![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This article seems very one-sided. "Conspiracy theory" is a strong word and would need strong support from reliable sources. That is currently missing. A large number of living persons are more or less accused of being racist conspiracy theorists in the article (all of it the work of one single SPA-account), in what looks like clear WP:BLP-violations. Jeppiz ( talk) 17:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move, therefore, not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The Great Replacement conspiracy theory → The Great Replacement (political theory) – I'm not convinced this is a "conspiracy theory". power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The great replacement (French: le grand remplacement) is a far-right conspiracy theorywith 3 sources and not "political theory" and the same at Renaud Camus#The Great Replacement conspiracy theory -- Gonnym ( talk) 09:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm seeing a cross (looks like a lower case x character) floating about the lede. I'm getting this on two separate browsers, but when I go into 'edit' mode there is nothing there to remove. Does anyone know what this is and how to remove it? GirthSummit (blether) 06:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but this article has dubious or erroneous claims, from small errors on the publication date of a book and nationality of authors; to Bidet who "first came up with 'the great replacement' formula in the early 1960s" while he died in 1957; and the omission of decisive concepts of the conspiracy theory ("replacists", "genocide by substitution".) See recent edit history for the list of corrections I did. I assume good faith or contributions from non-French-speaking editors who cannot access the academic sources in French, but it would take me hours to check every claim against the sources and redact a proper description and origins of the concept from the French WP article and their sources. Azerty82 ( talk) 11:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
"The novel, along with the theory of Eurabia developed by the Swiss-Israeli writer Bat Ye'or in 2005," She is a UK citizen, born and raised in Egypt, who has lived in Switzerland for almost her entire adult life. In what way can she be described as Israeli? -- 76.15.128.196 ( talk) 14:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't have the required political knowledge to do this accurately, but it is clear from simply reading the page in its current form that the article kind of lumping two theories together. I wouldn't necessarily advise for the page to be split, but two subsections and revised wording in the lead would definitely be called for, I think. (To be clear, this isn't an attempt to excuse the one over the other; I'm exaggerating, but take it as a "the President can't simultaneously be a lizard-person and Hitler's grandson, those are different conspiracy theories" kind of thing.)
On the one hand, the original Renaud Camus theory speaks of a passive replacement — that immigration will continue up until the point that the descendants of immigrants outnumber the long-term citizens; and that the current government of France is deliberately encouraging this process. (The French page, I see, is much more about this version, and speaks of the other one as more of a footnote; the current English page is doing the opposite.) On the other hand, there is the far more extremist idea that theorizes the planning of a "white genocide". I don't think Camus ever advocated that the latter was true, and the article as it stands kinda implies he did. Again, I don't give much credit to Camus's theory; but I feel very uneasy seeing an admittedly fringe, but essentially 'sane', theory, being lumped together with 9/11-truther-style ravings. I could imagine a reasonable, educated person coming to believe the Camus version; I can't imagine anyone in their right mind being taken in by the genocide version.
Just a humble two cents: again, I leave the decision, and logistics, to people more knowledgeable than I. Scrooge MacDuck ( talk) 17:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Have this article reflect most accurate as possible, if you have a high dislike or like of a subject please remove yourself from editing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Death911u ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I can see a user trying to get a reference to the UN report on replacement migration from 2000 and it keeps getting reverted. Mélencron and Grayfell, can you please explain yourself? Surely you can't pretend the report never existed? What wording would accept for the inclusion of the report reference? 59.100.194.126 ( talk) 02:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
...the Grand Remplacement (Great Replacement), a lunar right - or is the term now "alt right?" - conspiracy theory about a plot to effect "the progressive replacement, over a few decades, of the historic population of our country by immigrants, the vast majority of them non-European.
I've removed the above citation as being of questionable quality. French History & Civilization is an output of the George Rudé Society ( https://h-france.net/rude/), but Google Scholar finds exceptionally few reciprocal citations for any articles from them, and none for the specific article in question. This is a red flag for a potentially unreliable source. The removal doesn't much affect the article. -- Netoholic @ 16:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
In 1962,
Richard Klein (paleoanthropologist) enrolled as a graduate student at the University of Chicago to study with the
Neanderthal expert,
Francis Clark Howell. Of the two theories in vogue then, that Neanderthals had evolved into the
Cro-Magnons of Europe or that they had been replaced by the Cro-Magnons, Klein favored the
replacement theory.
That term is ambiguous, and I'm disambiguating it.
wbm1058 (
talk)
19:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Please see the discussion started by User:Pudeo here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
As another editor Tjluimes has pointed out, the source, Newsweek, is referring to this FB post in their article: "Camus wrote on Facebook that it is not enough for Clear Line candidates to say they are not Nazis or extreme right [...] Camus then claimed the 'great replacement' is the 'nephew' of Nazism: They share the same genealogy of horror. We can not be associated with that'. " But when we read the original post in French, Camus is not labeling the "Great Replacement" the "nephew of Nazism" but—to the contrary—he is talking about the "replacist elites"!
Quant au nazisme, non seulement nous n’avons aucun rapport avec lui mais je le vois pour ma part comme le plus atroce épisode d’une histoire commencée avec la révolution industrielle, aggravée par le taylorisme et le fordisme, et qui hélas n’est pas finie : celle de l’industrialisation de l’homme, de sa déshumanisation, de sa réduction à l’état de produit, importable, délocalisable et remplaçable à merci. Le remplacisme global, l’idéologie économiste qui promeut le Grand Remplacement et tous les autres, n’est pas le fils du nazisme, mais il est son neveu. Ils participent de la même généalogie de l’horreur. Nous ne pouvons être associés à cela.
