFC if you believe you can get consensus to include the material. You're not welcome to slow-mo edit-war the material - you've already been blocked once for this behavior. Either open an RFC or drop the stick and move on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

References

I've noticed that some of the references to Salon are linked to articles by Salon writers, and I've tried to identify those writers within the article. These articles have bylines, so they are not Salon's opinions. It's better to identify the authors by name and (if available) a description of who they are. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I like the article better with those attributions, but they aren't necessary or required by the rules. Marcotte is hardly the only one who has pointed out Tucker Carlson's use of the scare tactic, and plenty of outlets other than Vox have done the same for Ann Coulter and Steve King. Those are just the sources that came up at the top of searches for the pertinent keywords. EllenCT (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Another problematic sentence

"Conspiracists have shot or bombed at least 347 people to death since 1995 in increasingly frequent incidents, injuring at least 974 others."

I removed this sentence which appeared twice in the article as unsourced original research. EllenCT re-added it to the lead, arguing that this is an appropriate sum and does not violate WP:OR. The problem is that such a figure must require WP:SYNTH as every incident is very different, and belief in the conspiracy theory may not always the primary motivation of an attack, thus a firm number cannot be determined. WP:CALC requires that sums like this must be an "obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources", and this sentence does not meet that. funplussmart (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a sum of the sourced death and injury tolls in the "In domestic terrorism mass murders, 1995 to present" section. How is it not an obvious, correct, meaningful summation? Are you saying that there is any question that those nine incidents weren't perpetrated by conspiracists? Very rarely does an idea have a body count, let alone in the hundreds or from increasingly frequently occurring instances attributable to the rhetoric of major world leaders. Therefore I think it's highly noteworthy. EllenCT (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Year	Location	Killed	Injured
1995	Oklahoma	168	680
2000	Pittsburgh	5	1
2011	Norway	77	209
2014	Kansas	3	0
2015	Charleston	9	1
2017	Charlottesville	1	28
2018	Pittsburgh	11	7
2019	Christchurch	51	49
2019	San Diego	1	3
2019	El Paso	22	24
Total:		348	1,002

Summarizing the numbers in a little table in the article body would clarify it. @Funplussmart: Objections? François Robere (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for that. EllenCT (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Having a table is a bit better than text in the prose, but it still suffers the issues when the conspiracy theory is not the primary factor. In particular, I do not think the Oklahoma City bombing should be included in the table (or the article at all), because despite McVeigh owning and frequently alluding to a white supremacist book (The Turner Diaries), it was motivated by general anti-government sentiment and not a significant racial one. The book's anti-government themes had much greater relevance than its racial themes, and none of the sources cited mention McVeigh's racial views, only those of the book. funplussmart (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I added the table including the Charlottesville car attack too. EllenCT (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest normalizing all of the portraits on the right of the article to some smaller size than most of them are, leaving more space for the text and the table. François Robere (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

All the images are the default sizes, and it seems to flow okay now. I removed the Oklahoma City counts from the totals in the intro and put an asterisk on its line of the table with a further explanatory sentence at the end of its paragraph. EllenCT (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

If people don't like summary numbers in the intro, can we just say, "Proponents have killed hundreds and injured several hundred more in the past decade," at the end of the second paragraph? EllenCT (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Turning Point USA

See "Trump’s Favorite Right Wing College Activist Group Shares Photo With Nod to ‘White Genocide’ Conspiracy Theory" Doug Weller talk 16:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It's valid, but I'd prefer to have more mainstream coverage of the tweeted photo. EllenCT (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Future americans by Nat geo

Obviously i am not supporting white nationalists or such, but i dont think it's a myth to say that people will be less 'ethnically pure' in the future, as its easier to travel globally and other parts of the world are developing more and more, i think it's impossible to prevent races from blurring and mixing over time, and the more mixed we get the harder it would be probably.

Nat geo article: https://www.mic.com/p/national-geographic-determined-what-americans-will-look-like-in-2050-its-beautiful-16166684

i think this wiki page about white genocide seems a bit partisan, it's being called a conspiracy theory, but in my encounters with it, they were always worried about the disappearance of 'the white race', not by violence but just by mixing, which seems inevitable and nat geo seems to agree.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a458:9c45:1:bc79:7fb4:484:cf12 (talk • contribs)

It's a conspiracy theory because it's unfounded - the concept behind "white genocide" is that something or somebody is deliberately trying to "weaken the white race" by forcing immigration and interracial relationships. That's completely unfounded and doesn't have a shred of evidence, so it's a conspiracy theory. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!}

Agree. The NatGeo article is not relevant to this article. This article is about a conspiracy that there is a forced, elimination of a race (however the conspiracy pushers define race). O3000 (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

But our article says "White genocide is...based on pseudoscience". Wouldn't the National Geographic article be relevant in relation to our article's suggestion that there is a pseudoscientific basis for the supposed White genocide? The National Geographic article is saying: "It's no secret that interracial relationships are trending upward...Their numbers will only grow." Isn't the National Geographic article calling into question our claim of a pseudoscientific basis for the posited phenomenon of "White genocide"? Perhaps our article should note that there may be an underlying trend that coincides with the notion that "White people" may be reduced in numbers over the next 3 decades in the United States due to what are termed "interracial relationships". It should be noted of course that the article—White genocide conspiracy theory—is not only about the United States whereas the National Geographic article is only about the United States. Bus stop (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that interracial marriages (whatever that means) are forced on people? O3000 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The National Geographic article has nothing to do with the topic of this article – White Genocide Conspiracy Theory. Introducing an article about interracial relationships and blended race families and trying to related that in any way to the hoax of "white genocide" is an attempt at adding a false veneer of credibility to the myth of “white genocide” by torturing a source with a POV (one that is completely absent from the Nat Geo article) and creating a twisted WP:SYNTH. The idea that consensual relationships and blended race families may be related to or have anything to do with anything related to "genocide" is frankly beyond absurd. Consensual interracial relationships and blended race families and a fact of our time. "White Genocide" is not - it is a hoax and a conspiracy theory.

This new section also seems like an attempt to sidestep and continue the closed Rfc above -"RfC: Should the White genocide conspiracy theory page include any details about demographic change in majority white countries?" where a clear consensus was reached for not including demographic change. WP:DEADHORSE while not policy is a good idea here   // Timothy::talk  18:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "but i dont think it's a myth to say that people will be less 'ethnically pure' in the future" - yes it is a myth because the underlying idea that there is such a thing as "ethnic purity" is a myth outside of extremely rare, remote and isolated communities.   // Timothy::talk  18:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Along with the inherent problems with "ethnic purity" in those small groups. From today.[1] O3000 (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

How is White genocide conspiracy theory based on pseudoscience? Our article says "White genocide is a myth, based on pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and hatred, driven by a psychological panic often termed white extinction anxiety." Bus stop (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

For starts because of its relationship with Scientific racism, Biological determinism, Eugenics.   // Timothy::talk  19:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Racial admixture is neither genocide, which implies homicide, or a conspiracy theory, which implies deceit and/or coercion. Nor does it imply the extinction of any races, because of the tendency of people to be attracted to those of similar appearance more often than not. It's also generally meaningless because phenotypes are secondary characteristics to genetic ancestry, just along for the ride. Both reinforcement and hybridization are elements of genetic robustness, but have little to do with phenotypic appearance or physiology. The article clearly needs to explain these facts better, with WP:MEDRS sources. EllenCT (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I really like what you are saying – except I don’t think we want to get into WP:MEDRS sources, or any other scientific rationales to prove that a conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory. This theory is based upon pure racism and there are ample sources. Countries are not committing genocide against whites. I understand why some would like to provide scienterific explanations and why some others would like to hang their racist beliefs on statistics. But, let us be plain. No country is systematically putting white-skinned people in gas ovens. O3000 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000 // completely agree.   // Timothy::talk  05:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any sources for this, but it might be easy to call this pseudoscience based on the claim that "pure-bred whites" (whatever that means, seeing as whites are many tribes) are being diluted by interracial marriage, immigration, etc. WHILE NOT ALSO EMPHASIZING OR CARING ABOUT the fact that the same is true for "pure-bred blacks" (also many tribes), or "pure-bred indians" (also many variants), or "pure-bred Native Americans" (many tribes also.) The people subscribing to this theory don't seem to care about the dilution of other "races".

