This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Discrimination Start‑class Mid‑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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Skepticism Start‑class Mid‑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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative Views Start‑class Mid‑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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Start‑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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Start‑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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The main issues:

- The article does not actually describe the arguments of the people who believe in the idea of 'white genocide', nor the reasons why other consider it a 'conspiracy theory';

- The list with names of people who 'believe in this conspiracy theory' includes many people who have actually never said they believe in this 'conspiracy theory'. It reads like a 'wall of shame', where any person is included who has ever, in any article from any of the liberal media (Vox, etc.) been related to the idea of 'white genocide'.

The main solution:

- Rewrite the article completely.

Reedseque (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the most outrageous claims, but the article is still too laughable to consider it enyclopedic in any way. The 'advocates'-part is, for the most part, also one long violation of WP:BLP, to an extent that a law suite for libel against Wikipedia (c.q. the specific editors) would probably have a large chance of success. Reedseque (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Reedseque: See WP:NLT. If we're just summarizing existing sources, and those sources document where something someone said only makes sense if it's within the context of the conspiracy theory, it is a bad-faith move to suggest that anyone you disagree with might be sued. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entire concept is a conspiracy theory, according to reliable sources - it merits no more credence here than the nonsensical claims that 9/11 was perpetrated by a Jewish conspiracy. Your removals were not in any way justified by BLP - the material was well-sourced and carefully worded based on extensive discussion and consensus. If you have specific issues with specific wording, discuss them here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reedseque, I see that your very first contribution on Wikipedia was trolling the communism talk page. This new effort is not much different, except that now you're skirting WP:No legal threats.

It doesn't matter whether you think a listed person has every said they believe in white genocide. Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, and if the reliable sources talk about this person in the context of the white genocide conspiracy theory, then that person is appropriately listed. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this is a white supremacist conspiracy theory, full stop. I do think the long list of names, though, which is a pretty new addition to the article, bears some more thinking about. Not every racial dog-whistle is demonstrably referring to this particular conspiracy theory, and it could potentially be a BLP issue. And it's really weird the list doesn't include many of the explicit neo-Nazis who originated the theory. I think potentially some of this would be better served by an actual section on the influence of this conspiracy theory on relatively mainstream alt-right thought.--Pharos (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"we're just summarizing existing sources".

No, you aren't. You're first setting up a description of 'white genocide conspiracy theory' which is vague and broad, and then adding a long list of people whose names have been mentioned in a few articles from liberal media sources which contain the term "white genocide". It's a more than obvious smear tactic and it has nothing to do with an encyclopedia, i.e. you would never find anything like this in Encyclopædia Britannica or any other real, neutral encyclopedia.

Give me one, just one example of an article in a real encyclopedia which comes even close to the smearing in this article.

Reedseque (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this isn't a real encyclopedia, then there's no reason for you to care what we put on here. Sour grapes whining isn't an actual argument. Have you found any of the cited sources to have failed in framing the things those people have said as belonging to the conspiracy theory? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See, you cannot even provide one example of a real encylcopedia that engages in smearing campagnes like this.

To answer your question: none of the sources that I deleted is suitable for the claim that person X supports 'the white genocide conspiracy theory'. Some of the articles merely mention the respective person, many relate specifically to South-Africa (so not to 'white genocide' in general), (almost) all of them are from (far-)left sources (some even written in a polemic/opinionated style) and one article even links to a business article -- granted, the latter is probably a mistake.

In conclusion: this is pure propaganda which would never be placed in e.g. Encyclopædia Britannica, but which is used for a smearing campagne here on the English version of Wikipedia. The claim that this Wikipedia is not a real encylcopedia is therefore fully justified.

Reedseque (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok dude.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying sources such as The Guardian, International Business Times, The New York Times, and The Atlantic are unreliable? Do say yes so we can go ahead and block you under WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"So you're saying"

Reedseque (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Peterson??? I got BINGO! User:Ian.thomson, I win! Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said none of the sources that I deleted is suitable for the claim.... The sources I pointed to are accepted as highly reliable. How are they not suitable? For example, this Guardian piece says Gavin McInnes (who is no longer part of Vice), who has referred on Twitter to immigration and white women seeking abortions collectively as threatening “white genocide”,... How is that not suitable reliable for identifying him as a supporter of the conspiracy theory? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete the part about Gavin McInnes -- whoever that may be. Maybe pay better attention next time, it makes your cherrypicking look less silly.

Reedseque (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then, The Atlantic. Also, you did remove a citation of this Guardian piece. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's an opinionated article;
2. The article actually calls the idea of white genocide a 'meme', not a 'conspiracy theory', which conflicts with the premise of this Wiki-article;
3. The 'proof' that Donald Trump Jr. supports the 'white genocide conspiracy theory' actually consists of some retweets he made. Nothing more than that.