I have consequently removed the sentence until clarification or consensus for reintroduction with that correction. Azerty82 ( talk) 08:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved to Great Replacement. There are a few strands of discussion here which are more deadlocked – whether the term conspiracy theory should be included in the title, and whether the word replacement should be capitalised, which I can't see there being a consensus for. However, removing the definite article does have a consensus. I suggest that any editor who wishes to add "conspiracy theory" into the title opens a fresh RM to be discussed without prejudice to prior requests; for what it's worth, I don't see a consensus in the prior RM for removing the term. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre ( talk) 20:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
The Great Replacement → Great Replacement – Fails WP:THE. Compare Great Depression, etc. -- BDD ( talk) 15:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The "Great Replacement" is included in a larger white genocide conspiracy theory. It is unclear how the white replacement conspiracy theory would differ in its scope from this conspiracy theory. IMO, it would be clearer to have an article about Renaud's book and its influence, and put the rest in the other article. -- Pudeo ( talk) 15:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
To express one's opinion as if in an editorial, or as if it were an objective statement.I agree that this is a conspiracy theory, but not that a [widely held] opinion to that effect should be placed in the title. I do not quite understand the apparent moral panic in the recent trend of labeling conspiracy and fringe theories in the very title, but I'm opposed to it, on the long-standing policy basis: all five WP:CRITERIA about article titles favor " Spade" over " Spade (tool)" (which is what the proposed "Great Replacement conspiracy theory" amounts to). No such user ( talk) 14:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name... Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title... In such cases, the prevalence of the name,... generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.WP:NDESC that you advocate is generally used when the thing does not have a common name, which is not the case here. No such user ( talk) 09:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The outcome of this RfC is likely to have a material effect on this discussion. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Not a forum. Drmies ( talk) 23:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There seems to be a lack of demographic data to universally debunk this. It's worth noting that ethnic Europeans are projected to become minorities in certain historically majority-European countries, according to reliable sources, so this theory has at least some plausibility. We should change the article to reflect that. At this time it has an overly critical tone. White Britons are projected to become a minority in the UK, for example: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/white-britons-will-be-minority-before-2070-says-professor-8600262.html https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world Fraser Anning's predictions are supported by data from Australia's 2016 census: https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/census-2016-milestone-passed-as-australian-becomes-more-asian-than-european-20170627-gwz3ow.html Maxime Bernier's and Lindsay Shepherd's claims are supported by John Ibbitson's reporting on Statistics Canada: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-politics-of-2036-when-canada-is-as-brown-as-it-is-white/article33814437/ The president of the Dublin City University has speculated that ethnic Irish could become a minority by 2050, as reported by the Irish Times: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irish-could-be-minority-ethnic-group-here-by-2050-professor-1.424517 More generally, there is this article discussing Europe including "massive populations from Africa and the Middle East, as well as Asia", from Foreign Policy: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/25/the-end-of-an-era-for-white-males/ Peter Sutherland has actually advocated "undermining national homogeneity" in EU states. That sounds a lot like support for "Great Replacement" https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395 Finally, it is well-known that White Americans are projected to become a minority by 2045: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/ Presently, there are 4 sources debunking the Great Replacement theory as "misreading of demographic statistics". Maybe we should add a Support section, discussing demographic changes in specific countries or regions. Drbogatyr ( talk) 08:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
|
The result of the move request was: Moved: consensus is clear to remove the conspiracy theory part. With regards to the White genocide conspiracy theory page, a separate RM can be started. ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: per
Special:Diff/890659590, there was an edit conflict during the closure. I'm readding the tag which will add it back to the queue, please could another admin, page mover or uninvolved party determine the new consensus? Many thanks,
SITH
(talk)
18:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The Great Replacement conspiracy theory → The Great Replacement – The current name is inappropriate per WP:CRITERIA in that it is not the WP:COMMONNAME used, too wordy to be a natural search term, is overprecise, and not concise. Undoubtedly it is such, but I think it represents an inappropriate trend in titling conspiracy theory articles by essentially categorizing them in their title, rather than calling them their actual common name and allowing labels like "conspiracy theory" to be relegated to the article text. Conspiracy theories aren't a special class of topics which should be exceptions to our normal titling guidelines, and we don't do our readers or editors any service by featuring that extraneous phrase in the title. I think its also reasonable to say the phrase may also violate WP:NPOV by being pushed into the title outside of our guidelines. This title also artificially constrains the coverage we can give to this topic, in that we would be limited to talking about the conspiracy theory (that this is being done intentionally) without being able to address the broader scope, such as the origins of Camus' theory. I encourage editors to read/translate the French version of the page to see what I mean. Some numbers for comparison between these two phrases (current vs proposed): NY Times 2 vs 16, CNN 0 vs 16, BBC 0 vs 17, Google Scholar 0 vs ~53. -- Netoholic @ 09:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that this would not constitute a genocide. However: many advocates of the great replacement conspiracy theory have made that claim, and it is closely related to White genocide conspiracy theory - which is also rooted in a misunderstanding of the term "genocide".
Camus is calling Emmanuel Macron a member of the "transnational network of uprooted and denationalized people" - he's not referencing refugees, he's referencing cosmopolitan liberal elites. He's also probably dog-whistling about Jews, but - as Foreign Affairs documents - Camus has mostly reigned in his overt antisemitism so he can't just say that. Regardless: conspiracy theories usually don't identify a clear culprit or offer a lot of logical clarity, so confusion is totally consistent with the territory.
More importantly, reliable sources call this a conspiracy theory. Lots of them. I'm open to debating the appropriate title or the content, but I don't see much debate on the question of whether this is a conspiracy theory. "Demographic change" happens all the time. Nblund talk 15:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
In Camus’s view, Emmanuel Macron, the centrist liberal who handily defeated Le Pen in a runoff, is synonymous with the “forces of remplacement.” Macron, he noted acidly, “went to Germany to compliment Mme. Merkel on the marvellous work she did by taking in one million migrants.” Camus derides Macron, a former banker, as a representative of “direct Davos-cracy”—someone who thinks of people as “interchangeable” units within a larger social whole. “This is a very low conception of what being human is,” he said. “People are not just things. They come with their history, their culture, their language, with their looks, with their preferences.” He sees immigration as one aspect of a nefarious global process that renders obsolete everything from cuisine to landscapes. “The very essence of modernity is the fact that everything—and really everything—can be replaced by something else, which is absolutely monstrous,” he said.
References
The conspiracy theory, which was first articulated by French Philosopher Renaud Camus, has gained a lot of traction in Europe since 2015. It holds that the Christian population of Europe is currently being replaced by Muslims, and that this has been planned and is now carefully orchestrated by a group of conspirators.
A sinister plot for the "progressive replacement, over a few decades, of the historic population of our country by immigrants, the vast majority of them non-European
For instance, some websites...endorse the conspiracy theory of the Grand remplacement (Great replacement) positing the "Islamo-substitution" of biologically autochthonous populations in the French metropolitan territory, by Muslim minorities mostly coming from sub-Saharan Africa and the Maghreb.
Mr. King demonstrates familiarity with the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, also known as "white genocide," which posits that an international elite, including prominent Jews like George Soros, are plotting to make white populations minorities in Europe and North America.
It is essentially a conspiracy theory that accuses liberal politicians of deliberately acting to supplant white Europeans with Muslims through mass migration and higher birthrates.
They have spread a conspiracy theory on the web known as "the great replacement", which sees immigrants as a threat to "white" Western culture. That theory was in Mr Tarrant's "manifesto".
Behind the idea is a racist conspiracy theory known as "the replacement theory," which was popularized by a right-wing French philosopher. An extension of colonialist theory, it is predicated on the notion that white women are not having enough children and that falling birthrates will lead to white people around the world being replaced by nonwhite people.
"The Great Replacement", repeated a staple far-right conspiracy theory: that non-white and Muslim immigrants in Western countries are invaders, ushered in by scheming elites to replace ethnic-European populations.
A striking 31% of leave voters believed that Muslim immigration was part of a wider plot to make Muslims the majority in Britain, a conspiracy theory that originated in French far-right circles that was known as the "great replacement". The comparable figure for remain voters was 6%.
The Great Replacement is the name of a far-right conspiracy theory that believes Western culture is being systematically "replaced" by the culture of immigrants from third-world continents, or as "Moralitis" puts it: "Immigrants from continents oppressed by Western cultural, economic and military imperialism" who are "pawns for the revolutionary zeal of cultural Marxism".