This is a good indicator of pseudoscience. Using data to support your conclusion, but failing to admit that that same data equally supports the opposite conclusion.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The article says: "White genocide is a myth, based on pseudoscience, pseudo-history, and hatred, driven by a psychological panic often termed white extinction anxiety." I'll ask this question again: How is the White genocide conspiracy theory based on pseudoscience? It is based on many things, one of which can be said to be pseudoscientific, but primarily it is a stance in opposition to what is perceived to be the marginalization of so-called White people. The National Geographic article is saying that the appearance of Americans will be less "white" in 30 years. An editor above points to Scientific racism, Biological determinism, and Eugenics as examples of a pseudoscientific basis for "White genocide conspiracy theory"—but how is the reader supposed to know that is what the Wikipedia article has in mind? More importantly, this can be misread in a way precisely at odds with the very fact that the "whiteness" of America is undergoing changes, as per the National Geographic article, that will result in an America that is less "white" in 30 years. Bus stop (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

1) The conspiracy theory is not about "what is perceived to be the marginalization of so-called White people.", (though it may be sold as such) it is about the decline from DOMINANCE that whites have had in many societies. (this is only being promoted by white SUPREMACISTS, not everyday white people.)

So SPECIFICALLY what changes would you like to see in the article? (What rephrasing and where?) This discussion has gotten too vague to be productive.---Avatar317^(talk) 03:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, "it is about the decline from DOMINANCE that whites have had in many societies." But why do you use upper case for the word "dominance"? Bus stop (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Asking questions like this is, at best, a pointless distraction. You are just wasting time instead of proposing improvements to the article. Tediously picking-over this one source, which does not mention this topic at all, is disruptive. Drop the stick. Grayfell (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Very strong language, few sources

There is so much criticism of the subject in this article that it is genuinely hard for me as a reader to even understand what the subject is which is being discussed. There is a section for "criticism and resistance" in the article, I would ask other editors to keep their criticism in the relevant section to ensure the article remains usable. If there is objection to a specific point of fact then by all means reference that in the appropriate line, but there are many criticisms through the article that are out of context or of a general nature which fragment it and make it unreadable.

I can see an edit war has taken place here, but I am astonished at how a paragraph like this can stand: "White genocide is a myth,[25][26] based on pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and hatred,[27] driven by a psychological panic often termed white extinction anxiety.[28][19] There is no evidence that white people are dying out or that they will die out, or that anyone is trying to exterminate them as a race.[29][30][31][32] The purpose of the conspiracy theory is to scare white people,[29] and justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda[33] in support of increasingly successful calls to violence.[25][23][22] Proponents have killed hundreds and injured several hundred more since 2011."

A.[27] is a citation of a writer, not an expert in the field- his work is only notable because of literary not scientific acclaim; it's also a very strong and broad claim to support with only a single citation. In any case it should be cited as the opinion of the author (eg. according to), not as an absolute.

B.[29] Is a biased source and should not be cited, Salon (website) own wikipedia page states that it is partisan and there is another more credible source already supporting this statement c.[30] again this is a secondary source from a non-expert, the Publication is described on it's wikipedia page as "..it has a liberal, progressive political position.[3] Jason Cowley, the magazine's editor, has described the New Statesman as a publication "of the left, for the left".[4]" d [31] is another article written by the same publication (salon)-Two citations from the same publication is highly suspect for a whole range of reasons E.. we see [29] used again in the same paragraph to support a very contentious claim, how important can salon be as a source that it warrants three of it's claims published in the first paragraph? Four citations, two from the same source and three from recognised partisan sources. Whoever did this should have known better.

F. [25][23][22] There has been a great leap here made by an editor in stating that violence is in fact the purpose of this theory/conspiracy theory. There has been a very sneak conflation grammatically here between "purpose of theory", "what the theory is used to justify" and "increasing success". As it stands it really reads like the theory was designed to cause violence, and the people to spread this view do so for this reason. That is obviously an editors view, but none of the citations bear out this leap.

G. "Proponents have killed hundreds and injured several hundred more since 2011." is a poorly defined claim and is completely uncited, it should be removed immediately

I will not make edits until a consensus is reached, but surely we can agree to remove the more blatant issues here

--1.159.83.54 (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

See the section above. Feel free to provide high quality sources that reflect your preferred point of view, if you can find them. Guy (help!) 12:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

How is this even a page?

Most of this page is literal talking points from the discredited Southern poverty law center, its laughable. in one section the page describes farm raides, which are well documented as "conspiracy theories" even though these are actual events, which are based on black racism in South Africa. The page than blathers about Fox News? Does David Brock control Wikkileaks now ? The bias against anybody not a hard line leftist "woke" Antifa type is laughable. You don't have to be a conservative leaner to see the incredible bias and nonscence in this page. Wikipedia has been ruined by leftist hacks, literally destroyed a good resource. Hopefully someone will build something better, without the "woke" social justice warrior stupitidy. Go woke, go broke. Wikipedias days are numbered. Even more laughable Think progress is quoted. This is hilarious — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth4673 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center is not discredited. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: "The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics." Dimadick (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Definitions and justifications of 'genocide' and 'replacement'

WP:NOTFORUM applies here - this is not a general discussion forum on the topic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is very little discussion of the validity of the claims made by white genocide proponents, so I thought I would discuss them here. In fact I think it's disgraceful the way this article has been written to accuse its proponents of being racist or white supremacists. I oppose mass immigration to my country on nationalist and liberal grounds, because nationalism establishes my title to the nation-state, which is the foundation of democracy. Anyway, let's see what we get back from some of the activists on this page: Genocide The UN Convention on Genocide 1948, Article 2 includes "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" in its definition of genocide. This started with the eugenics movement in the early 20th century and after that fell out of favor it continued with the same eugenicists under the abortion movement. In Western European countries, white women kill between 20 to 30% of their offspring. The replacement birth rate is 2.1 children per couple. The fall in birth rates is therefore a direct consequence of government policy. I've seen it said elsewhere that there is no evidence that white people are dying out. The birth rate below replacement rate is direct evidence of white people dying out. Whilst it's true that Western governments no longer sterilise Western women, they have lobbied for them to enter the workforce, thus increasing the supply of labor. The modern situation requires families to have two incomes to support what would previously have been achieved with one. Therefore the modern native family has much less time and resources to spend on parenting. Combine this with easy access to divorce and abortion and a good case for "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" can be made. Replacement It has often been cited by Western governments that immigration is necessary to compensate for the fall in native birth rates. Immigrants come in and are often supported by the taxpayer while they go on welfare. These immigrants may come from societies where it is common to have many more children than the native population. Many of their children would previously have died in childbirth, but now they are able to breed extensively at their host nation's expense. This benefits businesses because it further increases the supply of labor and it increases the size of government. It has therefore been government policy to increase immigration to Western countries to replace them. The definition of nationality has further been altered by Western governments from being born into a family belonging to a nation, to being born on the country's soil. This is the abolition of the nation-state in law. It is comparable to a person partaking in an inheritance without their family having been involved in the building of the estate. Previously the nation held sole title to the nation state through the monarch as the head of the nation. The only way the nation could be extended was by marriage. Now it has been said elsewhere that white people are not being replaced in their own nations, because to replace someone you have to remove them. This is false in the context of equity in an estate or territory. If other nations move into our country's territory, refuse to inter-marry and claim an equal title to our country along with us and our state governments recognise this claim, then our equity has been taken away, our ownership has been replaced. Finally, the Left in Western countries has long viewed immigrants as prospects for their proletarian revolution. While the natives often aspire to the petty bourgeoisie, some of the immigrants can be relied on to stay in a pitiful state of dependence on the state. They'll put the Left in power whereas their ideas would have otherwise been swept aside long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaceAche327 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Atrocious writing and unreliable sources.

The lead is written like and is sources like a college op ed, rather than an informative page. I myself believe white genocide is a nonsensical conspiracy theory but writing it in such a preachy opinionated matter underpinning it with obviously biased sources does more harm than good. Just after reading the lead, i have no interest in what i expect a pushy op ed main page filled will vulgarity and strong language. Harper's Magazine, Salon, Harper's Magazine, are not reliable according to list of reliable wiki sources. If you want to take over and write a preach page at least source it better. Quenreerer (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Glaring example: "The purpose of the conspiracy theory is to scare white people, and justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda" brought to you by an op-ed form SALON. Are we talking about a conspiracy theory in an informative manner or are we pushing our opinion in an, ironically, very conspiratorial manner on the reader? Quenreerer (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Salon is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources as biased, and should be attributed. Harper's Magazine is a perfectly good source. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Harper's Magazine isn't on the list and judging just by the page of the link you provided yourself it's definitely not a reliable source, as it has a history of fake news. Quenreerer (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Your judgement doesn't set Wikipedia policy. Harper's Magazine is cited many times on Wikipedia. The magazine's archives are listed as an available reliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Shared_Resources. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, the Southern Poverty Law Center speaks for itself, not everyone, so it's shouldn't be written in a manner that appears to speak with universal authority. Or it should be highlighted that it is the SPLCs position. Quenreerer (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, no, the SPLC is considered reliable. I'll point you again to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

In this situation it is part of their "Hatewatch" series which is their blogging arm.[2] With that and given their RSP entry I think attributing the statement to them is fine. PackMecEng (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Harper's also describes it as a myth, helpfully. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

We generally do not use just the headline. They do not call it a myth in the body of the article, but better than nothing. We shouldn't really be using sources in the lead though. PackMecEng (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• And blocked by Doug Weller. PackMecEng (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

What a weird article

Hello people.

