Talk:Remigration

Concerns regarding neutrality and framing of the “Remigration” article

The current article appears to present remigration chiefly through the lens of its critics, repeatedly associating it with “far-right” movements and “ethnic cleansing,” while offering little or no account of the arguments advanced by its proponents—such as cultural preservation, demographic stability, or national self-determination. This selection of sources and diction may contravene Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy by giving undue weight to one interpretation. A balanced revision should summarise both supportive and critical perspectives with proportionate citations.

220.244.57.91 (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance. The article already appears to offer proportionate citations. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the reminder regarding undue weight, yet I would suggest that the present case differs materially from fringe pseudoscience. The concept of remigration is neither a conspiracy theory nor an unverified claim of fact, but a political idea held and advocated by identifiable movements, parties, and commentators across several European countries. It therefore constitutes a verifiable topic of political discourse, not a “belief” to be suppressed.

Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy requires that significant viewpoints be represented in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. While critical perspectives certainly dominate academic and media discussion, there are also policy documents, public statements, and interviews by proponents that meet the threshold of verifiability. Their inclusion—accurately described and properly sourced—would not confer “equal validity,” but would prevent the article from presenting only a condemnatory framing.

220.244.57.91 (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. This article appears to be an accurate summary of the topic, as supported by reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the No Original Research policy. I entirely agree that Wikipedia must not advance unpublished analysis or personal interpretation. My concern, however, does not involve adding unsourced material. The issue is that the article presently cites almost exclusively critical or hostile sources, leaving out verifiable, published statements by the idea’s advocates—party manifestos, interviews, policy documents, and similar material that clearly exist and meet the standard of reliable, published sources.

Including such sources would not constitute “original research,” since it would not require novel synthesis or inference, merely accurate quotation and summary of what already exists in print. Omitting them, on the other hand, risks breaching Neutral Point of View by failing to represent significant published perspectives.

The three content policies—NOR, NPOV, and Verifiability—operate together; adherence to one should not nullify the others. My suggestion is thus not to introduce interpretation, but to restore proportional representation through verifiable citations.

220.244.57.91 (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Wording like that makes it seem like you're using ChatGPT to waste other people's time.

Regardless, those are unlikely to be reliable sources. Further, they are not independent sources, making them very poor for demonstrating due weight. Wikipedia isn't a platform for political propaganda, so a 'party manifesto' is unlikely to be useful. Any interpretation of unreliable primary sources qualifies as original research in Wikipedia's view. Again, treating poor-quality partisan sources as equivalent to reliable and independent sources would be false balance, at best. Grayfell (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I assure you I am not “using ChatGPT,” merely writing carefully.

As to sources: WP:PSTS specifically allows the use of primary material to document a subject’s own statements or positions, provided these are presented with attribution and without editorial synthesis. Party manifestos or official declarations are therefore appropriate to show what proponents of a political concept actually claim. Independent and secondary sources are rightly needed for analysis and evaluation, but not for the existence or content of the primary view itself.

My suggestion is not to equate partisan and academic sources, but to let the article summarise both according to their proper weight: critical scholarship for analysis, primary statements for definition and motivation. That would accord with WP:NPOV and WP:PSTS alike.

220.244.57.91 (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The article already proportionately and neutrally summarizes the topic. The article should not use unreliable primary sources to define any topic, but especially not a WP:FRINGE one. Primary sources can be used for non-controversial details, but neither the definition nor the purported motives are details. Grayfell (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

At present, the article simply is not neutral. The lede states, as flat fact, that “Remigration is a far-right concept … of ethnic cleansing via the mass deportation of non-white immigrants…” and then structures almost the entire piece around variations of “ethnic cleansing” language. That is not a neutral definition; it is one side’s moral and analytical judgement elevated into the opening sentence.

The talk here keeps appealing to WP:FRINGE and NOR as though they allowed us to dispense with NPOV. They do not. Even if one grants that the contemporary far-right usage is fringe, WP:FRINGE requires accurate description of the fringe view and clear attribution of criticism, not the folding of the criticism into the definition itself.

Likewise, it is simply wrong to say that primary or partisan sources may not be used to define a topic. WP:PSTS and WP:ABOUTSELF expressly envisage using primary material to state how a movement or organisation describes its own aims, so long as this is done with attribution and without editorial endorsement. Secondary, independent sources then provide analysis and evaluation.

A neutral lede would therefore:

• First, state that “remigration” is a term used by certain far-right/identitarian actors for large-scale return or removal of immigrants and their descendants, as they themselves frame it; and • Secondly, immediately note—with citations—that academic and journalistic sources characterise such programmes as a form of ethnic cleansing or forced deportation.