The fact that this is the best article you can provide shows how badly sourced this article is.

edit: you added the part about the Guardian-article later. Seems like bad manners to talk/discuss in this way, but that's fully up to you. Anyway, my comments above relate to article in The Atlantic, just to make that clear.

Reedseque (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not state as fact that Trump Jr. is an enthusiast of the theory. Rather, it appropriately mentions the reliable sources which discuss accusations and links. If your standard is "proof" before anything can be mentioned in Wikipedia, I eagerly await your removal of similarly-unproven claims about Hillary Clinton or Bruce Ohr. Somehow, I have a feeling you have different standard there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article written by a staff member of Atlantic does not say that Donald Trump Jr. "supports the white genocide conspiracy theory". The article does not even contain the term "white genocide conspiracy theory".

Reedseque (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are explicitly putting Jr. on a list of "Advocates". It is precisely because this is a neo-Nazi theory that I think it requires stronger sourcing. I think Reedseque does have a point with the sourcing on this list, though I disagree with all their other points. And I am concerned that such a list is just publicizing the more extremist and charismatic of such people and their views, rather than analyzing them.--Pharos (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources given for the outlandish and damaging claim that Ann Coulter supports the 'white genocide conspiracy theory':

1. https://theoutline.com/post/4486/the-creeping-spectre-of-white-genocide?zd=1&zi=z5vxffi2

This article mentions the name of Ann Coulter one time. Here the article does *NOT* state that Ann Coulter supports the 'white genocide conspiracy theory';

2. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/16/peter-duttons-offer-to-white-south-african-farmers-started-on-the-far-right

This article, too, mentions the name of Ann Coulter only one time: "Ann Coulter remarked last year that the farmers are the “only real refugees”". Again, it says nowhere that Ann Coulter supports the 'white genocide conspiracy theory'.

Therefore, I will delete this again. Please do not place it back, unless you can provide that actual proof that Ann Coulter supports the 'white genocide conspiracy theory'. Reedseque (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coulter is supported by her reply at a Breitbart event, saying that if we (Americans) don't stop white genocide in South Africa then the US is next.[1][2] The Daily Dot and SPLC support Coulter as a believer in white genocide.[3][4] It's looking more and more like you are not interested in representing the literature in a neutral manner. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just link to a blog and Breitbart? Also, the Daily Dot is only semi-reliable for BLP content, while the SPLC has WP:DUE problems. wumbolo ^^^ 23:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am no fan of Breitbart, but it was a Breitbart-sponsored event, and their account is factual, not judgemental. And both the Daily Dot and SPLC are legitimate sources for BLP. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: I literally reviewed the provided literature, so please keep your qualifications to yourself, since it's quite clear who's not interested in a neutral article here. Anyway, none of the other sources as provided by you seem reliable, but in case they'ld nevertheless be deemed as such, I'll happily review them as well.

Reedseque (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of the 'white genocide conspiracy theory' as provided in this Wiki-article is:

a neo-Nazi, alt-right, white nationalist, and supremacist conspiracy theory,[1] which contends that mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates, abortion, organised violence and eliminationism are being promoted in predominantly white countries to deliberately turn them minority-white and hence cause white people to become extinct through forced assimilation

The articles provided relating to Katie Hopkins, however, all relate to her visit to S-Africa and her comments that S-African white farmers are being murdered because of their skin-color (plaasmoorde). Therefore:

1. S-Africa is not a "predominantly white country", so the definition as provided in this Wiki-article cannot be 'fulfilled' by what Hopkins said;
2. Even if one does not agree with Hopkins' claims, it is simply outrageous to claim that, because of these comments, she agrees with 'a neo-nazi theory that states that all white people will become a minority because of a conspiracy of migration, abortion, etc.'. Her comments relate specifically to one group of white people (who already are a minority) and the effects of real crime (i.e. the plaasmoorde), not to any conspiracy relating to abortion or any of the other elements listed in the definition.

In conclusion: Katie Hopkins' comments do in no way fulfill the definition of 'white genocide conspiracy theory' as given in this 'encyclopedic' article, and therefore she should not be mentioned in this article. Reedseque (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you are more interested in removing names than in finding sources to support the presence of those names in the list. Hopkins is supported by the New Statesman and the Daily Maverick. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the criticism I mentioned above is relevant for these sources, indeed. You might consider reading the criticism and responding to it.