I started reading it, and, sorry, but I found this so bad I did NOT read most of it; so excuse me for some misrepresentation, but, still (I wont be surprised if most people do as I did: this article may be great satisfaction for already convinced left political activists, but is just useless to anyone else). I also looked at the talk section but not all of it, so I may repeat things already said (and, obviously, not addressed).
It is SO bad, for the reason below:

• Wikipedia refers theories, even crank one, under their name: Flat Earth (not ″cranky flat earth theory″), creationism (not ″stupid creationism″) , Vaccine hesitancy (not ″vaccine conspiracy theory″) etc. Meanwhile they may be tagged (pseudoscience, conspiracy theory, etc.) and are, for sure, debunked. Why would it be different here? ie, why is this theory not named White genocide, just like Black genocide, and why does it lacks some conspiracy sidebar (not all conspiratorial article have it, but, still)?
• The article push a narrative which is literally ANOTHER conspiracy theory:

″The purpose of the {theory} is to scare white people, and justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda″

THIS (ie, the notion that some evil mastermind spawned the theory as a tool) should be the content under an article named White genocide conspiracy theory, duly tagged as crank and debunked just as well, instead of being pushed as real and encyclopedic.

• the article does a fairly poor job to distinguish

-anthropological facts. The concept of "white" is messy itself (biologists consistently dismiss racialism, so Race (human categorization) are mainly social and hence local: a "white" or an "asian" are not the same in UK, Italy or USA. Depending on who is speaking, it may often mean some ethnic group more than a racial group.

-demographic facts (racial lines are bluring, places that were ″white″, for whatever that means, are not anymore. OTOH if someone/some group of evil world masters really aimed at white genocide, well, they do a very poor job at it, as the sheer numbers show)

-very different discourse. One thing is to dimiss the concept of ″white″ (ie: "it should be better known that race is a irrelevant concept for homo sapiens, so people should stop referring themselves and others as white, black or whatever" --ie they want Color blindness (racial classification)). Others DO wants white people all dead (the crankiness of the ″white genocide″ theory being that these fairly rare extremists somehow run the world)

-interpretation of the facts and discourse (eg: the color blindness discourse can be understood as racist)

-identity politics (which are not even mentioned, BTW; how silly)

• the article really do not help understanding why people would believe or push the ″white genocide″ narrative, the way Black genocide does before introducing Black_genocide#Conspiracy_theories

So to sum up I think this article should be rewritten, using the far better Black genocide article as template

• renamed white genocide;
• facts that are (wrongly) interpreted as supporting the theory clearly stated;
• greatly shortened. The theory is crank enough not to require so lengthy debunking. And the source for the debunking should be better chosen, to many are just partisan;
• a separated White_genocide#Conspiracy_theories section established (focus on the ″illuminati/jews/whoever run the world″ stuff)
• also, a separated and different White genocide conspiracy theory should focus on the crank notion that some evil mind(s) invented the theory with ″The purpose ... to scare white people, and justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda″ (that could include many of the current ″sources″ of the article).

Bye, take care — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:e0a:1dc:4570:9c4b:66cb:676c:fec0 (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Black genocide is real. White genocide is a conspiracy theory. Obviously, this article should not be patterned on the black genocide article any more than the Flat Earth article should patterned after the Earth article. O3000 (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• White genocide is a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy really does need to be spelled-out in the title, because without that, there would be no article at all. We've also seen, from this talk page and elsewhere, that it's not crank enough to debunk itself. As an encyclopedia, we should attempt to act as a reality check to people who want info on this stuff.

The conspiracy is made by presenting random isolated factoids as if they point to a simple, alarming trend, while ignoring all the rest of the picture. These data points are arranged for ideological, not scientific, purposes. In other words, this is the semi-intentional misrepresentation of data to sway the larger population into ignoring the larger picture. If nothing else, this is is appealing for exactly the same reasons as any other conspiracy theory.

Slicing the article into two separate conspiracy theories would be implying that one has some sort of legitimacy and the other doesn't. This would be false for multiple reasons. The difference is only a matter of how blatant the conspiracy theorists are being about it. The meat of it is the same.

The part about racialism seems too much like original research. Race is a social construct, but so is language. Social constructs can be important, even vitally important. Since we are describing a false theory about race, what matters is how people treat "race" in this context. People act on racialist beliefs in both explicit and implicit ways, and we really need to use reliable sources to explain how this ties into this conspiracy theory. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"Myth"

Where is the non biased reporting on this article? This is absolutely ridiculous and needs to be fixed. This is not a joke, and it is wildly unacceptable. Irishcoffeebeansídhe (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"White genocide" is a conspiracy theory, or a myth if you like, based on many, many reliable sources. The article has 316 references, so if you have a specific issue, you're need to spell it out. Grayfell (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources are unequivocal on this being a conspiracy theory. As a result, Wikipedia says it is a conspiracy theory.

You might want to consider Conservapedia or, more likely, Metapedia. While I'm not willing to look to see Metapedia's coverage on the topic, I have no doubt they too feel this is a very serious issue as well. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Irishcoffeebeansídhe: You are welcome to edit in Wikipedia as long as you observe its pillars & its policies & guidelines. Peaceray (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Is it time for a FAQ up there among the bazillion talk page message boxes?

[moved to FAQ at top of talk page]

EllenCT (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this article is extremely biased. Even though most of the paranoia is probably unfounded or over the top, there are sources and groups of people who have explicitly said that a less white Europe or world is desired. Strangely, none on this is found in this article as possibly sources of why people keep believing this, there should be at least a section of people calling for white replacement and their arguments because they exist. Right now, it is made to see as if all the theory is based on delusions but some of it is based on actual statements of people. Wikipedia should strive for being more objective with these topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:9B81:D84E:7AE2:D026 (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the white genocide conspiracy theory. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about the conspiracy theory. Wikipedia does not present data that might be relevant to prove or disprove the conspiracy theorists' theory, unless independent reliable sources directly relate that data to the conspiracy theory.

For example, if this article were about bananas, we might state (based on reliable sources saying it) that bananas are often recommended by nutritionists as a source of potassium. We would not, however, use sources that say nothing about bananas to say that most people do/do not get enough potassium, diabetics need more potassium, processed foods generally lack/have lots of potassium, shipping from equatorial regions to the the rest of the world produces green house gasses, etc. The only way we would include those topics and that data is if it is in independent reliable sources directly discussing the topic of the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I still think it makes the article look one-sided. The problem is that "reputable sources" many times don't discuss such things out of taboo so you have to go to the raw data and make your own conclusions. Otherwise is just a parroting of the mainstream viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:A746:7C35:ADA8:A9EA (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You go ahead and draw your own conclusions. We'll continue to reflect what reliable sources say. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources -- those "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" -- say about a subject. Unreliable sources tell us the Earth is flat, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, various genocidal dictators were nice guys who had no idea their forces were slaughtering millions, and plenty of other things that Wikipedia has no interest in discussing. Yes, coverage of those issues is one-sided, other than to report the existence of significant deniers/revisionists/etc. and that the overwhelming consensus is that they are deniers/revisionists/etc. and their theories are nonsense on stilts. That's the case here. The conspiracy theory has no meaningful support in reliable sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

So is the population of white people going up or down?