That structure would still give overwhelming prominence to the critical secondary literature, but it would stop presenting that criticism as though it were the bare meaning of the word. At present, the article reads more like an editorial than an encyclopaedia entry, and that is the problem I am trying to flag. 220.244.57.91 (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Your intention is obviously to downplay the explicit racism of this term, and to reduce the prominence of 'ethnic cleansing' in the lead. The lead already indicates how proponents frame this topic, and rearranging this for PR purposes is out of the question. Wikipedia is not platform for PR. Your arguments here are legalistic, but they are not supported by actual policy or by consensus. Further, this is not a single organization, so there is no 'aboutself' exception for reliable source requirements, and certainly not in the lead of the article. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

With respect, you are imputing motives instead of addressing the substance. I am not here to “do PR”, nor to erase the term “ethnic cleansing”. I am pointing out that the first sentence of the lede currently defines remigration as

“a far-right concept … of ethnic cleansing via the mass deportation of non-white immigrants…”

rather than saying that reliable sources characterise it as a form of ethnic cleansing. That is a question of attribution and neutrality, not of public relations.

NPOV does not cease to apply because a topic is odious. Even if contemporary “remigration” is treated as WP:FRINGE, WP:FRINGE still requires that the fringe view be described as it is actually held, and that criticism be clearly attributed, not silently built into the definition. The present lede folds the verdict (“ethnic cleansing”) into what purports to be a neutral definition, and the rest of the article overwhelmingly repeats that one framing.

On sources: nobody is proposing that party material “demonstrate due weight” in the scholarly sense, nor that it replace independent sources in the lede. WP:PRIMARY explicitly allows non-independent primary sources to establish what a subject advocates, provided we do not infer beyond what they say. That applies just as well where there are several organisations using a term; nothing in policy says that only a single body may be cited for its own stated aims.

A neutral structure would be to state, in the lede, that remigration is a term used by certain far-right/identitarian actors for large-scale return or removal of immigrants and their descendants (as they describe it), and immediately to add that academic and journalistic sources characterise such programmes as a form of ethnic cleansing or forced deportation. That neither sanitises the idea nor turns the first sentence into an editorial.

You may disagree with that balance, but it is plainly grounded in NPOV and WP:PRIMARY, not in any desire to launder racism. 220.244.57.91 (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Your points are well-taken, obviously so. As it stands, this article is a propaganda piece whose POV is far from neutral. In the spirit of trying to offer a concrete alternative, Grokipedia does a far better job of treating this topic, living up to WP principles that this article does not. Intro paragraph:

"Remigration is a policy proposal for the organized repatriation of immigrants to reverse demographic and cultural shifts resulting from sustained immigration in Western host countries.[1] It typically targets primarily non-European immigrants, focusing on non-citizens, though some interpretations extend to descendants or citizens. The concept remains highly controversial, sparking debates over its ethical, legal, and practical dimensions. Proposed mechanisms range from voluntary incentives for return to stricter enforcement measures against illegal entrants, criminal offenders, and non-integrated individuals.[2] The term is associated with the identitarian movement and has gained prominence in contemporary European political discourse."

[1]

This article is an embarrassment. (I am a long-time WP editor.) Lfstevens (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Grokipedia? Seriously? That site has its own bias and controversies related to it, especially when it comes to sensitive or controversial political topics like this. We cannot look to it as an ideal to strive for here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The first two citations in the Grokipedia article are to the website of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland party. If that is 'neutrality', I'm a plate of kippers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Of course it has issues. But they aren't ones of bias (in this case). I didn't propose their language as a substitute, but as an example of how to present controversial info in a neutral way, which it does. It doesn't surprise me that your objection is not to the content, but to attack the citations. So predictable. Try again. I wouldn't have gone with kippers, but it does kinda work. Lfstevens (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Of course it has issues. But they aren't ones of bias (in this case). How can you be sure it's done in a neutral way? Remigration is not a topic in this neutral political vacuum, it's a controversial topic intertwined with modern identitarian political movements that Grokipedia has been accused of having a bias in favor of. Also, any Wikipedia article is inherently built on its citations and sources, good or bad, and if we're gonna be treating Grokipedia fairly the sources it gives can't be taken at face value. You should always question the sources being used. Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

"How can you be sure"

Not sure how to answer that. Maybe because the text doesn't offer any direct or indirect judgment and avoids inflammatory language like "far right" and "ethnic cleansing". There is plenty of room to make and support those associations later in the piece, but the intro would be better off to just state what is involved.

Here's what I got on Chrome:

"Remigration has two primary meanings: a neutral academic term for voluntary return migration, and a contemporary far-right political term used as a euphemism for the mass, often forced, deportation or ethnic cleansing of non-white residents and citizens from Western countries." Lfstevens (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Google's LLM-generated waffle is not WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I won't recycle the last round here. Would Merriam Webster do?

re·​mi·​gra·​tion (ˌ)rē-mī-ˈgrā-shən

pluralremigrations

the act of migrating again

especially : the act of returning to one's original or previous home after a migration. Lfstevens (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

that is a different wikipedia page. This one is about how the far right use the term, if you look at the top of the article it redirects you to the page you want.

