Jump to content

Talk:Great Replacement conspiracy theory

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

Neutrality

[edit]
I'm going to be WP:BOLD and close down this discussion thread as it frequently becomes a flashpoint between WP:NOTFORUM complaints and increasingly frustrated page-watching editors. More heat than light and not a single reasonable edit suggestion since September. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 20 October 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.

Including "debunked" within the first few lines of the article is clear left-wing / liberal bias. I think it should be removed 180.150.36.233 (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're unaware of how mainstream sources routinely describe this topic, or perhaps your problem is with Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV, which states that we follow what the preponderance of mainstream sources say. Here's a few from a recent (now archived) discussion:
  • Politifact: "The "great replacement theory" is a debunked conspiracy theory that warns of an elaborate conspiracy by Democratic and U.S. elites to systematically replace white Americans with nonwhite people to change U.S. political systems." [1]
  • ABC News: "Ramaswamy defends debunked conspiracy theories he shared at Republican debate. ... Ramaswamy also boosted the "great replacement theory," the white nationalist belief that immigration policies are designed specifically to dilute the political power of white Americans by making them a smaller share of the population. ... While it is true that Democrats have historically adopted more liberal immigration policies and that the country's demographics are becoming less white and more racially diverse over time, there is no evidence that those changes are being engineered by politicians to ensure they can win power with those voters." [2]
  • BBC: "But the debunked, sometimes confusing ideas he embraces are more common on far-right message boards than presidential debate stages. ... 'The great replacement theory is not some grand right-wing conspiracy theory, but a basic statement of the Democratic Party's platform,' he contended."
  • Wired: "The great replacement theory is a widely-debunked conspiracy theory." [3]
  • Institute for Strategic Dialogue: "Extreme-right communities use a range of methods to broadcast the Great Replacement theory, including dehumanising racist memes, distorting and misrepresenting demographic data, and using debunked science." [4]
Might be that we can include all of these in one of those nifty multi-source citations, or maybe create an FAQ for this talk page. I don't expect that either of these options will dissuade folks intent on coming here to complain about left-wing bias but it couldn't hurt. Generalrelative (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An FAQ could be a good idea, simply pointing to the relevant entry would be a lot less wasted time than repeatedly answering the same question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So all left wing sources? True objectivity/neutrality takes/hears from both sides. Do better 2604:3D08:1B88:F600:811F:7C65:E3C1:12C2 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether considered left wing or right wing any source is acceptable, the problem is that any source not saying this conspiracy theory is real tends to get labelled as left wing. No source, whether left or right wing, has ever shown that this is anything but a conspiracy theory. Demographics have changed, and immigration has been a large part of that change, but that's not what this article is about. Wikipedia has a large amount of articles about immigration and demographic changes, this just isn't one of them. The point is that Immigration hasn't been shown to be down to any group or individual with their mind set of replacing anyone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No source has also shown it is not real, at most people said it is debunked, I for one say "This claim is true, and the theory is proven". Should I also be cited in the sources? 2A02:A312:60F7:BF80:1F8:357D:62B7:BB14 (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to your claims in order:
1. Bullshit.
2. Nobody cares what you think.
Hope this helps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To those of us who engage with reality as it is, it's clearly a factual and important (hence why it appears in the first sentence, which is meant to define the topic) statement. If it appears biased to you, then you'd get better results from examining your own biases than whining about ours.
Hope that helps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To the person who edited from 180.150.36.233: What you describe as left-wing / liberal bias is a form of bias, but it is not a left-/right-wing or liberal/conservative bias. It is a mainstream academic bias. I see a lot of people complaining about our 'liberal' bias, and they usually complain about Wikipedia preferring what they perceive as left-wing news media (you know - New York Times, Guardian, that sort of thing) rather than right-wing news media (Fox, Telegraph, etc). Actually, our preference is for academic sources - peer-reviewed articles, scholarly monographs, that sort of thing. News media are useful in some contexts, especially for recent events, but when they are available we treat scholarship as the gold standard. The scholarly sources I've read seem to describe this as a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory. You might not agree with that assessment - that is your right - but nobody here really cares about your opinion, or that of right-wing news media, in the face of respectable scholarship. If you want to argue for a change in the article, you need to present a significant body of scholarly work that contradicts the sources currently used in this article. Girth Summit (blether) 03:03, 28 September 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 4 October 2025