I'm a little confused and this article doesn't make anything clear. 174.26.139.242 (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't know because there's no good source for what the "population of white people" is right now, or in the past. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

If you see any answer to this question other than that they are staying the same, please ask the source to try to reconcile it with anything from 21st century genetic ancestry studies e.g. [3] and see what they say. The correct answer is that the general proportions of race categories stay constant, because some people are more attracted to their race, and some people are more attracted to others'. Most of the big population swings in the proportion of all humans over the past century have been in Asia, involving neither Caucasians or Africans (technically reducing their relative numbers, although not in relation to each other, even as the absolute quantity of all races grew.) Anyone who believes they have a non-steady state answer to this question is probably cooking the books. Even if you assume that Africans will migrate to Europe and many fewer Europeans will migrate to Africa, the answer is still the same, in that the proportion of blacks to whites is determined by individual coupling, not just who is nearby. [4] is a good op-ed source for understanding the social dynamics involved. Here's a Google Scholar citation list of the main academic paper it cites, which is not so interesting in and of itself (it's a study of how people react when they learn that the US Census allowing mixed-race categories results in saying there will be fewer pure races, not just immediately, but in the future) as the conversation which has sprung up in the papers citing it, many if not most of which fill in the obvious gaps in the cited (and paywalled, sorry) work linked at the top of those Scholar results. Very few people alive today are likely to see the relative proportion of any human genetic allele vary by more than ~10%, other than those explicitly selected for or against by contemporary environmental factors. (The novel coronavirus seems to be more deadly based on non-readily apparent genetic variations, by the way, but it's not anywhere near deadly enough to modify overall human genetic composition.) In short, there's more of everyone and probably will be long after we see this planet in our rear view mirrors. Think about how deadly skin cancer is, and how much black skin protects against it. You don't see the population of blacks exploding because of that; maybe 250,000 years ago on the latitudinal banks of the Mediteranian was the last time you could. If skin cancer from forgetting sunscreen isn't taking white people out, 170+ countries' constantly varying immigration and guest worker program policies don't stand much of a statistical chance. EllenCT (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's ultimately irrelevant whether the population is actually shifting or not. This article is about racist worries over non-white people having kids, interracial marriages, and delusional claims deliberate genocide; not actual population shifts. If one is not racist, the first two ideas (non-white people having kids and interracial marriages) are no big deal (in fact, in some areas, it's a good idea). If one is not an idiot, the idea of deliberate genocide of white people is utter nonsense. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to acknowledge that several British cities are minotity ethnic British by now and that the date for full minority status is 2066 in Britain, and I think 2060 in the Netherlands etc, the predictions came from respectable people and naming the cities already where it happened would be the least this article could do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathugger (talk • contribs) 13:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic Britons have been a minority for a wee bit longer than that.... CIreland (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia articles are not compilations of data for/against various theories. Information which editors believe to be relevant should not be included.

Wikipedia articles are meant to summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. The topic here is the white genocide conspiracy theory. You would need an independent reliable source discussing that data in the context of the white genocide conspiracy theory. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This is only relevant to actual genocide, say Amerindian genocide in colonial times, not conspiracy theories. O3000 (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

FAQ question for the top of this page

Can we add a FAQ question to the top of this page (like here: Talk:Abortion) explaining why we don't include info about the white race number/percentage decline so people don't keep asking about it? So we can just point them to the FAQ at the top?

I haven't been following this page for very long, but in that time there seems to be an inordinate number of editors with that question. I don't have much knowledge of this area so I don't want to be the person to write it, but the comments in the recent discussions seem to explain this quite well and could be conglomerated to give a Q/A. Thanks! ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, a FAQ usually has more than one Q&A. Propose some text? I'm sorry I've been busy as heck since lockdown. I added a very bare-bones Q&A:

Q2. Why doesn't this article include extrapolations of human genetic phenotype expression into the future?
A2. WP:NOTCRYSTAL.

@Avatar317: I hope you can improve on that? EllenCT (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I've formatted the FAQ a bit, and while looking through the archives for this talk page, the most common topic of discussion is the legitimacy of the South African farm attacks as an example of the theory, so I've added a Q regarding that as well. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This Article Reads Like a Conspiracy Theory...

Ok, that's enough. This page is not a forum for discussing whether or not someone's armchair analysis of demographic trends proves or disproves this conspiracy theory. We describe the conspiracy theory itself; we neither attempt to prove nor disprove it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Change the line about it being a "White supremacist conspiracy theory" and make it a "conspiracy theory believed by many white supremacist groups." You don't need to be a white supremacist to be afraid of racists on either side starting a dumb war and being caught in the middle of it and your wording doesn't reflect that. 2600:1017:B10F:7380:8F96:95B5:FDB1:F32A (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See also WP:NPOV for why I'm not going to take your opinion at face value in an article about a conspiracy theory... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:DENY

There are countless of news and science articles that clearly chart changing demographic realities. Yet this article does not actually take stock of that reality everyone is aware of and instead goes at length about white supremacists. There is a jarring and obvious disconnect here; the changing population demographics and mathematics are strict facts separate entirely from anything any conspiracy theorist make of them and yet if you read the article you would never know that. The ironic thing about this terrible article is that it almost does more to validate the idea there is a conspiracy going by the way it so obviously goes so out of its way to dance around obvious demographic mathematical facts and trends while trying to blame the whole notion on a group that would discredit it by association. Given the mathematical facts this article almost seems to call anyone who believes the 100% valid demographic projections must be a 'white supremacist' which is clearly ludicrous. Glahera476 07:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC) This entire article needs to be deleted or fixed to explain how the white supremacist conspiracy theories actually differs from demographic realities; but to actually do that it actually needs to touch on what those demographics realities are instead of so obviously avoiding them. From a little bit up this talk page (Beyond My Ken put it nicely): This article, however is not about any possible decline in the white population -- if you want to write that article go ahead, and good luck -- it's about a conspiracy theory that posits the supposed decline is the result of dark forces and constitutes genocide. Even if the absolute numbers are declining, that is not evidence in support of the white genocide conspiracy theory, since there are other, more reasonable and rational, explanations. Occam's Razor, you know. Mvbaron (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC) "if you want to write that article go ahead", and what would it be called? The 'White Genocide Theory' or 'De Facto White Genocide'? The way such a title would overlap with this one is not an issue? The way they would go out of their way to NOT address their relationship at all relative to one another or how they differ would not be extremely odd? Also this article seems to simply decide of itself that 'White Genocide' means something exclusively Nazi and conspiratorial instead of a being simplistic alarmist way of describing obvious implications as a mathematical/statistical fact alluded to all the time in media of changing demographic realities current and projected. Take the article of the Swastika as an example; it clearly talks about its Nazi aspect and it non-Nazi aspects. This article should be doing a similar thing and separating the demographic realities that are mathematical facts from whatever conspiracy the Neo-Nazis spout; but again to do that and not seem conspiratorial yourself you need to actually touch on said facts instead of painstakingly avoiding them. Considering these facts are common currency in modern media and have obvious mathematical basis that this article avoids it and that there is no article on wikipedia that details the underlying demographic facts at all seems like the biggest conspiracy at play here. Glahera476 09:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC) The fact that you don't seem to be able to differentiate between "genocide" and "population change" (whatever that may be) tells me that there is no discussion here. Your suggestion "de facto white genocide" and your allusions to a grand wikipedia conspiracy say it all. Goodbye. Mvbaron (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC) I did differentiate; I called it 'De facto' genocide, or we can call it 'population and genetic replacement in mathematical fact' but obviously that is too wordy isn't it? But really this is arguing semantics and trying to dance around the fundamental mathematical facts at play here. You can get as offended as you like about whatever it is called but if you refuse to even address it but avoid it in such a conspiratorial manner the only one doing a disservice to facts and trying to hide them here is you. And it is telling in the end really your only defense against this fact is to imply everyone who disagrees with you must be Nazi or Conspiracy nut without you defending that nonsense in anyway whatsoever even remotely. And you wonder why this article reads like a conspiracy joke to most people who probably come here after reading 1 of 10 different news reports about changing demographics? This article clearly needs to be rewritten or deleted and there is no room for debate if Mvbaron is making the best case there is for how it currently stands. Goodbye Indeed. Anyone not politically biased or sensitive to the extent they feel the need to hide obvious mathematical related facts wish to participate in this talk? Glahera476 17:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Should we also have an article about the decrease in the number of people with blue eyes titled blue eyes genocide? O3000 (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC) In the 1960s, the #1 name chosen for girls was "Karen". As of last year, it's down to #643. This is not a "Karen genocide conspiracy theory" because there is no genocide claimed and no conspiracy theory. Instead, there has been a gradual change over the years such that something absurdly common is now far less common. The difference in this article is there are a lot of white supremacists who have decided that there is a clandestine plan by a large number of people (it would have to be several hundred thousand at the very least) working together over several generations to attempt to eliminate the imaginary "white race". This article is about that conspiracy theory. If you feel you have sufficient sources directly discussing the declining number of people who identify as white (or the precipitous drop in the number of "Karens" being born), you can try to write that article. This is not that article. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC) To take your example of blue eyes; if this is a mathematical fact irrelevant of any others SOMEWHERE on the article page about blue eyes 100% it should be talked about that is a FACT blue eyes are disappearing. How on Earth could that not be a part of the same article and is not relevant to 'Blue Eyes' to make the page? Why would something like that ever be omitted from a topic it is clearly relevant too? Similarly somewhere on this page it should take stock of the FACT white people are a declining population in lands where they are indigenous like Europe and what the long term result would JUST LIKE we should not omit the long term fate of Blue Eyes because some people are politically sensitivities to talking about a neutral fact. Again like the Swastika article example; there is NOT 2 different article to talk about the Hindu Swastika vs the Nazi one. It is one and the same article even though they basically have very little to do with one another it would be jarring to talk about one and not even acknowledge the other. That is exactly what this whole article is doing now. You can do semantic and logic somersaults to avoid talking about the obvious mathematical facts everyone is aware of and confronted with all the time in the media and news but the refusal to touch on it all almost speaks of a bias in itself. ALso, lets get this straight, we have an article to deal with a conspiracy theory bandied about by a few tens of thousands of online right wing trolls compared to wide spread accepted facts about changing demographics that make the news all the time for years basically everyone in the World has seen but we have an article only about the latter but not the former? And this isn't glaringly STRANGE to anyone? Glahera476 17:30, 29 June 2020 (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.