Your logic is as flawed as saying the nazi party was socialist, words are not always what they seem. HCPM (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

"This one is about how the far right use the term"

What? Says who? Which other page shoud we go to? ~2026-34040-3 (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

It's literally the first line in the article. "For the social science concept, see return migration." Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

"says who" the sources that are linked on this website, "which other page should we go to" well... read what Ivanvector said HCPM (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The last thing we ought to be doing is inserting AI slop of any origin into Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a draft policy on this which is not binding as of the time of the writing of my comment but Grok AI, Google AI or others cannot be used as sources here and their 'writings' should not be inserted into articles.

You cited the following statement from "Grokipedia":

"Remigration is a policy proposal for the organized repatriation of immigrants to reverse demographic and cultural shifts resulting from sustained immigration in Western host countries."

You, I think, (correct me if I'm wrong) object to the term "far-right". Could you point me to political movements as or more powerful than the far-right that are advocating for remigration? We would need WP:RS for this in order to make a change. Bill Heller (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTDICTIONARY, we do the common usage in reliable sourcing, we are not here to do denotation of the word, thats Wictionary User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't make it clear that I wasn't proposing that we use their definition; only that other WP:RS were not leading with the "ethnic cleansing" "far right" language. Lfstevens (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

again not dictionary, and the dictionary definition is not what is discussed in most reliable sourcing. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:58, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

UKIP details

Pinging LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle and Ivanvector, who have added and reverted new content about the UKIP's approach to remigration, as sourced to the party's manifesto. I agree with Ivanvector that the content should be left out. Since there are many high-quality secondary sources available on this topic, we should almost never be pulling from primary, non-independent sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The topic at hand is what policy a party supports, and I'm citing their own website which says what they support. This is a textbook example of when to use [[WP:SELFSOURCE]].

I think the UK section needs more information on what policies are parties are proposing. Especially now LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The parties (all parties, but those with extreme views especially) soften and outright misrepresent their positions in order to appeal to a broader audience. That was what the whole "promoted voluntary return" discussion was about, and really why this article is a notable topic at all (because those parties misappropriated apocryphal social science terminology). You masked your link to WP:SELFSOURCE for some reason, but the very first bullet in that list on when not to use a self-published source is when the material is unduly self-serving, and there is plenty of reason to believe that it is in this case. As Firefangledfeathers notes, there is ample third-party analysis of the parties' positions that we should use, rather than their own self-promotion.

The UK section may need to be expanded on which entities are promoting remigration, but it should be sourced to independent third parties. And this section is not free advertising for the parties: we absolutely do not need to be adding laundry lists of everything these parties are up to, they have their own articles for that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems incredibly promotional by a political party to describe their position as such. Every reliable source says this is a policy to forcibly expel ethnic minorities and UKIP is clearly sanitizing the language.

Arguably, unless other reliable secondary sourcing takes UKIPs self description seriously, we dont need to devote so much to this characterization User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The selfsource link has that carveout about not using unduly self serving info. This language clearly falls into that category User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Don't stigmatize all uses of the term "remigration"

I strongly object to this edit because it causes this article to stigmatize all uses of the term "remigration" as racist and/or xenophobic. While the term "remigration" can indeed be racist and/or xenophobic, it often is not, especially before the 2020s. This is explained in our article section on "wider usage." If we want this article to refer exclusively to a far-right stance on racist deportation, then it should be renamed something like "Racist remigration." Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is, and it's explained better in the existing articles we have on the separate and distinct social science topics, return migration and voluntary return. This article isn't about those topics, it's about the proposals to deport immigrants that are a popular response to the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, which far-right groups co-opted the term "remigration" to describe. I tried to refer you to the recent discussion we had on this very subject but I think maybe you didn't see it: Talk:Remigration/Archive 1#Request for comments: promoted voluntary return. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I do not know what you are referring to when you say "yes it is." Yes what is? I am not suggesting that this article should describe remigration as "promoted voluntary return" in the lede, or anything like that, but the concept of voluntary return needs to be mentioned in the lede so long as the title broadly refers to "remigration." Otherwise we are stigmatizing all use of that term as racist, which our sources prove is not true. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

No, the concept of voluntary return does not need to be described in the lede at all, because this article is not about that. This article is about policy proposals intended to reduce or remove immigrant populations from a territory by coercion or force, which the groups promoting the concept call "remigration". That's what most sources refer to it as, and Wikipedia follows that lead. The article's lead is meant to be a high-level summary of the topic; discussing other topics that are only related because they have the same name is not something we do in article leads, but we do have a "wider usage" section (which should probably be called something else) which briefly describes uses of the term that this usage evolved from, and links to the articles which better describe those concepts. As an example: you may notice that our article on the Apple company does not talk about fruit at all in its lead, and only very briefly in the article at all in a section describing how the name was chosen. Likewise, our article on the fruit doesn't talk about personal computers or portable music players at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This has become a huge problem with wikipedia. Powerful editors simply decide what the purpose of an article is for ideological reasons, then shut out all dissent with a deluge of bureaucratic sophistry. ~2026-34040-3 (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome to participate in discussions on improving the article's coverage, although you will probably find discussions more responsive if you respond to active ones, rather than responding in the middle of a discussion to a comment from two months ago. However, based on your recent activity you seem more interested in complaining that Wikipedia's balanced and neutral coverage doesn't fit your personal world view, rather than actually improving anything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

