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. 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.

The section about South Africa seems to imply that the organization Suidlanders has promoted the idea that a "white genocide" is taking place in South Africa. As far as I know this is incorrect- I have listened to several interviews with Simon Roche in which he talked about a potential/looming/impending civil war in South Africa, but as far as I know Simon Roche or any other representative of Suidlanders has never claimed that a genocide is taking place on in South Africa:

"Far-right and alt-right figures, such as singer Steve Hofmeyr, have claimed that a "white genocide" is taking place in South Africa.[148] [...] "The survivalist group the Suidlanders has claimed credit for publicizing the issue internationally.[154]"

The citation given is a link to an article entitled SA conservative group takes credit for increased 'white genocide' awareness, which states:

"A conservative group preparing for what its members say is an impending civil war in South Africa believes its continuous messaging and awareness campaigns have influenced an increase in conservative media coverage of the "plight" of white South Africans."

Saying that a genocide is taking place and saying that it's possible (or even likely) for one to occur in the future are two different things. And of course, genocide and civil war are not the same thing. The actual article doesn't even contain the word genocide.

This seems to be a misleading (sensationalist) headline which by itself is not a legitimate source. Unless someone can provide a proper citation for this, I think this entry should be changed because it misrepresents the view of this organization.

Here is a link to an interview with Simon Roche where he explains his position (from 6:06):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEJlh6LyGRQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.164.2.113 (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6:48-7:21 of that video suggests otherwise. Also we have at the end of the South Africa section a citation to [1] which says,

I tried to make the language more clear in both of those paragraphs. I am inclined to include the video if you think that would be more fair. EllenCT (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, 6:48-7:21 in the video supports Unsigned User's view that Simon Roche states that Suidlanders does not believe that there is currently a white genocide, but that there is a risk for white genocide some time in the future, and that South Africa is on the brink of civil war. I also agree with him that one should not equate civil war with genocide. --leuce (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, just like Ian Smith in Rhodesia: "there will be white genocide if drastic measures aren't taken." It would be a more credible position if it wasn't so much safer to be white than black in South Africa. EllenCT (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is credible because the violence against europeans in South Africa is targeted violence, and they are targeted because they are europeans, as can clearly be discerned from the fact that it is admitted to be so by the perpetuators of these crimes when (and if) they are caught. Europeans are also a minority in South Africa, so the likelihood that the victim of a robber is white is lesser than the likelihood of the victim being black. But the violence that europeans are subject to is mostly due to them being europeans, it is therefore genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.248.184.152 (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, a randomly selected black South African is multiple times more likely to be murdered than the average white South African. The analysis pieces say that most of the farmhouse invasion killings are incidental to robberies. What is your source for the killings being targeted ethnically instead of violence by aggressive thieves? EllenCT (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leuce: please see [2], [3] and 1:10-2:00 of [4]. EllenCT (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the South Africa section, it should be mentioned that the leader of the the pan-african nationalist party Economic Freedom Fighters, Juju Malema, made clearly anti-white racist statements like (the EFF) “are not calling for the slaughter of white people‚ at least for now." and "We are starting with this whiteness. We are cutting the throat of whiteness". See Julius_Malema#Violent_language -91.34.33.211 (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To do so, you would need to have independent reliable sources directly relating this the the white genocide conspiracy theory. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that is moving the goalpost, the situation in South Africa is clearly a planned genocide against the europeans there. If we need "independent reliable sources", then more than half of the white genocide article would need to be completely wiped out, as it relies on heavily biased non-independant sources to assert the claims that "white genocide is a myth" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.248.184.152 (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to including those quotes as an example of the strongest evidence the conspiracists have, if the EFF wasn't such a minority in South African politics. Would you be opposed of including those statements along with Julius Malema#White genocide, Donald Trump, and comments about Jews in the South Africa section? I'm concerned that Malema uses this kind of rhetoric as braggadocio, and including it in the article would be playing to the factions of both sides who benefit from escalation for attention from their political base. EllenCT (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing move discussion that relates to this page. The discussion concerns whether to move Great Replacement → Great replacement conspiracy theory Nblund ^talk 19:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(All the move requests were closed without moves.) EllenCT (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These two links: https://www.vox.com/2018/1/18/16897358/racism-donald-trump-immigration and https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/08/23/dangerous-myth-white-genocide-south-africa, most certainly are not unbiased, neither do they provide any evidence for the notion that the ongoing genocide against european peoples (or as americans call it; "white genocide") is a myth.