Lede sentence needs some clarity

Hello, the first sentence is very long and I wouldn't know how to begin to fix it, so maybe someone can help? I see that low fertility rates and abortion are considered part of the conspiracy, but it doesn't specify "of white people." Should it? Or is it considered the fact that birth control and abortions are supported for all threatening enough? Thank you. Yo bailaba (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The topic is interchangeable with the subject

...if you know what I mean. You know what I mean, right? No? I expect many readers of that sentence in the lead don't, either: most of this article's lead is well-written and easy to follow, but the last paragraph contains the unnecessarily opaque line The topic in relation to South Africa and Zimbabwe is also simply used interchangeably with the subject. What is "the topic" and what is "the subject"?

• "The topic of attacks on farmers in relation to South Africa and Zimbabwe is also simply used interchangeably with the subject of white genocide"?
• "The topic of white genocide in relation to South Africa and Zimbabwe is also simply used interchangeably with the subject of farm attacks there"?
• "The topic of white genocide in relation to South Africa and Zimbabwe is also simply used interchangeably with the subject of white genocide"?
• Something else?

-sche (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I favor removal. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The editor who added that line in 2018 was blocked, and was also a sock. Grayfell (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I took a stab at removal with this rewording job. Feel free to modify the wording to better summarize the cited sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi protection?

So the real reason for semi protection on this page is so nobody can call out the lies. Wickilies (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

No, the real reason it's semi-protected is to prevent all the people who come here demanding that the it be changed according to their personal preferences -- but without a single WP:reliable sources to support those preferences -- can't muck up the article, causing other editors to have to clean up the mess. In other words, it's to protect the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I buy that. The entire article is improperly referenced. Calling white genocide a myth based on one Guardian article can hardly be considered objective. Canuck82 (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)— Canuck82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I can't imagine what article you are looking at. The first cite lists several sources saying the conspiracy theory -- the feverish dream of white supremacists that there is a secret worldwide conspiracy working to kill off the imaginary "white race" -- is pure nonsense. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

Remove the following paragraph:

"White genocide is a myth,[22][23][15] based on pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and hatred,[24] driven by a psychological panic often termed white extinction anxiety.[25][16] There is no evidence that white people are dying out or that they will die out, or that anyone is trying to exterminate them as a race.[26][27][28][21] The purpose of the conspiracy theory is to scare white people,[26] and justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda[29] in support of increasingly successful calls to violence.[22][20][19]"

-There is no evidence that anyone is trying to exterminate white people as a race. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that white people are dying out: The population has decreased over the years and the birth rate is below threshold -It is not the job of Wikipedia to designate the agenda behind a particular theory -Overall, this paragraph is very rhetorical and not up to standards with other introductions present on wikipedia pages. 2601:48:4301:9620:1572:3C01:C383:C7D2 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per the FAQ at the top of this page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the WP standard?

The following discussion 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.

---

In line with several other users who have already expressed their concerns (every single discussions above), I would like to clarify how far this article is from a "normal" WP article. The tone of the article is extremely one-sided, some sources are even hardly citable (e.g. GQ, a "men's magazine" that "focuses on fashion, style, and culture for men, food, movies, fitness, sex, music, travel, sports, technology, and books"), there are too many citations to questionable "scholars", such as "Barbara Perry" who has studied in Carleton University and now teaches in "University of Ontario Institute of Technology (?)", both ranked 701-800 in ARWU, cases of WP:SYNTH, etc. Furthermore, there exists a much covered, important issue, and that is a clear, doubtless decline of the white population even at home, in the Europe. This is not even subtly mentioned in the article.

• The last days of a white world: "Non-Europeans will become a majority and whites a minority in the UK. That would probably be the first time an indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority in its historic homeland". "Where America goes, Europe follows 30 years later. There is a potential for whites to become a minority in some European countries".
• Reflecting a demographic shift, 109 U.S. counties have become majority nonwhite since 2000
• The US white majority will soon disappear forever
• As America Changes, Some Anxious Whites Feel Left Behind.

So, either a completely new article is needed to properly address this widely-covered and important issue, regarding that this one is meant to be devoted to the so-called "conspiracy theory" version (which is also reflected in various sources), or this article shall be constructed from the ground up, whose first step is changing the title to a more descent one that also covers all these aspects.MS 会話 05:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Your assessment of Wikipedia's views on reliable sources is flawed, and your comparison to unspecified other articles is naive and ambiguous. As you mention, this point has already been discussed several times, and I will add that most of these discussions have been tedious and similarly misguided. Counting Great Replacement, we already have two articles for this nonsense. Absolutely no reliable sources are saying that white people, as a whole, are in peril, so there's no meat to this hypothetical third article. Demographics are always shifting, and white people have always been poorly-defined as a group. There's nothing to it outside of extremely vague threats to white supremacy, which is a fear that's been stoked for centuries already. We've already seen countless editors attempt to use "demographic change" as a euphemism for... something nefarious, but of course, there's no common thread other than this racialized anxiety. It's not nefarious, or even statistically meaningful, just because it's slightly uncomfortable to some people, and a collection of loosely-connected op-ed sources is a very poor starting-point for a neutral article. Grayfell (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• "comparison to unspecified other articles" I didn't get that?
• Great Replacement is "is a white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory which states that, with the complicity or cooperation of "replacist" elites, the white French population—as well as white European population at large—is being progressively replaced with non-European peoples". Well, I was basically not talking about that. France? white nationalist? far-right? I talked about neither. It's so simple, I just said the white population has declined (death rate > growth rate) in The Europe and the US, which is notable enough to be covered and supported by thousands of high-quality sources, like those I mentioned.
• Euphemism for what? Complete your sentence.
• "statistically meaningful"? Well I actually know a thing or two about statistics. Not sure what you mean by this. Be more clear.
• So, The Guardian and National Geographic are "loosely-connected op-ed" and GQ is RS, huh? MS 会話 05:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• You do know that it's quite possible for a group's percentage of a population to go down, while their absolute numbers go up, right? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. However, the absolute numbers are not going up either; the US white fertility rate based on the latest census is 1.82 (and even if you were correct, that would not have been different, and I would have corrected myself and continued with percentage and not numbers. What matters is that the white population decline is a fact, supported by a plethora of RS and hence deserves an article). MS 会話 06:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This article, however is not about any possible decline in the white population -- if you want to write that article go ahead, and good luck -- it's about a conspiracy theory that posits the supposed decline is the result of dark forces and constitutes genocide. Even if the absolute numbers are declining, that is not evidence in support of the white genocide conspiracy theory, since there are other, more reasonable and rational, explanations. Occam's Razor, you know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, what you just said is exactly what I've been considering. I'm going for the "completely new article" option. Regards MS 会話 06:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a conspiracy theory, held primarily by white supremacists, claiming that there is a coordinated, clandestine effort to eradicate the supposed "white race". This article is about that white supremacist conspiracy theory. Sources used in this article must be directly discussing the conspiracy theory. Sources about other topics (demographic drift, population data, the Van Allen radiation belt, etc.) have no place here as this article is not about those topics and using anything from them to support arguments which are not directly stated in the source is original research.

