Jump to content

Talk:Great Replacement conspiracy theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:The Great Replacement)

Proposed title: Great replacement theory

We just had a Requested Move two months ago and many talk page sections similar to this one. Anon1830a should reach the talk page archives and the most recent discussions before proposing any changes. Anon1830a's suggestions do not align with WP:NPOV. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2025 (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.

Thread retitled from Proposition for a more neutral title: Great replacement theory.

Wikipedia aims to present topics neutrally. Labeling the concept as a "conspiracy theory" introduces a value judgment that may bias readers. Using "theory" is broader and neutral, allowing for open discussion without preconceived connotations.

A "conspiracy theory" implies a coordinated, intentional effort, while a "theory" simply presents an explanation for observed phenomena. Although some groups frame it as a conspiracy, the topic is discussed in broader sociological and policy contexts without necessarily implying intent.

The "Great Replacement" refers to observable demographic trends such as declining birth rates among native populations in Europe and increased migration, often facilitated by NGOs and political decisions. These trends are acknowledged by reputable sources, including the European Commission and CBS Netherlands. The concept deserves a title reflecting its presence in public discourse.

Sources: https://www.deutschebank.be/nl/nieuws-en-advies/artikels/demografische-ontwikkelingen-hertekenen-wereldeconomie.html https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/promoting-our-european-way-life/statistics-migration-europe_en Anon1830a (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Great Replacement racist conspiracy theory"? This is a debunked white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory claiming a coordinated, intentional effort according to reliable sources. WP:RS are what we use. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And of course our article is backed by sources. It’s also not about demographic change. Doug Weller talk 18:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How has it been debunked? And if a source from the european commission isn't a good source for you i don't know what is.
I also don't see as to why it would be racist as there are no statements against other races the theory is just about the white population being replaced by others. Anon1830a (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to ask this, but in what way do you interpret the European Commission document as supporting the "Great Replacement" as an actual project carried out by real people?
Also, if you are trying to talk about an actual demographic phenomenon, rather than a political project/example of social engineering, perhaps you are looking for the article White demographic decline which discusses evidence put forward about the real world (as much as possible). Newimpartial (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The document from the European commission is to state that there is a white demographic decline.
But i am in the right article because i think that there is proof of an "elite" trying to facilitate the migration and thus also facilitate the white demographic decline.
People like George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, Laurene Powell Jobs, Richard Branson, Jeff Bezos. They all donate millians of dollars directly to the cause of migration which significantly speeds up the decline like i said before.
I don't think it should be called a conspiracy theory just because of that there is no proof that they are working together because they are facilitating it and the effects can be seen in de demographic.
Do you understand my POV? Anon1830a (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question: yes, I believe I do understand your POV on this topic. Unfortunately, the reliable, secondary sources on this topic describe the POV you are presenting as a conspiracy theory; they do not accept that the actions of Soros, Zuckerberg, Bezos etc. are part of a political or social project to replace white people with non-white people (or whatever paraphrase of that anyone wants to use). Wikipedia needs to follow the best sources, not the beliefs of its editors. Newimpartial (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The great replacement is a conspiracy theory that a shadowy elite is bringing around demographic changes, not just that demographic changes are happening. Demographic changes have happened and Wikipedia has many articles about them, but unless you have prove of that shadowy elite being behind it you are at the wrong article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. In fact this drives home why it's important to differentiate this racist conspiracy theory about demographic change from other topics related to demographic change. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So because you can't 100% proof that there isn't a shadowy elite behind it it means that it is a conspiracy theory?
That would mean that bigfoot exist because you can't absolutely proof for a 100% that he doesn't exist.
Again i don't get what's racist about it. Anon1830a (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No you have it the wrong way round. Without any proof that it is being done by a shadowy elite it's a conspiracy theory. The same is true of Bigfoot without proof of its existence Wikipedia says it doesn't exist. Honestly if you have proof that a shadowy elite is doing this deliberately I would suggest taking it to the newspapers, as it would be the scoop of the decade. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article title is fine as is. As noted above, this is a widely debunked white supremacist conspiracy theory with multiple sources describing it so. No need for bothsidesism when nearly all reliable sources state it as a conspiracy theory -- see WP:FALSEBALANCE. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with multiple other editors above, I think that the title should stay as-is, because it objectively is a conspiracy theory, and it's not a "regular" theory. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2025 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2025