The result of the move request was: No move after reviewing all three RMs. There are a few things to consider. For one thing, as was pointed out in the discussion and previous ones, there is no requirement or preference for appending "conspiracy theory" to articles on conspiracy theories. While this is done in some articles for various reasons, in general the naming convention is to use the WP:COMMONNAME where available. This was the consensus in the March 2019 RM, and there's been no evidence that something other than "Great Replacement" is more common. Additionally, while it was reasonably argued that the present title may be confusing, no other articles with ambiguous names were identified. Over all, I find the !votes arguing for the present title across the three RMs more persuasive, and find a consensus not to move the article. Cúchullain t/ c 18:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Great Replacement →
Great replacement conspiracy theory – Moving to "conspiracy theory" is more consistent with the
WP:CRITERIA on:
Regarding WP:COMMONNAME: There's no clear favorite among the various forms of capitalization, but all lower casing appears somewhat more common. Most sources specify that it is a conspiracy theory in some way, and nearly all of them use scare quotes around the term for at least the first mention of the term:
If anything, the most common name is "great replacement" (with scare quotes included). Obviously that won't work for a title, but, unlike real historic events like the Great depression, reliable sources take steps to ensure that readers are not given the impression that it references a real phenomenon. This is also true in the sources cited in the previous RM. Nblund talk 22:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Is the whole article about a conspiracy theory? I have just glanced at the top two topics on this talk page, headed "Statistics" and "Splitting the two forms of the theory?", as well as the earlier page move discussions, where is a suggestion that "This page is about a [Renaud Camus] book". Well the page title is the (translated) title of the book, although it would be better with "The" restored. In the "Splitting ..." topic it is suggested that there is firstly a theory set out in the book that the make-up of the population of France (and perhaps by extension Europe) is changing - a theory which can be tested by statistics. And secondly there is the conspiracy theory which says that these changes are being deliberately engineered by some human or non human entity somewhere on the planet = which can't be tested in that way.
Furthermore, the page White genocide conspiracy theory gives in the lead an alternative name white replacement conspiracy theory. So that page already claims to cover the replacement conspiracy theory. Perhaps this page should be scaled back to discuss the theory as originally outlined in Camus' book, and conspiracy -related material should be moved into that other page. In general ( WP:CONTENTFORK) Wikipedia does not like multiple pages covering the same ground. Sussexonian ( talk) 18:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
It's not a "conspiracy theory", but empirical and well documented reality: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/ageing/replacement-migration.asp -- 105.12.2.219 ( talk) 12:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I see this called a conspiracy theory but I don't see who the espousers think is conspiring. Is it some great plot? Are there international bankers or Lizard people behind this? Or is it just racists are mad because other people are migrating where they don't want them to? Are we just using the informal definition of conspiracy theory to mean kooky theory that supposedly explains stuff that happens? 50.27.72.253 ( talk) 00:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Suggested edit to the lead - where it reads "is being progressively replaced by", should we add 'intentionally', to read "progressively and intentionally"?
As I understand it, one of the key tenets of the conspiracy theory is not only that this "Great Replacement" is happening, it is being done *deliberately* by some shadowy cabal of Jews and self-hating white gentiles to weaken white power and Western civilization. In other words, that the demographic change is organized and purposeful, not just that it exists. Thoughts? Ganesha811 ( talk) 16:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I toned down the generalization at the beginning of the paragraph. The phrasing "Scholars, widely, generally, agree" is unwarranted. User:Rhododendrites reverted my change. From the cited support: Nicolas Vincour is not a scholar, he is a journalist, and he's describes *himself* as focusing on "far-right politics". Relying on his neutrality is disingenuous. Cecil Jenkins and Landis MacKellar admit to a biased method, as I show in what follows:
The health ministry organism AFDPHE published their criteria for sickle-cell testing, which boils down to "both parents african or arab, or one african or arab and the other unknown" [1] . The AFDPHE also published the amount of newborns it tested in 2016: 39% of births. Therefore, one can conclude that 39% of newborns don't seem to have *even one* european parent. After these report circulated widely, the AFDPHE was summarily shuttered.
You'll have to admit that if enough black children are born in France, they may be French, but the original non-black population has been replaced. The moral perceptions or intentions you may want to impute on "conspiracy theorists" are irrelevant.
Demographs are counters, and authors Cecil Jenkins and Landis MacKellar indicate, in the cited snippets, that they does not count children of immigrants as agents of "replacement", while we have just seen that they are. They use a citizenship status or a religious affiliation to disguise the changes in "demos", yet they are cited as a "Demo"graphers. Their criticism is therefore demonstrably ideological, and does not support the charged phrasing "scholars" "widely accept". Furthermore "scholarly" research on this subject is strongly discouraged without regard to its accuracy or inaccuracy. I maintain that the phrasing is misleading. I do not have to prove conclusively that the paragraph is false, I only have to prove it's unwarranted: at best out of place, and at worse misleading. DegenerateWaveform ( talk) 09:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I've hesitated for a while before writing this suggestion. I think the approach of this article is wrong, and that it should be re-visited. First of all, it should be approached like the sensitive and polarizing issue it is. In full disclosure: I believe a historic population replacement is taking place in France; I cannot be neutral towards it because I feel on the losing side of the phenomenon, and I must admit it. However, it is tiresome to see editors such as SummerPhDv2.0 policing the article, implying not only their own neutrality, but self-evident morality.
The article repeatedly uses the terms "white nationalistic", "conspiracy theory", "fantasme", "far right", "unscientific", "racist". These qualifiers would be laughed out of any other article describing sociological and historical facts, as unnecessary and biased. Significantly, they are routinely used (legitimately or illegitimately) as insults. This is a disservice to the tried and true Wikipedia policy "just the facts". I believe this comes partly from an incidental or intentional confusion, which is reflected here in the talk page. To try to untangle the concepts, avoid their moral charge, and go back to "just the facts", I propose three distinct articles:
1) Historic population replacement: the well-documented (if scientifically active) pre-historic and historic phenomenon that includes the neanderthal replacement by cro-magnon. Constructive debate can be had about Amerindians replaced in America, etc. Constructive debate can potentially be had about unprecedented contemporary migratory and reproductive pressures in every region, including, yes, Europe. Statistics, when they exist, go here.
2) Population replacement as a theoretical demographic concept, an analytical tool: any living population has three and only three possibilities:
a) it can either produce enough offspring to replace the aging population, b) it can shrink, or c) it can import functional replacements to take the place of the aging population.
If functional replacements have been imported, the moral or ethical implications must not push us to try to sneak a new definition of "replacement" or "population" that's so narrow as to lose its meaning. Constructive debate can be had about the 2000 UN proposal for the third possibility, or Japan's refusal of it and their attempt to turn the second into the first.