Reedseque (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I rejected your arguments because the sources about Hopkins don't agree with your view. Binksternet (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These articles do not claim that S-A is a "predominantly white country", nor that Hopkins meets the other criteria for 'white genocide conspiracy theory' as set out in this Wiki-article. So you can't reject the arguments based on these articles. Cheers, Reedseque (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be stuck on the question of whether white genocide is really happening in South Africa. The answer doesn't matter if the sources are saying Hopkins is a believer of the white genocide theory. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read the actual arguments as I wrote them above; I'm not going to belittle you by repeating them. Reedseque (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if someone believes in a white genocide conspiracy then it doesn't matter whether there is an actual conspiracy. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I nowhere argue whether there actually is a 'white genocide', so no idea why you bring this up. Let me write this as clear and simple as possible: 1) there is a definition of 'white genocide conspirary theory' given in this article, 2) the sources provided do not prove Hopkins has met this definition, for the two (numbered) reasons as stated in the first post of this section. Cheers, Reedseque (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable sources describe Hopkins as a believer in white genocide and/or white ethnic cleansing. That's all that's required here. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. See above for the arguments, which you ignore. Cheers, Reedseque (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is intended to reflect what the reliable sources say. The sources say that Hopkins promotes the idea of white genocide and white ethnic cleansing. Therefore the requirement has been met. We are not ignoring or misunderstanding your arguments above, we are telling you they are not relevant here. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you first define X has "ABC" and then provide sources that person Y is called X by some (liberal) media, but in a context which clearly does not fulfill the "ABC"-definition (see the numbered arguments at the beginning of this discussion), then you are deliberatly smearing a person. This is equivalent to writing a Wiki-article in which "soccer player" is defined as "a fascist that kills baby's" and then adding to it that Messi is called a soccer player by a reliable source. Try to understand it. Cheers, Reedseque (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problems as discussed above, relating to Ann Coulter and Katie Hopkins, exist with the parts about many of the other people mentioned in this article as well.

The 'Advocates'-part is clearly used a a 'wall of shame' and such a smearing campagne has no place in an encyclopedia; hence, you won't find ANY of it in ANY real encyclopedia, such as Encyclopædia Britannica. Wikipedia should abide to these standards as well.

The POV-symbol should only be removed after these issues have been resolved.

Reedseque (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White genocide appears to be a form of cultural genocide adapted by opponents of the term (similar to calling Israel a "Nazi state" with regard to its policies towards Arabs/Palestinians). It is a form of tu quoque. There is a chapter on the subject in the "The Routledge History of Genocide", and the article should be rewritten accordingly.

The list of alleged theory supporters is futile, because most radical right-wingers support the theory in one form or another (see also Clash of Civilizations). There is also the notion that a low birth-rate among whites (or high birth rate among the "primitives") contributes to white genocide, see Lebensborn. --185.13.106.213 (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's valuable to make this point a little bit more explicit: this article states that it discusses a conspiracy theory. This implies that only conspiracists should be discussed in it. This means that e.g. (people who make) claims that whites in the USA might become a minority, based on actual projections (e.g. "The non-Hispanic White percentage (63% in 2012[5]) tends to decrease every year, and this sub-group is expected to become a plurality of the overall U.S. population after the year 2043. " (Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States)) do not belong in this article, but people who e.g. claim that e.g. the Aemrican abortion and immigration policies are designed to make whites a minority do belong in this article. Reedseque (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of the currently mentioned articles/sources, none shows that Molyneux believes that there is a conspiracy leading to a white genocide. Therefore, he should be deleted from this article as well. Reedseque (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but you misread the title. The conspiracy is the idea that there is a white genocide. The thesis is not that there is a conspiracy leading to white genocide, which would suggest there is a white genocide. There is no white genocide. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'X happens' is not a conspiracy theory, see Conspiracy theory. 'X happens because of Y, which Z (secretly) wants and contributes to' is a conspiracy theory.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The good people who wrote this article will have to decide whether they,

a) want to smear as many people as 'nazi' by having a very broad definition of 'white genocide'; or

b) want to smear the people as 'conspiracy theorist' as well, in which case, however, the list should be limited to actual conspiracists.

Many of the people there (such as Molyneux) namely simply point out facts, such as the plaasmoorde and/or the decrease of the percetange of whites in the USA. This is not a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory would mean that they would argue that this is the conscious work of governments or others. Cf. black genocide (which, again showing Wiki's tremendous bias, is ofcourse *NOT* called black genocide conspiracy theory), where only people who claim that blacks are deliberatly etnically clinsed by birth control and abortion policies are mentioned.

So, yes, a conspiracy theory is, quite obviously, required for there to be a 'white genocide conspiracy theory' and if someone does not argue there is any conspiracy, then s/he should not be mentioned in this article.

Reedseque (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]