Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White genocide conspiracy theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 30 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 September 2018. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Alternative views 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Ethnic groups 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

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:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Do not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article White genocide conspiracy theory, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Merge request

It's the same concept, predicated on the same logic, both in western culture. Bart Terpstra (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FUCK NO! 63.152.4.6 (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this back, the argument is that Umvolkung is the object version of this page, i.e. it's just a concept and this is the happening version, it's a proposed plot that is supposedly happening.

Shouldn't be merged, just linked. Bart Terpstra (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing; no merge, given the change-of-mind by the proposer. Klbrain (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"White people are not dying out, will not die out, and are not facing extermination."

Question asked and answered. Closing this before it descends further into WP:FORUM territory. Generalrelative (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coming here as a newcomer, is it not a bit weird that in an wikipedia article there is a claim about the future? Personally, I think this is a bit weird for a place such as Wikipedia.

What kind of source proofs such a statement about something that has not happened yet (aka the future)? How would you even prove this, that something "will" not happen? I get the general point but I feel like such statements should be changed. 2A02:A466:48EB:2:A182:E67D:8C80:F39A (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the given sources do not state that? 331dot (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see "Is white genocide a myth?" in the "frequently asked questions" box at the top of this page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the FAQ, and I feel there it is stated more correctly. It doesn't make the sentence in the main article any less botched. I think it would be better suited to replace the sentence in the article with "There is no evidence that white people are dying out (...)" As it stands now, it is rather pseudoscientific and again, making claims about an unknown future. 2A02:A466:48EB:2:A182:E67D:8C80:F39A (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The logic is like this:

You are walking Eastbound on some street in Kansas City.
Someone stops you and says, "Stop! you are going to drown!" reasoning that if you go on walking in the same direction for long enough, you will fall into the Atlantic.
It is justified to tell him, "no, I am not going to drown". Nothing "pseudoscientific" about it. The difference to "there is no evidence that I am going to drown" is minuscule.

Subpopulations change all the time. They increase and decrease. A decrease is not evidence of extermination. Can we stop this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I am not getting my point across.

In your example is an extremely simplified case of reality, and both the person stopping you as well as the person are actually making predictions about the future. But in our real world equivalent, the situation is way more complex. With way more variables and bigger timeframes, the predictions get way more messed up. It is like predicting the cause of death of a toddler based on what it ate for breakfast.

The sentence "White people are not dying out, will not die out, and are not facing extermination" does not define a clear amount of time nor gives clear conditions which makes you able to actually prove it.

Nobody knows what is going to happen in the future. We might all die in nuclear winter 10 years from now. Society might change in such a way that nobody will ever predict. Was anyone in the 1800 going to predict WWI and WWII was going to happen? I personally do not like to see such statements on Wikipedia and would like to think of the future as unknown.

By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with your statement "Subpopulations change all the time. They increase and decrease. A decrease is not evidence of extermination". I think this is a way better formulated sentence. But I do not see the relevance of bringing in this in, since it is not the topic of discussion.

This is my point, if you still not agree then we must agree to disagree. I do like a bit of intellectual discourse. 2A02:A466:48EB:1:50A0:7D02:A3B7:458F (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is not referring to some possible future event. It does not say "will not ever". The definition of the white genocide conspiracy theory is laid out at the start of the article. The point of the sentence is that the claims by the believers in white genocide are dead wrong. Not that there is a lack of evidence. It is a purely racist belief with no basis in fact and we should not equivocate. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"are facing" and "will not" are, to my understanding, indicative about something happening in the future.

None of this dismisses Wikipedia articles of being neutral and correct in its statements. 89.205.132.179 (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The theory states that it is going on now. The current text correctly states that it is not. Obviously this planet will not exist forever. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say the claims by the believers are dead wrong. Maybe it would help if the article explained specifically who those believers are, and what are the claims that are dead wrong. The info is probably buried in the article somewhere, but if it is so important to say that the claims are wrong, then it should be clear about what claims are wrong. When looking, I found claims that were not attributed to anyone, and claims that were not actually wrong. Roger (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph lays out the claims. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried chasing down those links. Sure, there are people who promote interracial marriage, racial integration, immigration, etc. There are others expressing adverse opinions about those things. There are sources complaining about far right conspiracy theories. There are a lot of straw man attacks. I am just not finding the specific claims that are dead wrong. The article should explain them more directly. Roger (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The white genocide, white extinction, or white replacement conspiracy theory is a white supremacist conspiracy theory that states that there is a deliberate plot, often blamed on Jews, to promote miscegenation, interracial marriage, mass non-white immigration, racial integration, low fertility rates, abortion, pornography, LGBT identities, governmental land-confiscation from whites, organised violence, and eliminationism in white-founded countries in order to cause the extinction of whites through forced assimilation, mass immigration, and violent genocide.

That's the lead and the body details the history with 333 citations. What part of these beliefs are not dead wrong? O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not specific claims. There is no way to tell is they are true or false. They are vague and subjective. A specific claim might be that A says that Jewish organization B said in C to promote miscegenation by D, but the claim was proved false by E. With 333 references, surely there are some examples of claims that are dead wrong. Roger (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there are examples of what is said in the lead. But your example makes no sense to me unless you think miscegenation is a wrong. Besides, it is not the claim in the lead. The lead says this is in order to cause the extinction of whites.... O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Objective3000

@Objective3000

The statement is not referring to some possible future event. It does not say "will not ever". The definition of the white genocide conspiracy theory is laid out at the start of the article. The point of the sentence is that the claims by the believers in white genocide are dead wrong. Not that there is a lack of evidence. It is a purely racist belief with no basis in fact and we should not equivocate.

You invoke biasy (and an opinion) by claiming that they are dead wrong. Mentioning the lack of evidence would be a better fit since it does not promote a certain view point but still mentions why their claims aren't supported. Vehicl30 (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed and closed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's happening to "Rub the right's nose in diversity" according to New Labour

This is obviously no conspiracy ^[1]^[2] 124.169.140.225 (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC) 124.169.140.225 (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From 2012 and 2009. DN (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Get a better source fonrhsipancis. 64.189.18.14 (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Don't listen to the whingers – London needs immigrants". London Evening Standard. 13 April 2012. Archived from the original on 8 December 2023. Retrieved 29 September 2013.
^ Whitehead, Tom (23 October 2009). "Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 29 September 2013.

[1] "Don't listen to the whingers – London needs immigrants". London Evening Standard. 13 April 2012. Archived from the original on 8 December 2023. Retrieved 29 September 2013.

[2] Whitehead, Tom (23 October 2009). "Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 29 September 2013.

[1]

[2]