3) The observation, reception, and critique of these two concepts as related to contemporary phenomena. "Far right" framing, such as the one attributed to Renaud Camus, "The Great Replacement" (capitalized) can be described objectively. Their "conspiracy theory" aspects can be supported, and contemporary critique can be included. This article would include "far left" framing as well, which are well-documented to include celebratory claims of its inevitabily "n'ayez pas peur de quelque chose que va se passer" -- Leonora Milano, 2006: Prix Louis-Guilloux, 2006: Montalembert Prize, 2006: Bernard Palissy Prize, 2006: René Fallet Prize, 2013: Prix Fémina. Statistics only go here as verifiable support or refutation of verifiable claims.
This is not the case in the current article, which reads like a mud-flinging party, and cites Mediapart, Libé, Zemmour, Buzzfeed, politicians quips, &c. &c. DegenerateWaveform ( talk) 12:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I cannot be neutral towards it because I feel on the losing side of the phenomenonare troublesome. O3000 ( talk) 12:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
troublesomeregardless of your feelings, full disclosure is a good-faith attempt to invite honesty and good faith from other editors. DegenerateWaveform ( talk) 12:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Azerty82 ( talk) 13:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)To [the theory of a replacement through mass immigration], that claims itself to be an observation or a description, is added in the "anti-replacist" vision a conspiracy theory which attributes to the "replacist" elites the desire to achieve the "Great Replacement". From the ideas of "peopling colonisation" and "mass immigration", "anti-replacists" went to that of a genocide by ethnic, racial and cultural substitution, involving the completion of a programme or an action plan.
— Pierre-André Taguieff, 2015.
I try to remove any unreliable source". No, yes, I've seen that, and I respect your work. Given the nature of the subject, and the fact that everyone has an opinion on it, I imagine it's a lot of work, and the fact that the article is as objective as it is is a credit to you. I maintain that a true encyclopedia article would limit itself to the theory, and disambiguate to quasi-homonymic concepts. However, we're ideological beings, and even if I convince you, I can't convince the thousands of contributors which I won't criticize here. Have a good day sincerely. I'm checking out of the discussion permanently. DegenerateWaveform ( talk) 13:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
disambiguation by its nature links to articles, but you haven't specified any articles." is a non-sequitur. The "but" in the sentence is misleading and the fragments it links are not incompatible between them. I stated that you imply I omitted something, and by its placement, you
fling mud at the discussion without addressing the substance. DegenerateWaveform ( talk) 14:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Not here to build an encyclopedia.
|
---|
This Article is Far Left and the Series Converges This article starts off with a citation from a New York Times Opinion article in the Technology section. Mediafactcheck.com rates New YorK Times as having a Left bias, and their not rates as having a very high factual reporting level. The way that birth rates work is that each woman needs to have 2.1 children in order for their genetics to be not be replaced. This isn't sexist, it's not racist, it's just how genes work. If you don't reproduce at replacement rates you go extinct, like the Dodo. In Calc 3 there is a concept of an infinite series Sigma ((W/2.1)*X), where W is the Birthrate (but we use W for the weights in neural net). You divide W by 2.1 to make normalize the birthrate where 2.1 is the birth replacement rate given there is 1 man and 1 woman and they need to have 2.1 children per women so the population doesn't collapse. We normalize the birthrate by dividing it by 2.1 because 2.1/women birthrate is the same as multiply the Sum by 1.0 (i.e. it doesn't change, it stays the same) because in a Harmonic Series if W < 1.0 than it converges, and it's a Sigma because you can factor it out (I'm an engineer but please check my math). Look up the Harmonic Series on Wikipedia and you'll see that the Series converges if 0 >= W < 2.1. According to the New York Times, it's sexist that there is a minimum birthrate that you get replaced if you fall under. This is LUNATIC! Sounds like the SPLC and Fem Magazine wrote this article. I hate to have to be the one to tell you about the birds and the bees, GENES ARE NOT SEXIST! They reproduce or they die by not reproducing if they don't have an advantage over the other genes. According to the US Census Beuro [2], a source a lot more legit than the New York Times, white people are projected to be a minority in the US by the year 2045. The only advantage the immigrants have are they aren't feminist; it's not a good reason for them to take over, that's not actually a genetic advantage and it's not natural. When your birthrate is below the replacement rate, by the very definition of the words you are replaced. The other problem with this article and the sources it cites are that it claims this to be a "Far-right" conspiracy theory, is these claims are coming from a Country, France, where Free Speech is banned, and they call it "hate speech" there and they'll lock you up. I'm in America where hate speech isn't banned, but this article is making claims that are only try in Europe where hate speech is banned. In America, the only people who think this is a "far-right" theory are people who read this Wikipedia article or another article from someone who did. Until someone comes up with some non-biased citations, this article is required to have the false citations removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KabukiStarship ( talk • contribs) 23:11, April 18, 2020 (UTC) References
KabukiStarship has been indefinitely blocked as [[WP:NOTHERE|not here to build an encyclopedia. - SummerPhD v2.0 14:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC) |
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
That’s coming from a left-leaning French person who has always identified with our Socialist Party and recently even more to the left and who is totally pro-immigration and all but... honestly... this has got to be the most unbalanced and biased Wikipedia article I’ve read, and even if it’s biased to the “side” I have always been in, it’s so blatantly non-neutral that I think it does more harm than good. It completely alienates centrists and moderate right-wing people who come to it trying to see both sides of the debate and makes them sure that the article has been “kidnapped” by one side. Most people who speak of a “grand replacement” in France, which includes way more people than the article would make one think by treating it as simply a far-right conspiracy theory, are normal people who simply observe that nowadays about 10% of the French population were not born in France. Most of us, like myself, don’t see a problem with the fact that the population is changing, on the contrary, but it is undeniable that it is changing, and that’s what the ordinary French understands by “replacement”.