If you would like an article discussing demographic drift, you will need to find independent reliable sources discussing demographic drift. That's a huge topic which would discuss a lot of material having nothing to do with the fears you are discussing here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance. However, it is worth noting that grouping the Van Allen radiation belt and demographic drift in the same category, as well as seeing no relationship between population data and replacement of ethnic groups requires an extremely poor intuition and impaired common sense. Regards MS 会話 07:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not a matter of whether or not you or I see a connection between information and the topic. If the source does not directly discuss the topic (the conspiracy theory) it does not belong here. That's neither "poor intuition" nor "impaired common sense". A source discussing demographic drift that does not discuss the conspiracy theory is off-topic, as is a source discussing the radiation belt, cheese sandwiches, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"Shifting percentages of a population" is to "replacement" as "walking due West in Denver" is to "Stop walking in that direction immediately, or you will fall into the Pacific in a few months!!!"

"Shifting percentages of a population" is to "genocide" as "walking due East in Denver" is to "Whoever made you walk in that direction is trying to kill you by drowning you in the Atlantic!!!"

So, please stop trying to add population statistics to the article, they have nothing to do with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

---Nietzsche.

Seriously, let's put this argument aside for a while so you have time to reconsider those Salon, GQ, The Conversation, The Daily Beast, Gawker, HuffPost, TESOL Working Paper Series, ThinkProgress, Business Insider, Soundings (British New Left), Hatewatch, Vice, Refinery29, etc, etc, as well as the fact that the whole article is built on op-eds. We'll discuss the relevant proverbial themes later if time permits. MS 会話 14:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Before this discussion closes, I want to head off the misleading statement the whole article is built on op-eds. I have reviewed the first 40 sources cited, and only two of those are what I would consider commentary/op-ed: these are far outnumbered and outweighed by published books and academic sources, I was somewhat surprised to see. Newimpartial (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, add to these 3 citations to Salon, 1 to GQ, 1 to Dailybeast, 1 to Huffpost, 1 to Reason, and 1 to The Ubyssey. I didn't check for op-eds (and have no intention to do so), but guess must be more. MS 会話 16:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but none of those are op-eds, and all of them seem to meet reliable sourcing standards in this context. If you want to object to a particular source or how it is used, do so by all means, but remember that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy-compliant argument. Newimpartial (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually not going to make any changes to this article; I will likely create another one as said above. The sources I mentioned are those whose reliability has been challenged (in other contexts), mostly with "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" status or less in WP:RSP. For example: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." which the article fails to fulfill except in few cases. I really doubt if GQ "meets reliable sourcing standards in this context". MS 会話 16:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The parts where the article says "Amanda Marcotte, writing in Salon,..." are the attribution. If you are finding examples where you feel it should be attributed but isn't, you can either fix it or emptily complain about it here without making any changes.

If you doubt that GQ meets the requirements at RS, you can take it to the reliable sources noticeboard or emptily complain about it here without making any changes. I would, however, point out that the last discussion on GQ was for similar material on Antifa and the discussion was pretty much unanimous.

If there's anything else you'd like to complain about but not change, please keep in mind that this page is for discussing improvements to the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, MS96, essentially all of the Salon citations are attributed in the article. It might be be best to verify your facts before making provocative statements here. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of the conspiracy theory is to scare white people [26] ... and ref. 26 is Salon. And, there are various other cases. SummerPhD, I began writing here to know if "either a completely new article is needed to properly address this widely-covered and important issue, regarding that this one is meant to be devoted to the so-called "conspiracy theory" version (which is also reflected in various sources), or this article shall be constructed from the ground up, whose first step is changing the title to a more descent one that also covers all these aspects.", as said above. And it ended up here despite concluding that the "completely new article" seemed a better choice, long ago. MS 会話 17:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Just so that we are clear, the example provided by MS96 is from the Lede, which is intended to summarise the article as a whole. In principle, citations should not be used in the lede at all, and while it can be argued that the less to this article is too long and detailed, there would certainly be nothing gained by adding attribution there. Newimpartial (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys (and specially SummerPhDv2.0), what about this one?

• A FEAR OF 'WHITE EXTINCTION' IS PROVOKING RACIAL BIAS AMONG AMERICAN WHITES "New research finds that such fears are provoked by demographic shifts"

I was seriously going to leave this, but the FAQ comment below was a real trigger. I could provide a lot more. :) MS 会話 22:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey "guys" (and specially Ms96, what about this one?

• Electron Acceleration in the Heart of the Van Allen Radiation Belts "The Van Allen radiation belts contain ultrarelativistic electrons trapped in Earth’s magnetic field."

It seriously doesn't discuss the white nationalist conspiracy theory saying a super-secret cabal is trying to kill off the imagined white race. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Right! It doesn't support Ms96's position at all. It just says that people are believing stuff, not that the stuff is real. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get that v2.0. The topic reads "A FEAR OF WHITE EXTINCTION IS PROVOKING RACIAL BIAS AMONG AMERICAN WHITES". And you know this phrase redirects here, right? And the very next sentence is "New research finds that such fears are provoked by demographic shifts". And how all of this is connected to your random article about Van Allen belt? Binksternet "It just says that people are believing stuff, not that the stuff is real." Did I EVER say that this stuff is real or imaginary? MS 会話 04:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you don't get it.

This article is about 1) a conspiracy theory 2) held by white supremacists 3) that there is a deliberate effort to end the mythical "white race". Your article does not include a conspiracy theory, white supremacists or deliberate effort. It's the difference between thinking there is a cabal of real estate agents plotting to murder your neighbor to get her house and thinking, "Gee, Katarina's getting pretty old. She might not make it to Christmas."

Your source does not discuss the white supremacist conspiracy theory aiming for the extinction of the "white race". It is off topic. My article on the radiation belt doesn't belong here for exactly the same reason. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Wait a minute, is this article about "white extinction" or not? I repeat the topic of that source: A FEAR OF WHITE EXTINCTION IS PROVOKING RACIAL BIAS AMONG AMERICAN WHITES and the next sentence: New research finds that such fears are provoked by demographic shifts. Can you actually see? You cast doubt on the relationship between demographic shift/change/drift by saying "A source discussing demographic drift that does not discuss the conspiracy theory is off-topic, as is a source discussing the radiation belt" and "Sources about other topics (demographic drift, population data, the Van Allen radiation belt, etc.) have no place here as this article is not about those topics and using anything from them to support arguments which are not directly stated in the source is original research." That source, as well as those I provide below clearly state that the demographic changes and this theory are connected:

• "The great replacement, also known as white genocide, is summed up by its name: a secretive cabal of elites, often Jewish, is trying to deliberately destroy the white race through demographic change in importing immigrants and refugees.Your beloved GC
• White genocide was one branding possibility, but that label has failed to take off — perhaps because a claim of “genocide” requires unmistakable mass death, and what we’re talking about here is gradual, peaceful demographic change.nytimes

So I see demographic change is not considered an "other topic" (hence very different with the Van Allen belt, which has most probably never been used together with this theory in a single article), and there exists relationship between demographic change and this theory, don't you? If not, please ask for a WP:3O from an admin, on whether these two concepts are related or not. MS 会話 05:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:SYNTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I've read it multiple times, have you? "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I quoted the exact sentences from the sources (hence no combination). Additionally, I have no intention to combine them for any purpose. The first source I provided is perfectly enough, but just want to show that there are several people who think these two concepts are connected MS 会話 05:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

3O isn't needed, someone in this thread just needs to read WP:1AM. This article is not about "white extinction." It is about a racist fantasy that dem culluhd folks iz tryin' ta wipe us white folk out through riots, miscegenation, and political correctness. Actual population shifts are about as relevant to the fact that JFK actually died is to John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, or the Queen of England's is to David Icke's claims the British royals are lizard people. Hell, even interpreting the population data as if interracial children are a decrease in the white population is a result of the racist One-drop rule. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"Actual population shifts are about as relevant to the fact that JFK actually died is to John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories"... it is clearly stated in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories that he actually died, right? So why not mention here the "Actual population shifts"? MS 会話 10:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Because there is no causal relationship provided, which would be suggested by inclusion. O3000 (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this article about something (conspiracy theory or whatever) called "White extinction" or not? MS 会話 18:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The term "extinction" is disturbing, as if whites are a separate species. Likely why it is used by racists. Some of the people behind this conspiracy theory believe whites are being killed off by blacks. Some believe mixing of "races" are reducing "racial purity". In any case, i don't think we should be adding data that somehow suggests validity to this conspiracy theory. O3000 (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You're now talking about a completely different issue, far away from that "no causal relationship" stuff. "Extinction" has been widely used in this context by several sources, some of which are already in the article. "i don't think we should be adding data that" ...let's not argue about what you like and what you don't. Anyway, I don't see any "data that somehow suggests validity to this conspiracy theory" in that source? Also did not answer if this article is about "white extinction" or not? MS 会話 19:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The study your article is citing, Ms96, is not about 'white extinction' as an actual (alleged) phenomenon; it is about 'collective existential threat' as a motivating factor in racist attitudes. The parallel to 'JFK actually died' is, ahem, hard to see, given the sources provided. There is no there there. Newimpartial (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