I wish to add information about the influence Great Replacement Theory in Turkey. This article appeared on Cumhuriyet, an opposition newspaper around the time of an attempted pogrom in June 2024. TanktopSamurai (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2025 (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. Yeshivish613 (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Melenchon embracing Great Replacement

News item of French politician Melenchon talking about bringing about the Great Replacement:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=Wm5C6FsHoQaTthQV&v=MuZDXmpsm5w&feature=youtu.be

Should be added to the article as an example of a politician who espouses the Great Replacement 84.172.251.83 (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another source in text form: https://www.lejdd.fr/International/grand-remplacement-quand-melenchon-appelle-a-la-conquete-demographique-de-la-france-rurale-154545 84.172.251.83 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to be a good example of a news organisation pushing the great replacement conspiracy theory. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how that is the case as Melenchon is talking about it himself? There is a video of him talking in his own words 84.172.251.83 (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read, Melanchon is neither promoting the conspiracy theory nor is he conspiring (as an opposition politician!) to replace Français de souche with newcomers. Rather, he is describing aspects of demographic change that are actually happening in the countryside, and putting a "unique" spin on it. News outlets, in turn, are being trolled by his choice of words and adding their own layers of interpretation. I'm not seeing how any of that is relevant to this article, which has a fairly narrow focus. Newimpartial (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the article he is saying that over time all people will intermingle and the idea of being French, or nationalism in general, will become redundant. The site has taken that and used it to claim that he is trying to replace the French people, and so push the exact conspiracy theory that this article is about. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2025

Suggested edit: inclusion of new source on American public support of conspiracy, and it's tie to political violence This following piece describes the unique function of the conspiracy theory in the mass American public:

Thompson, Andrew Ifedapo, Maxwell Beveridge, Stefan McCabe, Molly Ahern, Fryda Cortes, Noah Axford, and Jacqueline Martinez Franks. "Anti-Black Political Violence and the Historical Legacy of the Great Replacement Conspiracy." Perspectives on Politics (2024): 1-18. Harvard Aithomp (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a more specific edit you would like to include based on this source? Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2025 (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. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be slightly more neutral

To add opinions such as "debunked" breaks with Wikipedia neutrality.

One could reference secondary sources and write "X experts claim to have debunked this theory because of A arguments". That would be neutral and still portray the argument. But to simply add "debunked" is simply not neutral.

In fact the addition of "white supremacy" is not neutral neither, since G.R.T. has a lot o defenders from people of non-European background (as the own article highlights). Again, one could write "Y experts claim the theory is white supremacist because of B" and that would be totally fine.

There are a lot of theories in Wikipedia I don't agree with and not because of that I add "debunked". I may add some points and reference the authors of such points but that is it. Wikipedia is about compiling information and their sources not ideological journalism. Pol revision (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not referred to as debunked and white supremacist because we don't agree with it and this article is not ideological journalism, or journalism at all. It is referred to as debunked and white supremacist because it is a racist conspiracy theory that has been thoroughly debunked. The citations are in the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources call it debunked, an no reliable sources state that a shadowy cabal are deliberately replacing the white population. Not stating that fact would be WP:FALSEBALANCE.
To be clear this article is specifically about the conspiracy theory that a shadowy cabal are deliberately replacing the white population, not general demographic changes that have their own articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the article should be more neutral. The article dedicates a lot of space to detailing what the conspiracy theory entails and comparatively very little to systemically dismantling the claims and explaining why they are false. There are multiple assertions that the conspiracy theory is debunked and that experts dismiss it. A good portion of the article is also dedicated to the association with white supremacists and neonazis. But hardly any paragraphs focus on the actual debunking, and explaining why this theory does not hold up to scrutiny. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The conspiracy theory is an exceptional claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Absent those sources, after so many years and attempts at a proof, reliable sources say that the claim is false. Reading the external links will provide far more info. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Does wiki have any hard line on what it would look like it? What's the criteria to call something replaced? 2600:1017:B14B:5D75:4CB5:914E:38E6:4019 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We use reliable sources for this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Replacement_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1286364504"