The vast majority of people who speak of it definitely do not claim it’s something premeditatedly done by elites and all the conspiracy claims made in the article introduction. So, honestly, the article has gone to such great lengths to take a very clear position against the movement that I fear it ends up having the opposite effect... “Great replacement” is simply a theory according to which the “Traditional” (white and catholic) population of France is being gradually replaced, and that’s it. The conspiracy theories should definitely be mentioned and a neutral article could serve a purpose to make average French people understand what both sides actually claim and see why the replacement is not happening as fast as one thinks nor is it a bad thing, but as it is now, the introduction already puts off anyone wanting to learn about it as a very clearly biased, non-encyclopedic text. 2A01:CB01:302B:C400:B8BD:5DE6:6365:6469 ( talk) 18:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I know nothing about the great replacement theory. I have know idea how you can arbitrate a "conspiracy theory". I ended up here because a video with an "expert" on the Young Turks said that discussing demographic shift is a dog whistle to white supremacists who beleive in the Great Replacement Theory. Minutes later they are discussion how the Democrats will take Texas in 2030 because of demographic shift. I realize this page claims to be about the french far right theory but did they generalize their theory to America? Is this conspiracy theory larger than just a "French" theory? THe post that was removed by user Objective3000 is The U.S. Census Bureau has projected that the U.S. white non-Hispanic population will become a minority (that is, less than half of the total U.S. population) during the 2040s, resulting in a plurality. [1]
References
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This article seems very one-sided. "Conspiracy theory" is a strong word and would need strong support from reliable sources. That is currently missing. A large number of living persons are more or less accused of being racist conspiracy theorists in the article (all of it the work of one single SPA-account), in what looks like clear WP:BLP-violations. Jeppiz ( talk) 17:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move, therefore, not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The Great Replacement conspiracy theory → The Great Replacement (political theory) – I'm not convinced this is a "conspiracy theory". power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The great replacement (French: le grand remplacement) is a far-right conspiracy theorywith 3 sources and not "political theory" and the same at Renaud Camus#The Great Replacement conspiracy theory -- Gonnym ( talk) 09:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm seeing a cross (looks like a lower case x character) floating about the lede. I'm getting this on two separate browsers, but when I go into 'edit' mode there is nothing there to remove. Does anyone know what this is and how to remove it? GirthSummit (blether) 06:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but this article has dubious or erroneous claims, from small errors on the publication date of a book and nationality of authors; to Bidet who "first came up with 'the great replacement' formula in the early 1960s" while he died in 1957; and the omission of decisive concepts of the conspiracy theory ("replacists", "genocide by substitution".) See recent edit history for the list of corrections I did. I assume good faith or contributions from non-French-speaking editors who cannot access the academic sources in French, but it would take me hours to check every claim against the sources and redact a proper description and origins of the concept from the French WP article and their sources. Azerty82 ( talk) 11:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
"The novel, along with the theory of Eurabia developed by the Swiss-Israeli writer Bat Ye'or in 2005," She is a UK citizen, born and raised in Egypt, who has lived in Switzerland for almost her entire adult life. In what way can she be described as Israeli? -- 76.15.128.196 ( talk) 14:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't have the required political knowledge to do this accurately, but it is clear from simply reading the page in its current form that the article kind of lumping two theories together. I wouldn't necessarily advise for the page to be split, but two subsections and revised wording in the lead would definitely be called for, I think. (To be clear, this isn't an attempt to excuse the one over the other; I'm exaggerating, but take it as a "the President can't simultaneously be a lizard-person and Hitler's grandson, those are different conspiracy theories" kind of thing.)
On the one hand, the original Renaud Camus theory speaks of a passive replacement — that immigration will continue up until the point that the descendants of immigrants outnumber the long-term citizens; and that the current government of France is deliberately encouraging this process. (The French page, I see, is much more about this version, and speaks of the other one as more of a footnote; the current English page is doing the opposite.) On the other hand, there is the far more extremist idea that theorizes the planning of a "white genocide". I don't think Camus ever advocated that the latter was true, and the article as it stands kinda implies he did. Again, I don't give much credit to Camus's theory; but I feel very uneasy seeing an admittedly fringe, but essentially 'sane', theory, being lumped together with 9/11-truther-style ravings. I could imagine a reasonable, educated person coming to believe the Camus version; I can't imagine anyone in their right mind being taken in by the genocide version.
Just a humble two cents: again, I leave the decision, and logistics, to people more knowledgeable than I. Scrooge MacDuck ( talk) 17:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Have this article reflect most accurate as possible, if you have a high dislike or like of a subject please remove yourself from editing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Death911u ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I can see a user trying to get a reference to the UN report on replacement migration from 2000 and it keeps getting reverted. Mélencron and Grayfell, can you please explain yourself? Surely you can't pretend the report never existed? What wording would accept for the inclusion of the report reference? 59.100.194.126 ( talk) 02:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
...the Grand Remplacement (Great Replacement), a lunar right - or is the term now "alt right?" - conspiracy theory about a plot to effect "the progressive replacement, over a few decades, of the historic population of our country by immigrants, the vast majority of them non-European.
I've removed the above citation as being of questionable quality. French History & Civilization is an output of the George Rudé Society ( https://h-france.net/rude/), but Google Scholar finds exceptionally few reciprocal citations for any articles from them, and none for the specific article in question. This is a red flag for a potentially unreliable source. The removal doesn't much affect the article. -- Netoholic @ 16:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
In 1962,
Richard Klein (paleoanthropologist) enrolled as a graduate student at the University of Chicago to study with the
Neanderthal expert,
Francis Clark Howell. Of the two theories in vogue then, that Neanderthals had evolved into the
Cro-Magnons of Europe or that they had been replaced by the Cro-Magnons, Klein favored the
replacement theory.
That term is ambiguous, and I'm disambiguating it.
wbm1058 (
talk)
19:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Please see the discussion started by User:Pudeo here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
As another editor Tjluimes has pointed out, the source, Newsweek, is referring to this FB post in their article: "Camus wrote on Facebook that it is not enough for Clear Line candidates to say they are not Nazis or extreme right [...] Camus then claimed the 'great replacement' is the 'nephew' of Nazism: They share the same genealogy of horror. We can not be associated with that'. " But when we read the original post in French, Camus is not labeling the "Great Replacement" the "nephew of Nazism" but—to the contrary—he is talking about the "replacist elites"!
Quant au nazisme, non seulement nous n’avons aucun rapport avec lui mais je le vois pour ma part comme le plus atroce épisode d’une histoire commencée avec la révolution industrielle, aggravée par le taylorisme et le fordisme, et qui hélas n’est pas finie : celle de l’industrialisation de l’homme, de sa déshumanisation, de sa réduction à l’état de produit, importable, délocalisable et remplaçable à merci. Le remplacisme global, l’idéologie économiste qui promeut le Grand Remplacement et tous les autres, n’est pas le fils du nazisme, mais il est son neveu. Ils participent de la même généalogie de l’horreur. Nous ne pouvons être associés à cela.