(ec) No, we can't call it 'Racist remigration'? That is absurd. It isn't those who re-migrate that are the racists, it is those who encourage/force them to. And we already have a hatnote explaining what the article is about. If we need to explain this in more detail, fine, but mealy-mouthed waffle like 'this term also refers to' isn't even remotely the way to do it. Not when what the term 'also' refers to is exactly what the article is about. The revert was entirely proper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

If you prefer, the title could be "Racist remigration policies." The lead currently begins like this: "Remigration is a European far-right concept of ethnic cleansing...." That is false, as the term remigration is often used in other ways. Do you want this article to start with a falsehood? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the concept of remigration, not the word remigration, and there are no falsehoods in describing this concept this way. Dictionaries explain all meanings of a word in their entries, but we are not a dictionary; we are an encyclopedia, and we write about topics, not words (although some of our entries are words). The differences are subtle but important; you may be interested in this essay. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Ivanvector, your argument is erroneous. We use the English language at the English Wikipedia, including accepted standard meanings of English words. We are not entitled to invent new meanings, or to overlook old ones, especially when doing so stigmatizes people who are using a completely innocent and harmless meaning.

According to WP:PRECISE, "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article (emphasis added), but should be no more precise than that." The present article title is not just ambiguous but also overbroad, assuming we want the article to cover only a subset of "remigration." However, the present article title is fine if we would like to cover remigration generally. I am simply urging you to pick one or the other. As it is, we are stigmatizing people who use "remigration" in its non-racist sense; as an admin you surely would not want to do that, right? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

How about not trying to guilt-trip people? If you aren't aware by now that admins have no special role in determining article content, you certainly should be. And no, we aren't going to rewrite this article to cover something else. Particularly not when you have already noted that the the 'something else' is a different usage of a word. If you think there is a real problem, how about providing some evidence that anyone is mistaking one usage for another? There must be precious few words in the English language that can't be used negatively, but accusing Wikipedia of 'stigmatising' somebody-or-other on the basis of an article using a word in its title is ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You seem quite delighted to demand an article title here that is extremely ambiguous, contrary to Wikipedia policy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't see this as ambiguous, and apparently consensus is against that interpretation of the title. In context, the cited source is nowhere close to strong enough to place in the very first sentence. Since the term's history is mentioned in the body, a sentence on this history could be added to the lead. Placing it in the first sentence in that way is not going to work, however, and the title of this subsection seems pretty inflammatory if the intention was to change consensus. Grayfell (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Grayfell, I disagree with this edit of yours, and of course we have an entire section of this article (including eleven footnotes) describing wider usage of this term "remigration." You can try to cast blame on me for this dispute, but you would be just as misguided to cast blame on WP:PRECISE. Many editors have raised this issue besides me. And I don't see any reason why a compromise solution would not address everyone's objections. I am certainly not going to retract that the status quo stigmatizes people who have done nothing wrong or racist; that's the basis of my request here for improvement. The stigmatization is not necessarily intentional (though I am starting to wonder). Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

the status quo stigmatizes people who have done nothing wrong or racist In what way does it do that? The article already makes a distinction between when remigration has been used in a neutral context vs. as a far-right talking point, and it especially doesn't say "everyone who has used the term is racist". Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The opening sentence says, "Remigration is a European far-right concept of ethnic cleansing[1] via the mass deportation of non-white minority populations, especially immigrants and sometimes including those born in Europe and holding European citizenship, to their place of racial ancestry." Thus, when any politician says "I support remigration" they will be understood as being racists who support ethnic cleansing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

In that case, your objection should be brought to the many sources we use who have defined the term as a form of ethnic cleansing. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Are there any sources that define it exclusively that way? Do they outnumber the reliable sources that provide a broader definition? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

There's 6 sources listed currently on the first line that define it as ethnic cleansing. Do you have any reliable sources that say otherwise, and outnumber what we have listed? Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Those sources don't indicate that remigration refers *exclusively* to ethnic cleansing, as opposed to a more harmless concept. Those sources say that it's because of the more harmless concept of "remigration" that ethnic cleansers have adopted that term as a euphemism. For example, Wilhelmsen (2021) says "they refer to [it] as ‘remigration’, a euphemism for ethnic cleansing." Likewise, Burden (2023) says, "remigration [is] a euphemism for ‘ethnic cleansing’....The movement calls for (...) ‘remigration’. Despite its proponents’ rejection that this is simply a euphemism for ‘ethnic cleansing’, such policies would ultimately involve the lowering of the living conditions for ‘non-Europeans’, or even their forced expulsion." Ethnic cleansing advocates also claim an "invasion" of immigrants, but we would never say in wikivoice that the word "invasion" refers exclusively to immigrants. Anyway, you can see our article's section on "wider usage" for confirmation that the word "remigration" has a much wider meaning than the euphemistic one ascribed to it by ethnic cleansing advocates. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

