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.

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]

@QuestFour: regarding [1], [2], and [3] 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 [4] 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 [5]. 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.[6] 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]

Do you have anything to show that Orbán draws a distinction between "replacement" and "elimination"? EllenCT (talk) 22:40, 6 December 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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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:[reply]

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)[reply]

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. ^[1] 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.^[2]

Further, about half of American whites believe America becoming minority white will "weaken American culture"^[3]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is currently a dispute over whether facts about demographic change in majority white countries, such as the fact that the United States is projected to be minority white by 2045, should be included on this page. There are several sources relating to the topic that mention demographic change as a major part of the belief. The words "demographic", "demographics", and "demographic change" appear ten separate times in this article in direct relation to the idea of white genocide. However, no details on these demographics or demographic change are given whatsoever. Should this article include any details about demographic changes in majority white countries? Edit5001 (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Seems like conspiracy theory stuff, linking potentially declining birth rates with the literally non-existent "white genocide". ValarianB (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No It's tendentious WP:OR and 100% WP:SYNTH. Completely unacceptable. Bacondrum (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No, we can only mention it in the context of WP:RSes that directly connect it to the conspiracy theory (as we do already), and those sources are broadly dismissive. Bringing in additional sources that aren't about the conspiracy theory to try and, basically, make an argument for it would be WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on NOR policy

WP:NOR says that "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

The synthesis section states

o not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.^[a] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

Here are two sentences showing simple examples of improper editorial synthesis. In the first sentence, both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research.

In this second sentence, the opposite is implied using the same material, illustrating how easily material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to:

There are more examples that editors can look at, but I believe that this RfC is asking us to violate policy. Doug Weller talk 07:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: The words "demographic", "demographics", and "demographic change" already appear ten separate times in this article in direct relation to the idea of white genocide. However, no details on these demographics or demographic change are given whatsoever. Edit5001 (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only delusional racists would confuse normal immigration (legal or otherwise) and naturally fluctuating birthrates with genocide. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about whether demographic changes constitute genocide, it's about whether at least some information relating to demographic changes be included in an article that mentions demographics 10 consecutive times referring to its subject matter. Edit5001 (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If material on demographic change showed that white people were actually expanding and becoming more common worldwide, there would still need to be a source that explicitly mentions this as proof the WGCT is wrong. As it stands, it's a dead given that the sources are going to show that opposite, that the number of white people (through interracial marriages, migration, waiting longer to have kids, having fewer kids, etc) is not growing as quickly in individual countries as the numbers for non-white people. But as Doug has already pointed out, reliable sources would need to explicitly discuss this in the context of this conspiracy theory -- not in isolation. And my original point still stands: the only reason to include such information would be to give the appearance of support for a racist delusion. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article already makes the claim "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." Should that be removed as original research as well? Edit5001 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No because it isn't. Volunteer Marek

What is your logic to say it isn't? Edit5001 (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing a source without addition, interpretation, or synthesis with other sources is not original research -- plain and simple. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's pointing out that the conspiracy theory is false, it's not saying anything about natural demographic changes -- do you not understand the difference between the two? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Straight up WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Volunteer Marek 00:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: This article already makes the claim "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." Why is that not original research? Edit5001 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's based on what's stated by reliable sources, and your disagreement with those sources is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salon is the only source being cited to make that claim and it is not stated as a reliable source in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. In fact, the page says it's biased and its opinions must be attributed. Edit5001 (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to present a source which rebuts the claim; if there are any reputable sources which contest it, we might have a discussion to have. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By Wikipedia's own standards, Salon must have their statements attributed. This isn't my opinion, I posted the link to the page that says so for you. Edit5001 (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No It's tendentious WP:OR and 100% WP:SYNTH. Completely unacceptable. Bacondrum (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't think the page mentioning demographics 10 separate times but not giving a single fact about them isn't tendentious? Edit5001 (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those "facts" are only relevant to this article if you believe they "prove" that white people are being killed off. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources within the page have already connected demographic change to the theory, so these facts seem relevant to why those who believe the theory might think white people are being "replaced, removed, or simply killed" as this article puts it. Edit5001 (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, those facts are only relevant to this article if one believes they prove that white people are being killed off. It's enough to say that the followers misinterpret natural demographic changes as "proof," it's not necessary to go on about those changes to bolster the racists who believe in that bullshit.

Also, I'd really like for you to answer the question I left on your talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're relevant because they're already alluded to by the article and its sources. Also, mass immigration is the main driver of these demographic changes and I wouldn't characterize that factor as "natural". Countries can, (and many do, and have throughout history) restrict the number of immigrants they allow in to avoid serious demographic changes. Edit5001 (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Mass immigration" of white Europeans led to the genocide of indigenous people in North America. If anyone has an actual claim to this problem, it's Native Americans. You're welcome to go back home to Europe and leave America to the real Americans. Or you can acknowledge that the United States has been a multicultural nation from its founding, and white people (like me) have no special claim to it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot make sense of that response without assuming that you actually believe in the racist delusion described by this article. Your last sentence goes into WP:NOTFORUM territory, if not WP:NOTHERE. By all means, post a screed about how Europe is being invaded. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]