This entire section:

"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] The purpose of the conspiracy theory is to scare white people,[29] and justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda[31] in support of increasingly successful calls to violence.[32]"

Should be removed. Also, the entire article completely fails to adress the fact that the "theory" says nothing but simply that native europeans are suffering from low birth rates (the causes for which are many) and receiving many non-european immigrants on top of that will eventually lead to european peoples becoming minorities and eventually ceasing to exist within their own native homelands (i.e Germany, Sweden, France, England etc etc etc. . .) Which is even further argument for the fact that the above mentioned section should be removed, because it claims that "there is no evidence that white people are dying out or that they will die out", which is a completely shameless lie seeing as demographic statistics are publicly available for everyone with internet access to view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.248.184.152 (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed ad nauseum: demographic change is not "genocide", and there is no reliably sourced evidence to support claims that white people are dying out. Nblund ^talk 17:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, dying out because of some secret plot by Jews. Wait, no, some of the adherents don't want to pretend they're just Nazis all over again -- Lizard people! Oh, wait, that's fucking insane... Uh, Muslims? Wait, there are white Muslims... Uh, Satanists? Uh-huh, the Witch hunts and Satanic Panic turned out to be so much more than paranoid moral panic-- OH NO, wait, that's exactly what they were!

White genocide advocates need to stop pretending their claims are based on Inductive reasoning, and not just cherry picking they've done after deciding that a paranoid racist fantasy is the truth. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The premise "in support of increasingly successful calls to violence" is currently supported by a reference to a book from 2003. It feels like a 16+ year old reference may not be the best choice for discussing modern trends. Bgovern (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No argument against better sources, and I could have sworn that one was open access when I put it in because I distinctly remember reading it without buying anything -- maybe it is on Google Books? If so, the link should be to there. But what was true in 2003 is still clearly true today. E.g., the "In domestic terrorism mass murders, 1995 to present" section lists nine incidents in 1995, 2000, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2018, and three in 2019. I added the NYT write-up on the El Paso shooter's borrowed rhetoric, and Media Matters' interview with its lead reporter. EllenCT (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QuestFour: regarding [5], [6], and [7] can we please discuss your concerns here instead of in the edit summaries of reverts? I know you have substantial concerns given the number of times you've deleted the various phrasings of conspiracists' attributions to non-Jews in June, July, August, and this month. And I am happy to address them because I think this is one of the most consequential articles not having to do with personal health or macroeconomics, and I enjoy working on it very much. However, so far you've never expressed your concerns anywhere other than edit summaries and I just want to understand where you are coming from, what you think is the underlying issue and motivations involved, where you see the lack of consensus you mentioned, and whether you think there is anything wrong with the August #RFC on whether Jews are always blamed. Here is a a dove with an olive leaf emoji: 🕊 EllenCT (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the edit summaries, there doesn't seem to be clear consensus on whether the additions should be included or not. My question to you is, giving that I added the term "non-white", wouldn't this be sufficient instead of listing groups of people who fit that term? QuestFour (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else feel uncomfortable with or doubt consensus for the deleted sentence?

Less frequently, blacks,^[1] Hispanics,^[2] and Muslims^[3] are blamed, but merely as more fertile immigrants,^[4] invaders,^[5] or violent aggressors,^[6] rather than masterminds of a secret plot.^[7]

@QuestFour: I kept that "non-white" change in, but as far as I can see the only others ever blamed are Muslims, blacks, and hispanics. Do you have a source saying that other non-whites are ever blamed, or even one that uses the term "non-whites" instead of Muslims, blacks, hispanics, or Jews? I've looked and can't find any. I can't find any such among the relatively abundant anti-asian (e.g., Harvard admissions lawsuit op-eds) sources, and none of the conspiracists ever mention Asians as far as I can see. EllenCT (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QuestFour: Regarding [8] you are the only one who has raised objections to the sentence since August, you haven't answered the questions above, you have no source for the "non-white" characterization, and you have no sources contrary to the several sources which name specific non-Jewish races as being blamed. I'm replacing the sentence and will continue to do so unless you are able to provide reliable sources in support of your objection. EllenCT (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I previously objected to listing other minorities, as this lacked nuance. This edit does address those concerns. I think it is reasonable to expect that readers will want to know specifically who is doing the "replacing", and this seems like an important, defining aspect. "Non-whites" is accurate, but seems like it would be too broad to be a satisfactory answer.