RE: The sources, we're now getting into splitting hairs at that point, and I don't think anyone here is arguing that remigration as a term has never meant anything else (like you said, there's already a section in the article about its "wider usage"). From my understanding, the article is focused on the term as a euphemism for ethnic cleansing because that's how it's primarily used today, regardless of how it's been used in the past. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

That's correct: this article is about proposals to coerce or force non-white populations to leave their countries and return to their supposed place of ethnic origin, which is presently popularized by far-right and white nationalist groups as "remigration". There aren't any valid non-racist framings because it is an inherently racist concept. It has been around since before the Nazis decided on the Holocaust instead (see the Madagascar Plan) and became attached to the Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the 2010s, and began to be called remigration maybe a decade ago as the far right has found success repackaging inherently racist ideas behind disused neutral-sounding words. In this case, the word "remigration" is also an apocryphal portmanteau for return migration, a sociological study of migrants returning to their places of origin and the wide variety of reasons and factors that they do, but it was never a term that was broadly in use for that concept, and especially not recently. This is all borne out by reliable sources and the many past discussions we've had on this exact subject. Wikipedia describes things as reliable sources indicate that they should be described, not how white nationalists would prefer that we describe them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

agree, Grayfell seems to explain it best User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Moving on

Anythingyouwant has declared that they're not going to edit this article any more, so I assume we can move on from their proposal which only they were supporting anyway. But I do think we should clarify a few things.

For one, is "remigration" still (or was it ever) a prominent term in social science? Or is it only entering the popular mainstream now because of its appropriation (Goetz calls it resignification) of the old term? Under "wider usage" we say it is "still used as such", but the three citations (excluding the dictionary definition) I think don't establish its prominence, neither currently nor historically. They are just examples of its use, and the most recent was published in 1996, nearly 30 years ago. Three mentions over 75 years, and I guess the bit in the next paragraph about Franz is a fourth, doesn't seem very significant. We have the quote from Ana Santos in that section, but the source doesn't elaborate on that at all. Can we find (or do we already have) a better source discussing its history? Also, why do we have a citation just to Santos' Pulitzer profile? That should come out, it doesn't support anything.

Next, does this article need to have a distinguish hatnote to return migration right at the top? I think it would be better moved down as a see-also under the wider usage heading, where the terminology is discussed.

Just some thoughts I had in all this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

In terms of concrete usage information, I checked out https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=remigration and it has tons of sources still talking about "remigration" in its milquetoast sense, right up through the present day. So I think the facts on the ground are this is, and still is, a prominent term in social science.

Furthermore, many of these results are presumptively RSes in their own right and probably some of them talk about / define the term, like, for example

Glorius, Birgit. "Understanding the counter-flow: Theoretical and methodological aspects in studying remigration processes after EU expansion." Mobility in Transition. Routledge, 2025. 217-236. https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/chapters/oa-edit/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9781003699903-14&type=chapterpdf 11.2.1 Definition and typology of return migration

The terms ‘remigration’ or ‘return migration’ are generally used when migrants return to their country of origin, after having spent a significant time abroad.

I doubt we're going to find a source with more detail on a simple term like this. Unless you want to start citing foundational typologies of "remigration" from the 1970s or something (such as the ones Glorius cites in this chapter) Dingolover6969 (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hmm it may be worth splitting it then into a separate article, remigration (human movement) vs remigration (political goal) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I think something along those lines would be a great idea. Dingolover6969 (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The example source you cite specifically defines 'remigration' as synonymous with return migration. The article already has a 'not to be confused with return migration' banner. This article explicitly isn't about return migration.

With that in mind, any attempt to interpret Google Scholar is a form of WP:OR. Sources about 'return migration' belong at that article. Grayfell (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

yeah, if return migration is the term that covers this, then we don't need to do the split. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with these points. Although, as I allude to in the reply to myself below, I think we should rename this page to something like Remigration (21th century political movement) for WP:DAB reasons. I think the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "remigration" is return migration — interpreting Google Scholar is WP:OR and can't be used on a page, but it is part of WP:DPT ;) Dingolover6969 (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

We already have Return migration to cover the other sense of "remigration". But I agree with our sadly flamed-out friend above that "remigration" isn't really WP:Precise enough for this page about the 21st century political movement/concept/goal/term/euphemism (whichever the article is really about), since "remigration" is usually a simple synonym of "return migration". Dingolover6969 (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Interest groups aren't gathering on overpasses with banners and writing manifestos and organizing conferences to idly chat about their common interest in sociology, and mainstream media aren't publishing articles detailing simple movements of migrant populations throughout history, under the name "remigration". This article is clearly the primary topic, and does not need to be disambiguated or retitled.