A direct answer for you Ms96: This article is NOT about "white extinction". If it were, that would be the title. Instead, this article is about the white genocide conspiracy theory. Thus, we have cleverly titled it "White genocide conspiracy theory". Sources discussing "white extinction", the Van Allen radiation belt, cheese sandwiches, etc. are all off topic and do not belong here. Yes, there are some people who are horrified that it is becoming harder to argue who is or isn't "white" (for whatever reasons they deem that to be important). That is not a conspiracy theory. That is a "there is directionless change and I don't like change" theory Personally, I'm done here. Ms96's arguments have found no traction. We're done. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. This article is about the white extinction conspiracy theory, not about white extinction. Just like the chemtrail conspiracy theory article is about a conspiracy theory, not about biological agents sprayed over the population by the government. It would not be proper to add to the chemtrali article data showing an increase in chemicals in the air – and it isn’t proper here to show demographic changes. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. O3000 (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, what you call "collective existential threat" is very clearly termed "white extinction" in the reference itself; let's just be faithful to it. Also, please don't blame me on that phenomenal JFK comparison, it was another user's literally masterpiece [5].

So, there are 2 choices: based on SummerPhDv2.0, (1) A new paged titled "White extinction" could be made. I highly doubt about this, because it would be a clear WP:CONTENTFORK. In addition, the "If it were, that would be the title instead" logic is not sound; based on this, a large amount of content in all WP articles should be deleted, such as limburger sandwich and egg sandwich from cheese sandwich, as only the latter appears in the title. (2) See if a majority of the community thinks this way, per WP:DR guidelines. I want to add this sentence to the article: Some research suggest that fears of white extinction are provoked by demographic shifts, since the white population is in decline in the US and Europe [6][7][8] MS 会話 05:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see where such a line would have a place in this article, the topic of which is the conspiracy theories themselves that it's all a purposeful plot against White 'Murica. ValarianB (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem I have with the proposed sentence is that, while it is supported by the journalistic source, it is not an accurate summary statement from the underlying academic study on which the journalistic source is based. As such, it falls in the category of "bad journalism on topics where better sources exist", so we should not use it.

On the other hand, I think discussion of the fear of "white extinction" absolutely fits into this article, which is what the "existential threat" business is about. This is a profound socio-psychologcal fear, baseless as it in fact is. Newimpartial (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the psmag's title is probably not the most accurate summary of the whole academic article, but also think that it is narrating some important parts of it. MS 会話 11:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Have any minds changed regarding the relevance of that sentence to this issue? MS 会話 16:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no "white race". The concept that it is heading toward extinction is racist.O3000 (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how it's related to the discussion above or even what it's supposed to imply; therefore would not bother answering to you anymore, Objective3000. MS 会話 18:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The idea that there's a meaningful decrease in white people because of interracial marriages (a belief in the white genocide conspiracy theory) assumes the racist myth of the one-drop rule. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Great. But again, pray tell, how it's related to the discussion above and what it's supposed to imply?MS 会話 07:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Did something in the source change so that it now discusses the genocide conspiracy theory? - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

So you still think that sentence is WP:IRRELEVANT to the article. Please do both of us a favor and ask any admin for 3O to see if this sentence is irrelevant to the topic or not. Maybe I'm mistaken about WP:IRRELEVANT, maybe you are. Then I will simply walk away. (Just wondering how the first paragraph under the History section "discusses the genocide conspiracy theory" and is relevant to the article based on your "If it were, that would be the title instead" classification criteria). MS 会話 07:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN You had edits on this article back in 2018. Could you please put an end on this? You could skip the discussion and start reading from "So, there are 2 choices:" on. To summarize, I want to add this sentence to the article: Some research suggest that fears of white extinction are provoked by demographic shifts, since the white population is in decline in the US and Europe [9][10][11] but SummerPhDv2.0 thinks this is WP:IRRELEVANT to the topic. I will 100% bend to your argument. Thanks. MS 会話 07:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that administrators carry extra weight in terms of editing - this is not the case. Their admin bit is about policing behavior not determining content. If MelanieN decides to edit here (and if she does, I would assume that she would read the entire discussion and not rely on your gloss of it), her edit would no more change things that one more edit either way by any other editor. As of this time, you do not have a consensus to make the edit you wish to make. This is NOT a 30 situation (and 30 editors are not necessarily admins, BTW) because it's not simply you against SummerPhD. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I obviously don't think administrators carry extra weight in terms of editing. I would appreciate if anyone would actually read the entire discussion, but I also think this case is a true WP:TL;DR (and I highly, genuinely appreciate if it could be put to end); therefore I said they "could" skip some parts and not "must" or "have to", as you imply. And yes, this is a 3O (30?) situation because SummerPhD is the only user actually arguing why this sentence is inappropriate for this article; other editors are pointing out some absolutely unrelated information (?) about one-drop rule and race denialism flavored with some wikilawyering essence. And I know 3O editors are not necessarily admins, but admins are generally (considered) more experienced and more familiar with WP policies and guidelines; to me, an uninvolved admin with a history of editing in this article is therefore a good fit. Thankfully (unfortunately) WP is (in theory) not based on consensus. Regards MS 会話 16:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course WP is based on consensus. It just isn't a democracy. O3000 (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2020 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2020

George Ciccariello-Maher "losing his job as an associate professor" is a false statement, not supported by the mentioned source.[12] He resigned from the post if anything, see [13]. The article should reflect what really happened. 117.99.105.75 (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Whitaker's blogs and Counter-Currents

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

Sources

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

Improper use of sources throughout this entire Wikipedia entry. One reference to a Guardian article is not enough to declare white genocide in South Africa a myth. A single article wouldn't fly on a homeschool paper let alone university. Convenient that editing is locked. Canuck82 (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)— Canuck82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. There are 313 references, and the South Africa section has dozens of references. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC) WTF are you talking about? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC) WTAF. "Convenient" for who or what? Am I part of a massive, multi-generational, worldwide conspiracy? Why? Are "they" paying me? When do the checks start coming? You are wasting our time. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Canuck82: Amazing, everything you just said was completely wrong. The Guardian is not cited in any sentence containing the word "myth." We've got the SPLC, WaPo, NBC, and many others. Either you didn't read the article or you're deliberately making false accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Summary of your comment: "Everything is wrong with this article. Change it all. Sincerely, Anonymous." Likely response from those actually working on the article: "Meh. I disagree."

Alternative suggestion: Be specific. "'Catfish' is misspelled in the 3rd paragraph" or "The source 'Joey's Thoughts on Racism' seems to be a blog. It is not a reliable source, per WP:SPS." Likely response: "I've corrected the typo. Thanks!" or "Joey is Joseph Kiteslinger, a recognized expert on racist groups' online recruiting strategies." - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Whiteshift

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

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

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

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

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

More dubious than much of this article? The intro paragraph points to eighteen different possible reasons for people's belief in white genocide. The only consistent reason given throughout the article as a hypothesis is hatred, but the article never states anywhere what the source of this hatred is. The idea that this is due to hatred is mentioned a few times inconjunction with pseudo-science/false science, and psuedo-history/false history. This was stated multiple times throughout the entire article, but seems to finally be attributed to comments by single journalist, Eli Saslow, from a media source with known bias issues, Washington Post, in the "Criticism and resistance" section. Also, I'm thoroughly confused by why the "and resistance" was added onto that section's title. Wikipedia is not in the business of inciting or promoting violence. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That is a very strange reading of this article (particularly seems to finally be attributed to comments by single journalist, Eli Saslow, which is one of the oddest forms of cherrypicking I've seen). As to Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral platform - well, that depends, q.v. WP:NONAZIS. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only references to white genocide being a conspiracy theory 'based on hatred' is from Eli Saslow. Other articles cited mention specific white genocide believers/supporters/dog whistlers etc, being hateful, but Mr. Saslow is the only citation for the conspiracy theory itself being 'based on hatred'. WP:NONAZIS is not wikipedia policy, and I believe it's recommendations are incompatible with WP:AGF. That said, there should probably at least be a 'see also' link to some page that talks about current and predicted demographic trends. From what I understand, demographic trends are one of the 'proofs' most cited by white genocide believers, and whiteshift seems to be THE article on predicted demographic trends, and their relation to white genocide. See: "In 2019, academic Ghassan Hage proposed how the fear-based distortion and political capitalization of the demographic phenomenon, provided the ongoing danger of fueling extremism and propaganda, such as that involved in the Christchurch mosque shootings" Fullmetalalch (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The whiteshift article is just over one year old, and was originally sourced to a single book. I'm not at all convinced it's a common mainstream term. 107.242.121.61 (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

For the archives: this discussion may seem confusing, since it refers to an article on the concept, Whiteshift, which has since been deleted. The article on the book Whiteshift has since been moved to the same location, so what appears as a blue link here is in fact a different article than the one that was being discussed. Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2021

“If you stopped all immigration today, just by virtue of birth rates, this is going to be a browner country,” Obama told NPR’s Steve Inskeep in an interview that aired Monday. Demoncrats888 (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Interracial children aren't genocide.