There is one issue, though. There are white Jews, white Muslims, white Hispanics, and multiracial people who are both white and black. Is it clear from context that "white" is arbitrarily determined by these conspiracy theorists? Since the theory usually draws on dubious ideas of "race mixing", this is worth handling with care. Perhaps this is all obvious already. If this seems clear enough to everyone else, then I do not object to using "non-white" as a clarification. Still, this all makes the first paragraph dense and harder to read then necessary, but I don't know what to do to fix it while preserving this info. Grayfell (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from 3O, I think greater focus should be given to the point made by Grayfell about the length of the lede. I'd highly reccomend against including that level of detail in the lede, which is already overlong. I suggest that effort be put toward reviewing the lede as a whole with the aim of cutting it down to the key content written concisely. Cjhard (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Grayfell and Cjhard, "non-white" is adequate, for the lede at least, and avoids unnecessary detail. QuestFour (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QuestFour: it appears that you have misunderstood both of them. Grayfell said that the most recent edit to the sentence in question addressed their concerns about nuance, and your "non-whites" characterization is problematic and they only support it "If [the nuance about multiracial whites] seems clear enough to everyone else." Cjhard called the issue resolved after Grayfell's comments at WP:3O, but wants the lede trimmed. I'm sure it's within guidelines for an article of this size.

What we need at this juncture are proposals for entire paraphrasing re-writes, not deletions which remove mention of the many instances in which Jews play no part in the theory. EllenCT (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to EllenCT's comment/question above about the originally deleted sentence which references specific groups: I'm fine having that sentence in the lead, and it should remain. It seems like "non-whites" is both vague (Roma? Aboriginals? North Koreans?), and also inaccurate, as Muslims can be white (or any race). Grayfell already made that point above, which QuestFour appears to have misinterpreted. Removing the specific groups named, and replacing them with a catch-all seems like a whitewash. (no pun; just can't think of an alternative word right now, and that word expresses exactly what I mean.) The original sentence should remain. All of those groups are already named in the body of the article, in several places, thus establishing that the summary status of a lead has been followed appropriately. Mathglot (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not a big fan of the "more fertile immigrants," part since it is not well supported by the source and the source itself is particularly not good either. I am sure another source could be found but also it does not appear to be supported by the body either. PackMecEng (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I believe [4] and [5] as numbered above have been accidentally swapped; fixed. EllenCT (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Southern Poverty Law Center has obtained a large number of emails from Stephen Miller to personnel at Breitbart News from 2016 when he was working for Jeff Sessions. While the SPLC has hinted that some of them may discuss white genocide, none of the emails released so far do so directly, but they have not released all of them which they plan to do over several weeks as I understand it. The series on the emails is being published at [9]. EllenCT (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The recent addition of the Murder of Timothy Caughman here seems to be OR. The source given does not appear to mention the genocide conspiracy theory unless I am missing it.[10] PackMecEng (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That source's title is, "White supremacist James Jackson reveals deranged desire to kill black men to save white women in jailhouse interview," and the direct quotation included is, "The white race is being eroded." I'm not sure how much more plain it can be. EllenCT (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the source should mention the subject of this article, it does not. You thinking it is about this article does not cut it, the sources must do that. PackMecEng (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for others' views at WP:NORN#Murderer of Timothy Caughman a white genocide conspiracy theorist? EllenCT (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. It just comes off as basically any racist could fit the mold you set out there. PackMecEng (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The white race is being eroded" is too ambiguous for me. The white genocide conspiracy theory is not identical to hatred of mixed-race couples and children. Racists were worrying about 'racial purity' for a hundred years before they added this particular arrow to their quiver. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. EllenCT (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian prime minister (and not president like in the article) Viktor Orbán has no known racist statements during his life. You can call him anti-muslim, but not racist. The best example, he promote the immigration of Christian refugees from Africa and Middle East/Asia who are oppressed persecuted by Muslims in Muslim majority countries.--Cumberstone (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get other editors' opinions about this. I found this additional source from September, and this conspiracist site crediting him.

@Cumberstone: do you have any sources indicating that Orban has ever spoken or acted in support of non-white Christian refugees? EllenCT (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, Hungary Helps Programme provides humanitarian aid for the persecuted in Ethiopia. Hungary Helps is government funded and run program of Hungary. Probably you won't need a source on Ethiopians not being white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.175.136 (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 Mail as sources.