I have consequently removed the sentence until clarification or consensus for reintroduction with that correction. Azerty82 ( talk) 08:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved to Great Replacement. There are a few strands of discussion here which are more deadlocked – whether the term conspiracy theory should be included in the title, and whether the word replacement should be capitalised, which I can't see there being a consensus for. However, removing the definite article does have a consensus. I suggest that any editor who wishes to add "conspiracy theory" into the title opens a fresh RM to be discussed without prejudice to prior requests; for what it's worth, I don't see a consensus in the prior RM for removing the term. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre ( talk) 20:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
The Great Replacement → Great Replacement – Fails WP:THE. Compare Great Depression, etc. -- BDD ( talk) 15:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The "Great Replacement" is included in a larger white genocide conspiracy theory. It is unclear how the white replacement conspiracy theory would differ in its scope from this conspiracy theory. IMO, it would be clearer to have an article about Renaud's book and its influence, and put the rest in the other article. -- Pudeo ( talk) 15:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
To express one's opinion as if in an editorial, or as if it were an objective statement.I agree that this is a conspiracy theory, but not that a [widely held] opinion to that effect should be placed in the title. I do not quite understand the apparent moral panic in the recent trend of labeling conspiracy and fringe theories in the very title, but I'm opposed to it, on the long-standing policy basis: all five WP:CRITERIA about article titles favor " Spade" over " Spade (tool)" (which is what the proposed "Great Replacement conspiracy theory" amounts to). No such user ( talk) 14:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name... Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title... In such cases, the prevalence of the name,... generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.WP:NDESC that you advocate is generally used when the thing does not have a common name, which is not the case here. No such user ( talk) 09:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The outcome of this RfC is likely to have a material effect on this discussion. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Not a forum. Drmies ( talk) 23:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There seems to be a lack of demographic data to universally debunk this. It's worth noting that ethnic Europeans are projected to become minorities in certain historically majority-European countries, according to reliable sources, so this theory has at least some plausibility. We should change the article to reflect that. At this time it has an overly critical tone. White Britons are projected to become a minority in the UK, for example: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/white-britons-will-be-minority-before-2070-says-professor-8600262.html https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world Fraser Anning's predictions are supported by data from Australia's 2016 census: https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/census-2016-milestone-passed-as-australian-becomes-more-asian-than-european-20170627-gwz3ow.html Maxime Bernier's and Lindsay Shepherd's claims are supported by John Ibbitson's reporting on Statistics Canada: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-politics-of-2036-when-canada-is-as-brown-as-it-is-white/article33814437/ The president of the Dublin City University has speculated that ethnic Irish could become a minority by 2050, as reported by the Irish Times: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irish-could-be-minority-ethnic-group-here-by-2050-professor-1.424517 More generally, there is this article discussing Europe including "massive populations from Africa and the Middle East, as well as Asia", from Foreign Policy: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/25/the-end-of-an-era-for-white-males/ Peter Sutherland has actually advocated "undermining national homogeneity" in EU states. That sounds a lot like support for "Great Replacement" https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395 Finally, it is well-known that White Americans are projected to become a minority by 2045: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/ Presently, there are 4 sources debunking the Great Replacement theory as "misreading of demographic statistics". Maybe we should add a Support section, discussing demographic changes in specific countries or regions. Drbogatyr ( talk) 08:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
|
The result of the move request was: Moved: consensus is clear to remove the conspiracy theory part. With regards to the White genocide conspiracy theory page, a separate RM can be started. ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: per
Special:Diff/890659590, there was an edit conflict during the closure. I'm readding the tag which will add it back to the queue, please could another admin, page mover or uninvolved party determine the new consensus? Many thanks,
SITH
(talk)
18:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The Great Replacement conspiracy theory → The Great Replacement – The current name is inappropriate per WP:CRITERIA in that it is not the WP:COMMONNAME used, too wordy to be a natural search term, is overprecise, and not concise. Undoubtedly it is such, but I think it represents an inappropriate trend in titling conspiracy theory articles by essentially categorizing them in their title, rather than calling them their actual common name and allowing labels like "conspiracy theory" to be relegated to the article text. Conspiracy theories aren't a special class of topics which should be exceptions to our normal titling guidelines, and we don't do our readers or editors any service by featuring that extraneous phrase in the title. I think its also reasonable to say the phrase may also violate WP:NPOV by being pushed into the title outside of our guidelines. This title also artificially constrains the coverage we can give to this topic, in that we would be limited to talking about the conspiracy theory (that this is being done intentionally) without being able to address the broader scope, such as the origins of Camus' theory. I encourage editors to read/translate the French version of the page to see what I mean. Some numbers for comparison between these two phrases (current vs proposed): NY Times 2 vs 16, CNN 0 vs 16, BBC 0 vs 17, Google Scholar 0 vs ~53. -- Netoholic @ 09:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that this would not constitute a genocide. However: many advocates of the great replacement conspiracy theory have made that claim, and it is closely related to White genocide conspiracy theory - which is also rooted in a misunderstanding of the term "genocide".
Camus is calling Emmanuel Macron a member of the "transnational network of uprooted and denationalized people" - he's not referencing refugees, he's referencing cosmopolitan liberal elites. He's also probably dog-whistling about Jews, but - as Foreign Affairs documents - Camus has mostly reigned in his overt antisemitism so he can't just say that. Regardless: conspiracy theories usually don't identify a clear culprit or offer a lot of logical clarity, so confusion is totally consistent with the territory.
More importantly, reliable sources call this a conspiracy theory. Lots of them. I'm open to debating the appropriate title or the content, but I don't see much debate on the question of whether this is a conspiracy theory. "Demographic change" happens all the time. Nblund talk 15:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
In Camus’s view, Emmanuel Macron, the centrist liberal who handily defeated Le Pen in a runoff, is synonymous with the “forces of remplacement.” Macron, he noted acidly, “went to Germany to compliment Mme. Merkel on the marvellous work she did by taking in one million migrants.” Camus derides Macron, a former banker, as a representative of “direct Davos-cracy”—someone who thinks of people as “interchangeable” units within a larger social whole. “This is a very low conception of what being human is,” he said. “People are not just things. They come with their history, their culture, their language, with their looks, with their preferences.” He sees immigration as one aspect of a nefarious global process that renders obsolete everything from cuisine to landscapes. “The very essence of modernity is the fact that everything—and really everything—can be replaced by something else, which is absolutely monstrous,” he said.
References
The conspiracy theory, which was first articulated by French Philosopher Renaud Camus, has gained a lot of traction in Europe since 2015. It holds that the Christian population of Europe is currently being replaced by Muslims, and that this has been planned and is now carefully orchestrated by a group of conspirators.
A sinister plot for the "progressive replacement, over a few decades, of the historic population of our country by immigrants, the vast majority of them non-European
For instance, some websites...endorse the conspiracy theory of the Grand remplacement (Great replacement) positing the "Islamo-substitution" of biologically autochthonous populations in the French metropolitan territory, by Muslim minorities mostly coming from sub-Saharan Africa and the Maghreb.
Mr. King demonstrates familiarity with the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, also known as "white genocide," which posits that an international elite, including prominent Jews like George Soros, are plotting to make white populations minorities in Europe and North America.
It is essentially a conspiracy theory that accuses liberal politicians of deliberately acting to supplant white Europeans with Muslims through mass migration and higher birthrates.
They have spread a conspiracy theory on the web known as "the great replacement", which sees immigrants as a threat to "white" Western culture. That theory was in Mr Tarrant's "manifesto".
Behind the idea is a racist conspiracy theory known as "the replacement theory," which was popularized by a right-wing French philosopher. An extension of colonialist theory, it is predicated on the notion that white women are not having enough children and that falling birthrates will lead to white people around the world being replaced by nonwhite people.
"The Great Replacement", repeated a staple far-right conspiracy theory: that non-white and Muslim immigrants in Western countries are invaders, ushered in by scheming elites to replace ethnic-European populations.
A striking 31% of leave voters believed that Muslim immigration was part of a wider plot to make Muslims the majority in Britain, a conspiracy theory that originated in French far-right circles that was known as the "great replacement". The comparable figure for remain voters was 6%.
The Great Replacement is the name of a far-right conspiracy theory that believes Western culture is being systematically "replaced" by the culture of immigrants from third-world continents, or as "Moralitis" puts it: "Immigrants from continents oppressed by Western cultural, economic and military imperialism" who are "pawns for the revolutionary zeal of cultural Marxism".