This is honestly just disruptive POV pushing at this point. Should we institute a moratorium on discussion of the dictionary definition of the word and suggestions of falsely neutralized titles? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe a talk faq will suffice?

and just reply back at folks with a link to the appropriate discussion.

we really dont need to WP:SATISFY folks who are pushing remigration isnt ethnic cleansing. And if return migration is the term used in sociology, we can ask good faith folks to go improve that article if they want. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

You are going to keep getting discussions along those lines — from much less coherent complainers than me, mind you — because the page title is ambiguous. My idea would be to retitle it something like "Remigration (21th century political ideology)", which doesn't strike me as falsely neutralized, since that's what this article is supposed to be about. This would also help prevent further wrongheaded edits to the lede from people who think this article is supposed to be about the regular sense of the word "remigration" (in which hypothetical page the 21st century "euphemism" would presumably be a section). Furthermore, I think the case study on WP:DPT about Apple versus Apple Inc is instructive here. Dingolover6969 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

We disambiguate article titles because they're ambiguous and the ambiguity can't be resolved naturally, such as by titling this article by the word most commonly associated with it, and the social science article by the terminology more prominently used for that topic. We don't disambiguate to mollify disruptive POV pushers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

November 2025 DHS tweet citation

I have removed this sentence from the US subsection: "The term was reused in November 2025 following the killing of one National Guardswoman and the shooting of another by an Afghan refugee."

The "by an Afghan refugee" was just added by a temporary account, and is factual based on citations in the shooting article, although it does seem to be a loaded addition. But that's not my concern. The sentence was cited only to the tweet that it references, and because anyone can tweet literally anything I prefer to find third-party coverage for any content referring to a tweet, to demonstrate that it is due for inclusion. The only source I found for this was MSN republishing an article from The Mirror, a US edition of a well-known British tabloid (see WP:DAILYMIRROR). I found other coverage of DHS' ramp-up following the shooting but those sources didn't mention DHS tweeting "remigration" at all, but focused on Trump's tirade about it (he used "reverse migration", a term he seems to have invented, not "remigration"). I removed the sentence because I think we can't establish that it's a significant event without coverage of it, and I didn't change it to be a reference to Trump's rant because that would be like mentioning in an article that the sun rose today. I'm bringing it here in case anyone wants to try to find a better source to include this, but I think it just doesn't need to be there at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

"Temporary" account in question here, does your objection to a tweet count if its a reference to the department of homeland security's twitter? And what would the distinction be between a citation of the twitter account of DHS versus a news article commenting on the tweet by DHS? This mentions both the DHS tweet and Trump's diatribe on the matter. I wont comment on the validity of whether or not it should be there at all as to not come off as biased but id appreciate further comments! Nothannari (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, a few days went by with no reply and I moved on to something else and didn't see your message. Nothing was meant by my "temporary account" remark, just to clear the air: early last month the WMF made a switch so that what used to be IP contributions are now masked. Now any time someone who isn't logged into an account makes an edit, the software creates a temporary account for them, and then their contributions are attached to the temporary account instead of their IP address. You can read more about that at Wikipedia:Temporary accounts. But actually that wasn't you anyway, you added the reference to the tweet, and some time later a temporary account ("~2025-37367-13") added "by an Afghan refugee" onto the end of what you added, and that's what I was referring to. Sorry for the confusion, anyway.

My issue isn't with using Twitter (although I do have issues with that, just not specific to this situation), clearly the DHS made that tweet, anyone can go on Twitter and check for themselves. My issue is whether or not it's appropriate to include it here, given the situation at the time that reliable sources weren't covering it. WP:DUE suggests that we shouldn't include information like this in our coverage of a topic, even if it's true, if it's not being included by reliable sources covering the same topic. And at the time I couldn't find any that were, that's all. Your WaPo article didn't show up for me when I was looking for other sources, but it does refer to the DHS tweet specifically. That would lend itself to establishing due weight for inclusion, except that it's still the only one I've seen.

I still think that it's a little bit weak, but if you added this back I would not remove it again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

remigration is ethnic cleansing?