[edit]

Change “far right white nationalists” to “right-wing nationalists”. No need to include race in the article. 2604:3D08:1B88:F600:811F:7C65:E3C1:12C2 (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The text you want to swap is attached with links and citations. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 16:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Great Replacement" openly being talked about by the leader of the French Left and there are trustworthy secondary sources to confirm this.

[edit]
This has moved past anything that would be considered productive. It's just rehash of a previous discussions. Consensus isn't going to shift on this so let's not continue to fill this talk page with things that have already been said. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:17, 8 October 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.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-jean-luc-melenchon-talking-about-the-great-replacement-theory/

You simply cannot call this a "debunked" "conspiracy theory" of the "far-right" if the leader of the Left in the country from which the idea originates is openly talking about it and celebrating it. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it originated with the far-right, and is mostly pushed by the far-right, and RS associate it with the far-right, we can. The fact that someone on the far-left also espouses it isn't a huge surprise. See Horseshoe theory, which also originated in France. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's also obviously responding ironically to Zemour. This article proves nothing really. Simonm223 (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but he is still expressing the exact sentiment that Camus was originally warning against. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone making fun of a conspiracy theory is not proof of the conspiracy theory. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's not even making fun of it; he's restating it in different terms and calling it good. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, He's mocking it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, but what I think is irrelevant; by the standards of Wikipedia which have been applied to this article, you would need another secondary source contradicting this one for this claim to be treated with any validity. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previously discussed at Talk:Great Replacement conspiracy theory/Archive 4#Edit request: Melenchon embracing Great Replacement. Basically certain sources using Melenchon's words out of context to push a POV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Camus's Argument: There will be a ridiculous number of immigrants coming to France who will take political authority and France will become a nation constituted of the mixed together peoples of all the world.
Melenchon's statement: France's large immigrant-descended population will take political authority and France will become a nation constituted of the mixed together peoples of all the world.
Just because one is a novel meant to tell the tale in a hyperbolic and negative way doesn't mean it's substantially any different. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to Ørop WriterOfScrolls (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory about a shadowy cabal deliberately replacing the white population. That is, nothing to do with this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Camus never called it a "shadowy cabal." He continues to say they are very out in the open, and doesn't Melenchon seem to be? WriterOfScrolls (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Melenchon is talking about immigration and demographic changes, there are lots of Wikipedie articles covering these subjects in detail - this isn't one of them. This article is about a supposed, and debunked, conspiracy to replace the white population for some imaginary nefarious motive. Melenchon isn't saying that this conspiracy is real, or giving it any credence. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even hear yourself? Melenchon is openly and actively advocating and calling desireable the ethnic "replacement" of France. I don't know what his "nefarious motive" is, and I don't care to discern it, but isn't advocating for demographic replacement exactly what you're saying the "conspiracy" (Though Camus never called it one) consists of? WriterOfScrolls (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read this article? Can you demonstrate that you understand the difference between an undirected demographic changes and a conspiracy to force a demographic change for political purposes? I would remind you that competence is required to edit this project. If you cannot demonstrate the competence to even understand this subject, then you have no business attempting to edit it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the literature where this is actually described? In the Camp of the Saints, for example, it is the innaction of the ruling elite that is precisely where the blame is placed. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes. It's the most disgustingly racist book I've ever read in my life, with absolutely no redeeming quality beyond shock value. Even the prose in the original French is atrocious, and the various English translations do it no favors. Don't even get me started on the ham-fisted use of the 'ignorant liberal' stereotype that's only ever existed in the minds of moronic right-wingers to even enable the plot to happen.
2. The fact that you even responded this way answers my question to you with a resounding "no". The Camp of the Saints is not about this conspiracy theory. This conspiracy theory didn't even exist when that book was written. Nothing that happens in that work of fiction has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsehood of this wildly ignorant conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand if you didn't like the book; I didn't either. It's still essential to the literature of this idea, Camus still expressed similar ideas about the reasoning for the supposed replacement in his coining of the "great replacement," and you still have not addressed the point I have made. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You made no point that needs addressing, and you have failed to answer my question directly, merely providing evidence that you don't understand this subject well enough to edit this page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that your supposedly deep understanding is one great superfluous elaboration out from a strawman at its core which bears no resemblance to the thing that you are describing. The whole article is built around this being a "conspiracy theory" when very few people who espouse the idea actually consider it to be such, including now the leader of the French Left. If your response to this is to say "well, maybe they are using the term to describe something different, but the term describes this particular thing," then I think that makes absolutely zero sense, because terms mean what people intend them to mean, or, in this case, what the sources intend for them to mean. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can hear that some sources misrepresent his words that way, it's not what he says and he isn't advocating for this debunked conspiracy theory or for the replacement of white french people. Even if some sources want to push a POV by quoting parts of what he said out of context, it doesn't change anything in this article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WriterOfScrolls I don't think you understand the scope (or topic) of this article. It isn't about demographic change in France and the consequences thereof; it is about the conspiracy theory that a (presumed to be "racially" homogenous) French population is being "replaced" at the behest of a ruling elite. The article is defined this way to reflect the consensus of high-quaoity sources. The argument, "but it's really happening!", isn't relevant to this article's content, given the sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"it is about the conspiracy theory that a (presumed to be "racially" homogenous) French population is being "replaced" at the behest of a ruling elite"
Okay, and I have a reliable source about a member of the ruling elite who is publicly saying that France is being ethnically replaced and that it's a good thing. What's the inconsistency here? WriterOfScrolls (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has got to the point of WP:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WriterOfScrolls I have read the available sourcing (which consists largely of right-wing journalists baiting outrage), and Melanchthon doesn't say that "France is being ethnically replaced". Neither can he reasonably be considered a "member of the ruling elite" any more than, say, Marine Le Pen. The very idea that a far-left curmudgeon should be understood as a member of a string-pulling "elite" only makes sense in relation to a "small minority perspective" worldview. Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He has said that France is being "Creolized" This is synonymous. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 17:29, 7 October 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 16 October 2025