The result of the move request was: No move after reviewing all three RMs. There are a few things to consider. For one thing, as was pointed out in the discussion and previous ones, there is no requirement or preference for appending "conspiracy theory" to articles on conspiracy theories. While this is done in some articles for various reasons, in general the naming convention is to use the WP:COMMONNAME where available. This was the consensus in the March 2019 RM, and there's been no evidence that something other than "Great Replacement" is more common. Additionally, while it was reasonably argued that the present title may be confusing, no other articles with ambiguous names were identified. Over all, I find the !votes arguing for the present title across the three RMs more persuasive, and find a consensus not to move the article. Cúchullain t/ c 18:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Great Replacement →
Great replacement conspiracy theory – Moving to "conspiracy theory" is more consistent with the
WP:CRITERIA on:
Regarding WP:COMMONNAME: There's no clear favorite among the various forms of capitalization, but all lower casing appears somewhat more common. Most sources specify that it is a conspiracy theory in some way, and nearly all of them use scare quotes around the term for at least the first mention of the term:
If anything, the most common name is "great replacement" (with scare quotes included). Obviously that won't work for a title, but, unlike real historic events like the Great depression, reliable sources take steps to ensure that readers are not given the impression that it references a real phenomenon. This is also true in the sources cited in the previous RM. Nblund talk 22:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Is the whole article about a conspiracy theory? I have just glanced at the top two topics on this talk page, headed "Statistics" and "Splitting the two forms of the theory?", as well as the earlier page move discussions, where is a suggestion that "This page is about a [Renaud Camus] book". Well the page title is the (translated) title of the book, although it would be better with "The" restored. In the "Splitting ..." topic it is suggested that there is firstly a theory set out in the book that the make-up of the population of France (and perhaps by extension Europe) is changing - a theory which can be tested by statistics. And secondly there is the conspiracy theory which says that these changes are being deliberately engineered by some human or non human entity somewhere on the planet = which can't be tested in that way.
Furthermore, the page White genocide conspiracy theory gives in the lead an alternative name white replacement conspiracy theory. So that page already claims to cover the replacement conspiracy theory. Perhaps this page should be scaled back to discuss the theory as originally outlined in Camus' book, and conspiracy -related material should be moved into that other page. In general ( WP:CONTENTFORK) Wikipedia does not like multiple pages covering the same ground. Sussexonian ( talk) 18:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
It's not a "conspiracy theory", but empirical and well documented reality: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/ageing/replacement-migration.asp -- 105.12.2.219 ( talk) 12:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I see this called a conspiracy theory but I don't see who the espousers think is conspiring. Is it some great plot? Are there international bankers or Lizard people behind this? Or is it just racists are mad because other people are migrating where they don't want them to? Are we just using the informal definition of conspiracy theory to mean kooky theory that supposedly explains stuff that happens? 50.27.72.253 ( talk) 00:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Suggested edit to the lead - where it reads "is being progressively replaced by", should we add 'intentionally', to read "progressively and intentionally"?
As I understand it, one of the key tenets of the conspiracy theory is not only that this "Great Replacement" is happening, it is being done *deliberately* by some shadowy cabal of Jews and self-hating white gentiles to weaken white power and Western civilization. In other words, that the demographic change is organized and purposeful, not just that it exists. Thoughts? Ganesha811 ( talk) 16:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I toned down the generalization at the beginning of the paragraph. The phrasing "Scholars, widely, generally, agree" is unwarranted. User:Rhododendrites reverted my change. From the cited support: Nicolas Vincour is not a scholar, he is a journalist, and he's describes *himself* as focusing on "far-right politics". Relying on his neutrality is disingenuous. Cecil Jenkins and Landis MacKellar admit to a biased method, as I show in what follows:
The health ministry organism AFDPHE published their criteria for sickle-cell testing, which boils down to "both parents african or arab, or one african or arab and the other unknown" [1] . The AFDPHE also published the amount of newborns it tested in 2016: 39% of births. Therefore, one can conclude that 39% of newborns don't seem to have *even one* european parent. After these report circulated widely, the AFDPHE was summarily shuttered.
You'll have to admit that if enough black children are born in France, they may be French, but the original non-black population has been replaced. The moral perceptions or intentions you may want to impute on "conspiracy theorists" are irrelevant.
Demographs are counters, and authors Cecil Jenkins and Landis MacKellar indicate, in the cited snippets, that they does not count children of immigrants as agents of "replacement", while we have just seen that they are. They use a citizenship status or a religious affiliation to disguise the changes in "demos", yet they are cited as a "Demo"graphers. Their criticism is therefore demonstrably ideological, and does not support the charged phrasing "scholars" "widely accept". Furthermore "scholarly" research on this subject is strongly discouraged without regard to its accuracy or inaccuracy. I maintain that the phrasing is misleading. I do not have to prove conclusively that the paragraph is false, I only have to prove it's unwarranted: at best out of place, and at worse misleading. DegenerateWaveform ( talk) 09:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I've hesitated for a while before writing this suggestion. I think the approach of this article is wrong, and that it should be re-visited. First of all, it should be approached like the sensitive and polarizing issue it is. In full disclosure: I believe a historic population replacement is taking place in France; I cannot be neutral towards it because I feel on the losing side of the phenomenon, and I must admit it. However, it is tiresome to see editors such as SummerPhDv2.0 policing the article, implying not only their own neutrality, but self-evident morality.
The article repeatedly uses the terms "white nationalistic", "conspiracy theory", "fantasme", "far right", "unscientific", "racist". These qualifiers would be laughed out of any other article describing sociological and historical facts, as unnecessary and biased. Significantly, they are routinely used (legitimately or illegitimately) as insults. This is a disservice to the tried and true Wikipedia policy "just the facts". I believe this comes partly from an incidental or intentional confusion, which is reflected here in the talk page. To try to untangle the concepts, avoid their moral charge, and go back to "just the facts", I propose three distinct articles:
1) Historic population replacement: the well-documented (if scientifically active) pre-historic and historic phenomenon that includes the neanderthal replacement by cro-magnon. Constructive debate can be had about Amerindians replaced in America, etc. Constructive debate can potentially be had about unprecedented contemporary migratory and reproductive pressures in every region, including, yes, Europe. Statistics, when they exist, go here.
2) Population replacement as a theoretical demographic concept, an analytical tool: any living population has three and only three possibilities:
a) it can either produce enough offspring to replace the aging population, b) it can shrink, or c) it can import functional replacements to take the place of the aging population.
If functional replacements have been imported, the moral or ethical implications must not push us to try to sneak a new definition of "replacement" or "population" that's so narrow as to lose its meaning. Constructive debate can be had about the 2000 UN proposal for the third possibility, or Japan's refusal of it and their attempt to turn the second into the first.