People of color existing isn't genocide.

If you think otherwise, you've been lied to by white supremacists and haven't tried to question those lies.

@Demoncrats888: Only warning, we have no patience for people trying to spread Neo-Nazi lies. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Just wondering, are political opinion essays such as the one you linked considered a valid basis for banning users? Drilou (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note: Yes. Yes they are. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I feel like this Bill Nye video which has plenty of secondary sources commenting on it now (e.g. [14]) could be useful if we ever figure out what to say about demographics. EllenCT (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex-neo nazi here. Please include demographic data that shows this theory is nonsense. People like me need to see the numbers. We need GRAPHS. We need DATA. It's not enough to just call it a 'myth' and 'conspiracy theory', it might be true but it's not convincing. White Supremacists aren't evil people, they have good intentions but have been misled. The theory is convincing simply because demographic decline is a real problem. So please add something that will let us know scientifically: How many whites are projected to be there in 2050? In 2100? Especially in White/European countries? Does this data dispel the myth? This is all the info we need. Thanks Winkzin (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)\

That is actually the point of some of the people here who say that "white genocide" is typically used to just describe the demographic "shift" away from white majorities to white minorities. A chart would just PROVE that point because numbers DO show a sort of extinction in the long run. I think the general purpose of this article now is debunking of the "conspiracy" angle of this theory. Lipsky1989 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Making the jump from a projected change from majority to plurality is a far cry from extinction. Do you have any citations from reliable sources? Frankly, I don't think redheads are going to go extinct despite speculation in the popular press, let alone caucasians. Peaceray (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

A deliberate destruction of an ethnically defined group of people is a genocide, the key point is intent, not likelihood of success. By your definition there never was a genocide: Jews didn't go extinct, neither did Armenians or Tutsi. Drilou (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

given that this whole concept is based on demographic shift, I think it would be relevant to include statistics on projected demographics. ideally you would want a source drawing a connection, but even without that, it may not be SYNTH. the article already refers to fears of "massive demographic changes" within the US. it seems only logical to elaborate on this with the most reliable extrapolations available. Xcalibur (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

to expand on the above, drawing conclusions from such data (ie this chart shows why the theory is wrong) would be SYNTH. however, simply including the relevant data would not be IMO. Xcalibur (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly. Just by including the data, we would be connecting the data to the topic in a novel manner, violating WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a strong, inherent connection between this topic and population projections. again, I think this would only violate SYNTH if we used said data to draw conclusions. as an aside, I presume most editors here wish to refute this theory; if so, then what better way to do so than by including the most reliable relevant stats? Xcalibur (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Valid source

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/

Add this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.215.18 (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That source has been discussed before, and I still don't see its relevance here. Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2021

The line stating white genocide is a myth should be removed. That statement is based on someone’s opinion and the articles used to cite this claim are also opinions and do not have any basis is scientific fact. 65.189.3.226 (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

What specific references do you assert are opinion pieces, as opposed to the kind of reporting or academic analysis that WIkipedia considers reliable sources? Also see the section immediately above. The assertion is well-sourced to factual discussion. Acroterion (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

> Also see the section immediately above.

Do you mean »Additional sources on "white replacement conspiracy theory"«?

When I wrote that these sources would "put these theories to rest for good" that was tongue-in-cheek. Obviously, relevant thinkers, politicians and corporate donors like Bloomberg and Sutherland are intent on this. These sources and quotes should be added. tickle me 17:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Additional sources on "white replacement conspiracy theory"

The following discussion 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.

---

Here are some relevant sources to put these theories to rest for good:

The New York Times, [15]
»We Can Replace Them: …an embittered white conservative minority [is] terrified at being swamped by a new multiracial polyglot majority. … American voters can do to white nationalists what they fear most. Show them they’re being replaced.«

https://bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-05-24/american-prosperity-depends-on-a-nonwhite-future
»American Prosperity Depends on a Nonwhite Future«

BBC , [16]
»EU should ‘undermine national homogeneity’ says UN migration chief«
(Peter_Sutherland, also founder of the WTO, EU-commissioner, chairman of global players, so it should be a relevant voice.)

Susan_Sontag
»The white race is the cancer of human history;« It »eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads« and upsets »the ecological balance of the planet«
– Susan Sontag, 1967, Partisan Review, p. 57, 58

wikiquote, [17]
»To shoot down a European is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time.«
– Jean-Paul Sartre, introduction to The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon.

The Root, [18]
»Whiteness is a public health crisis. It shortens life expectancies, it pollutes air, it constricts equilibrium, it devastates forests, it melts ice caps, it sparks (and funds) wars, it flattens dialects, it infests consciousnesses, and it kills people—white people and people who are not white …White supremacy is a virus that, like other viruses, will not die until there are no bodies left for it to infect. Which means the only way to stop it is to locate it, isolate it, extract it, and kill it.«
– Damon Young, 17/03/2021, contributing opinion writer for The New York Times

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, [19]
»Schäuble zu Flüchtlingskrise : „Abschottung würde Europa in Inzucht degenerieren lassen“«
»[The German Minister of Finance] Schäuble on the refugee crisis : “Isolation would let Europe degenerate into inbreeding”«
(A note to those unfamiliar with German history – the last time a leading German politician likened a group of people to social-Darwinist, biologist, and dehumanizing terms like "inbreeding" and "degeneration" was in 1933-45. It can be safely assumed that Mr Schäuble was referring to the resident population of Europe without recent migration background, that happens to be overwhelmingly white.)

Die Zeit, [20]
»Wer den Osten dauerhaft stabilisieren will, der muss vor allem für eines kämpfen: Zuwanderung. Massiv und am besten ab sofort. … auch gezielte Migration aus dem Ausland [… wie] heute an vielen Orten Deutschlands«
“Those who want to stabilise the East permanently must fight for one thing above all: immigration. On a massive scale and preferably immediately. … also targeted migration from abroad […] as is the case today in many places in Germany”. tickle me 06:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Nothing here looks remotely useful. Binksternet (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

These are indeed reliable sources, but they're sources showing that white people should be exterminated. Those sources are not claiming that white genocide is ongoing, and are therefore not relevant to this article. I suggest instead creating a section on the necessary genocide of white people in the White people page. Drilou (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I think they are enough to make Wikipedias systematic repression of these articles (White Genocide and Great Replacement Theory) invalid. Obviously this is political to everyone involved, but it's a matter of fact that drastic demographic changes have been occuring in Europe and in America in the past decades, and this verifiable fact coupled with some official statements made above (e.g. by the UN) should be enough make this desperate labeling of "conspiracy theory" and "myth" invalid. Even if many of you editors on Wikipedia certainly seem to believe so, you are in fact not keepers or defendants of truth and are making too bold assertions acting this way. I also think any active denying (labeling of conspiracy theory or myth) of a supposed genocide or ethnic replacement theory should include a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_denial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.143.64 (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

What even is this section? Echoing Binksternet, nothing here is remotely useful. Of course Schäuble is not advocating that all white people are to be exterminated (WTF?) and also not a systematic replacement of the German population (???). This whole section and the out-of context quotes is nothing but soapboxing and skirts close to WP:NONAZIS territory. --Mvbaron (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I am opposing Wikipedia editors taking the freedom to label political ideas as conspiracy theories or myths. I find it outrageous how a supposedly "free" encyclopedia has managed to attract people to moderate locked down articles in this manner. What is there not to understand? Nazis have nothing to do with anything. If this is strictly political to you, I suggest you keep quiet, because I am not interested in that discussion. 81.170.143.64 (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2021 (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.