somebody wrote "ethnic cleansing" into the first sentence of remigration. that seems to be very untrue, the only background according to the the publicity of supporters of the remigration concept is "to send people back where they came from". especially if these people do not sufficiently integrate into the culture. whatever that means. ethnic cleansing is something completely different, it not considers where people grew up. ThurnerRupert (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

sourcing supports it, and its well documented by academia. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

one can find source for everything. traditional social science does NOT follow this far right buzzword bingo. wikipedia should also not follow buzzwords of such miniscule minority groups like identitarian movement, despite these guys post more often in twitter than others. ThurnerRupert (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

wikipedia has a Wikipedia:Academic bias. you need to find academic sourcing that disputes that. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

what do you mean by this, in the context here? the only thing noticeable is that people who not master european languages like italian, french, german, maybe live thousands of kilometers away, use low quality sources and construct an introduction which does not match any more what the people are actually discussing about, and, more iportant, support an introduction which completely misses out on where that word came from. even german speakers then start citing "neue deutsche welle" instead of frankfurter allgemeine zeitung, to give an example. ThurnerRupert (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The word's origin is secondary to what its current, most common usage is. Harryhenry1 (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

low quality? i count 5 academic journal articles supporting that its ethnic cleansing. the origin argument, agree with harryhenry1. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

which ones do support the ethnic cleansing, and which country are they talking about? because i am middle europe biased, like france, germany, austria, switzerland, italy, where that connotation not exists. for the text quality in general, and the origin of the word: the intro jumps its thread of thought. first ethnic cleansing, then identitarian, then it switches to france and germany, then all of a sudden it becomes mexican, after it switches over to religion (islmisation), then to identitarian again, at the end all of a sudden twitter and elon musk show up. that jibberish causes headache to me, to be honest. while the main meaning, and origin, is not there at all. even if you might consider it secondary. i am talking about the introduction only, just to be clear. ThurnerRupert (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• Maldonado 2020, p. 105: "Perceiving change as an existential threat, followers of Great Replacement theory propose “remigration,” a soft type of ethnic cleansing under the guise of deportation and segregation."
• Ebner 2021, p. 289: "Remigration: The call for forced deportation of migrant communities, with the intent of creating an ethnically or culturally homogeneous society; essentially a non-violent form of ethnic cleansing"
• Wilhelmsen 2021, p. 297: "(...) the most tangible way they want to revitalise Europe and facilitate a second Reconquista is through what they refer to as ‘remigration’, a euphemism for ethnic cleansing."
• Burden 2023, pp. 12, 169: "The movement calls for (...) ‘remigration’. Despite its proponents’ rejection that this is simply a euphemism for ‘ethnic cleansing’, such policies would ultimately involve the lowering of the living conditions for ‘non-Europeans’, or even their forced expulsion."
• Miller-Idriss 2022, p. 47: "Thus, relabeling concepts like the forced deportation and ethnic cleansing of immigrants as "re-migration" can make hateful expressions seem more acceptable to a broader range of ordinary individuals."
• Bergmann 2024, p. 52: "Jacob Davey and Julia Ebner’s (2019) research elucidates how the Great Replacement theory catalyzes extremist propositions among its proponents. These proposals span a spectrum from non-violent ethnic cleansing, framed as ‘remigration,’ to the grave extremity of genocide."

User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

No. Sourcing does not say this in a way that can be expressed in Wikivoice. Dr Fell (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The sourcing that the article currently relies upon are fringe sources and, as limited to trivial papers from academe, insubstantial against actual RS. Find some RS to refute their claims. It won't be hard. It's a bit insane that opposition to ethnic cleansing is being labeled as ethnic cleansing. Truly Orwellian. Dr Fell (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

In what way are the sources the article is using "fringe"? And please don't stir the pot when you're saying stuff like It's a bit insane that opposition to ethnic cleansing is being labeled as ethnic cleansing. Truly Orwellian., it's only gonna cause more trouble. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The references above are incomplete, but they refer to entries in the article's bibliography section. To expand fully, they are:

• Maldonado, José Ángel (2020). "Manifestx: toward a rhetoric loaded with future". Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. 17 (1): 104–110. doi:10.1080/14791420.2020.1723799. ISSN 1479-1420. S2CID 216420424. An article in an academic journal on linguistics and sociology published by Routledge, a noted publisher of numerous highly-regarded academic journals, though we don't have an article on this one specifically.
• Ebner, Julia (2021-03-23). Going Dark: The Secret Social Lives of Extremists. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-4209-7. A "Telegraph Book of the Year" published by a specialist in far-right extremism, radicalism, and terrorism, according to our article about her.
• Wilhelmsen, Fredrik (2021-10-02). "Heroic Pasts and Anticipated Futures: A Comparative Analysis of the Conceptions of History of the Nordic Resistance Movement and Generation Identity". Politics, Religion & Ideology. 22 (3–4): 277–301. doi:10.1080/21567689.2021.1968842. ISSN 2156-7689. An article in a peer-reviewed sociology journal written by a sociology PhD at Nord University, Norway.
• Burden, Emily Louise (2023). The violence of 'Non-violence': A socio-technical study of the ethnocultural politics and strategies of New Right identitarianism (phd thesis). University of Southampton. A PhD thesis from the University of Southampton.
• Miller-Idriss, Cynthia (2022-01-11). Hate in the Homeland: The New Global Far Right. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-23429-8. A book written by a PhD professor of sociology and founder of an institute researching online extremism.
• Bergmann, Eirikur (2024-05-01). "Eurabia". Weaponizing Conspiracy Theories. ISBN 9781003460770. A book written by a PhD professor specializing in populism and nationalism, currently Director of the Centre for European Studies at Bifröst University in Iceland.