3) The observation, reception, and critique of these two concepts as related to contemporary phenomena. "Far right" framing, such as the one attributed to Renaud Camus, "The Great Replacement" (capitalized) can be described objectively. Their "conspiracy theory" aspects can be supported, and contemporary critique can be included. This article would include "far left" framing as well, which are well-documented to include celebratory claims of its inevitabily "n'ayez pas peur de quelque chose que va se passer" -- Leonora Milano, 2006: Prix Louis-Guilloux, 2006: Montalembert Prize, 2006: Bernard Palissy Prize, 2006: René Fallet Prize, 2013: Prix Fémina. Statistics only go here as verifiable support or refutation of verifiable claims.
This is not the case in the current article, which reads like a mud-flinging party, and cites Mediapart, Libé, Zemmour, Buzzfeed, politicians quips, &c. &c. DegenerateWaveform ( talk) 12:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I cannot be neutral towards it because I feel on the losing side of the phenomenonare troublesome. O3000 ( talk) 12:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
troublesomeregardless of your feelings, full disclosure is a good-faith attempt to invite honesty and good faith from other editors. DegenerateWaveform ( talk) 12:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Azerty82 ( talk) 13:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)To [the theory of a replacement through mass immigration], that claims itself to be an observation or a description, is added in the "anti-replacist" vision a conspiracy theory which attributes to the "replacist" elites the desire to achieve the "Great Replacement". From the ideas of "peopling colonisation" and "mass immigration", "anti-replacists" went to that of a genocide by ethnic, racial and cultural substitution, involving the completion of a programme or an action plan.
— Pierre-André Taguieff, 2015.
I try to remove any unreliable source". No, yes, I've seen that, and I respect your work. Given the nature of the subject, and the fact that everyone has an opinion on it, I imagine it's a lot of work, and the fact that the article is as objective as it is is a credit to you. I maintain that a true encyclopedia article would limit itself to the theory, and disambiguate to quasi-homonymic concepts. However, we're ideological beings, and even if I convince you, I can't convince the thousands of contributors which I won't criticize here. Have a good day sincerely. I'm checking out of the discussion permanently. DegenerateWaveform ( talk) 13:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
disambiguation by its nature links to articles, but you haven't specified any articles." is a non-sequitur. The "but" in the sentence is misleading and the fragments it links are not incompatible between them. I stated that you imply I omitted something, and by its placement, you
fling mud at the discussion without addressing the substance. DegenerateWaveform ( talk) 14:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Not here to build an encyclopedia.
|
---|
This Article is Far Left and the Series Converges This article starts off with a citation from a New York Times Opinion article in the Technology section. Mediafactcheck.com rates New YorK Times as having a Left bias, and their not rates as having a very high factual reporting level. The way that birth rates work is that each woman needs to have 2.1 children in order for their genetics to be not be replaced. This isn't sexist, it's not racist, it's just how genes work. If you don't reproduce at replacement rates you go extinct, like the Dodo. In Calc 3 there is a concept of an infinite series Sigma ((W/2.1)*X), where W is the Birthrate (but we use W for the weights in neural net). You divide W by 2.1 to make normalize the birthrate where 2.1 is the birth replacement rate given there is 1 man and 1 woman and they need to have 2.1 children per women so the population doesn't collapse. We normalize the birthrate by dividing it by 2.1 because 2.1/women birthrate is the same as multiply the Sum by 1.0 (i.e. it doesn't change, it stays the same) because in a Harmonic Series if W < 1.0 than it converges, and it's a Sigma because you can factor it out (I'm an engineer but please check my math). Look up the Harmonic Series on Wikipedia and you'll see that the Series converges if 0 >= W < 2.1. According to the New York Times, it's sexist that there is a minimum birthrate that you get replaced if you fall under. This is LUNATIC! Sounds like the SPLC and Fem Magazine wrote this article. I hate to have to be the one to tell you about the birds and the bees, GENES ARE NOT SEXIST! They reproduce or they die by not reproducing if they don't have an advantage over the other genes. According to the US Census Beuro [2], a source a lot more legit than the New York Times, white people are projected to be a minority in the US by the year 2045. The only advantage the immigrants have are they aren't feminist; it's not a good reason for them to take over, that's not actually a genetic advantage and it's not natural. When your birthrate is below the replacement rate, by the very definition of the words you are replaced. The other problem with this article and the sources it cites are that it claims this to be a "Far-right" conspiracy theory, is these claims are coming from a Country, France, where Free Speech is banned, and they call it "hate speech" there and they'll lock you up. I'm in America where hate speech isn't banned, but this article is making claims that are only try in Europe where hate speech is banned. In America, the only people who think this is a "far-right" theory are people who read this Wikipedia article or another article from someone who did. Until someone comes up with some non-biased citations, this article is required to have the false citations removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KabukiStarship ( talk • contribs) 23:11, April 18, 2020 (UTC) References
KabukiStarship has been indefinitely blocked as [[WP:NOTHERE|not here to build an encyclopedia. - SummerPhD v2.0 14:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC) |
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
That’s coming from a left-leaning French person who has always identified with our Socialist Party and recently even more to the left and who is totally pro-immigration and all but... honestly... this has got to be the most unbalanced and biased Wikipedia article I’ve read, and even if it’s biased to the “side” I have always been in, it’s so blatantly non-neutral that I think it does more harm than good. It completely alienates centrists and moderate right-wing people who come to it trying to see both sides of the debate and makes them sure that the article has been “kidnapped” by one side. Most people who speak of a “grand replacement” in France, which includes way more people than the article would make one think by treating it as simply a far-right conspiracy theory, are normal people who simply observe that nowadays about 10% of the French population were not born in France. Most of us, like myself, don’t see a problem with the fact that the population is changing, on the contrary, but it is undeniable that it is changing, and that’s what the ordinary French understands by “replacement”.
The vast majority of people who speak of it definitely do not claim it’s something premeditatedly done by elites and all the conspiracy claims made in the article introduction. So, honestly, the article has gone to such great lengths to take a very clear position against the movement that I fear it ends up having the opposite effect... “Great replacement” is simply a theory according to which the “Traditional” (white and catholic) population of France is being gradually replaced, and that’s it. The conspiracy theories should definitely be mentioned and a neutral article could serve a purpose to make average French people understand what both sides actually claim and see why the replacement is not happening as fast as one thinks nor is it a bad thing, but as it is now, the introduction already puts off anyone wanting to learn about it as a very clearly biased, non-encyclopedic text. 2A01:CB01:302B:C400:B8BD:5DE6:6365:6469 ( talk) 18:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I know nothing about the great replacement theory. I have know idea how you can arbitrate a "conspiracy theory". I ended up here because a video with an "expert" on the Young Turks said that discussing demographic shift is a dog whistle to white supremacists who beleive in the Great Replacement Theory. Minutes later they are discussion how the Democrats will take Texas in 2030 because of demographic shift. I realize this page claims to be about the french far right theory but did they generalize their theory to America? Is this conspiracy theory larger than just a "French" theory? THe post that was removed by user Objective3000 is The U.S. Census Bureau has projected that the U.S. white non-Hispanic population will become a minority (that is, less than half of the total U.S. population) during the 2040s, resulting in a plurality. [1]
References