[edit]

There's nothing called "Great Replacement conspiracy theory".

The correct term is "Great Replacement theory" Mlux33040 (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 18:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Debunked?

[edit]

The page mentions the theory has been debunked but barely includes any content debunking it, I think the page could really use a section with the most common arguments used to debunk it. L'rd Of The Fish (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what are you proposing? --McSly (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Basically it's debunked because in all the time since it's development, no actual evidence of a conspiracy has been presented. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's described as debunked, because sources describe it as debunked and Wikipedia follows what sources say rather than interjecting editors own opinions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit short, I'll clarify. This page shouldn't contain proof it's debunked, as that's not the point of Wikipedia. Wikipedia neutrally summarises what is found in reliable sources, so as reliable sources describe this as debunked the Wikipedia article states that it's debunked. Debating whether this is true or not isn't the purpose of Wikipedia, see WP:NOTFORUM, editors wanting to do so should go to Reddit or some other site. This isn't something where editors opinions on whether it's debunked or not matters. Editors own opinions have no place in articles, any changes to this article should follow sources and not editors feelings. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but then why does the page itself say it's debunked?
Isn't that against the neutrality you could say? L'rd Of The Fish (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are enough reliable sources that say so. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't neutral in the usual sense of the word. See WP:NPOV Doug Weller talk 12:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia neutrally states what is found in reliable sources, rather than both-siding an issue (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). The problem with the second type of neutrality is that it requires editors to decides what the two sides are and what would be a neutral balance between them. Relying on reliable external sources is a way of trying to remove editors own biases from articles.
TLDR - Wikipedia restates what is found in reliable sources, rather than editors own beliefs of what neutrality should be. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Replacement_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1319740633"