This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alternative Views B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Ethnic groups B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Judaism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Terrorism B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)\[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

> 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)[reply]

“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)[reply]

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)[reply]