Which of these do you believe are promoting a fringe theory, as in promoting "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views in its particular field"? And which reliable sources do you have that suggest that the mainstream academic view is something different? Don't say "go find them", I will tell you to do your own homework. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:31, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Far right concept?

Come on fellow wikipedians, this is way, way, way below You. Like You can have an agenda everyone has one of their own, but this is simply insane. You cannot defend this. Remigration is a textbook dictionary definition. Can't you at least present the definition AND THEN the controversy? Otherwise You just look desperate ~2025-43193-95 (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

If you have a definition of this term given in an actual dictionary, please offer it for discussion. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

According to Oxford, the term remigration goes back at least 400 years. And has been used without controversy to refer to the act of Returning to ones homeland for hundreds of years. It can't be read as anything but an act of political proselitism to create a separate article called "Return migration" to talk about this specific phenomena, when the far right resignification and use of the term "remigration" is far more modern. This is a deliberate act to confuse readers and goes against the very spirit of wikipedia itself ~2025-43193-95 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Despite its history, its most common modern usage is as a far-right talking point, and that's what the article is focused on. Harryhenry1 (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

His suggestion cannot be so easily dismissed. The term has an historical meaning (as reflected in the OED), a common meaning and a narrowly-specific meaning within current politics. The article is limited the last of these. That it is limited to only the last of these is an editorial decision and scrutiny is warranted. Dr Fell (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

these people are obviously confusing this article with Return migration HCPM (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

If you have evidence of a "deliberate act to confuse readers", I suggest that you offer it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The fact that the Oxford dictionary makes no reference to left-right political affiliation and the fact that none of the sources you mention can explain why countries being forced by their governments against the will of the native people to accept immigrants is not ethnic cleansing but said people choosing to send the immigrants back to their homeland isn't. To address Harryhenry1's question, ideally it should mention the basic definition in the first 1-3 sentences then mention it's modern affiliation within far right intellectual discourse. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 23:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

countries being forced by their governments against the will of the native people to accept immigrants "The native people" is not the same as "right-wing nutcases and their gullible marks among the native people". Please refrain from trying to base Wikipedia articles on your worldview. They should be based on reliable sources instead.

As has been said before, dictionary entries are about words while Wikipedia articles are about topics. So, what dictionaries say about the word "remigration" is not relevant to this article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from calling people who oppose immigration "right-wing nutcases and their gullible marks among the native people" unless its based on reliable sources and not your worldview. Also is the Oxford dictionary not a reliable source? Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 20:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

It isn't a reliable source for the topic of this article - a far-right obfuscation of what reliable sources that discuss the topic in depth more accurately describe as ethnic cleansing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk pages do not need reliable sources. And it is you who claimed without evidence that "the native people" are using those right-wing talking points when is clearly only a misguided minority of "the native people" who do so. Stop sealioning, it does not work here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

What's salient here is that both the common meaning of the term (as captured in the OED) and common usage by RS is not reflected in the article. Instead, the article appears to only reflect a narrow perspective on a narrow usage of the term, which – intentional or not – misleads the reader. Dr Fell (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not what's salient here. This encyclopedia article is about the topic of Identitarians and other right-wing groups suggesting that forcing certain people to leave a territory is a solution to all social problems, which they call "remigration", as do most other sources. The word "remigration" has other, less prominent meanings, which are described in the "wider usage" section, but this is not a dictionary entry. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

If that's so, I suggest adding a small clarifier in the lead paragraph. Something like :

In contemporary politics, Remigration is a European far-right concept of ethnic cleansing.... ~2026-94842 (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) ~2026-16325-0 (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Take issue with the sources we're using, not the article itself. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

please see this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_migration HCPM (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

you are obviously confusing this article with Return migration HCPM (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

To respond to something you brought up, Remigration literally means Return Migiration, so yes that existed prior to the wikipedia page

Both wikipedia pages exist as they are 2 concepts, the first one being the original term which is the wikipedia page titled return migration, this page is the other one, where its discussing how far right individuals have warped the concept, this is nothing new as many many things have been parroted and made into political talking points unrelated to the original meaning of the word, one of the most well known slurs agaisnt the LGBT+ community started as a harmless word. Languages change. HCPM (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AfD-Wahlplakat "Remigration sofort starten!" in Mödlareuth 20240518 HOF3756 RAW-Export.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

hatnote

@Ivanvector - a revert of yours came with the edit summary "it isn't, though" which appears to argue "Return migration is not called remigration". unless im mistaken about this, it requires justification that you havent provided on the talk page yet. as a reader, at first glance the return migration article basically describes the dictionary definition of "remigration". i understand the subject of this article is the, let's call it, most-prevalent use of the term, but surely this wouldn't lead anyone to suggest that it cannot be used in the way it is defined in the dictionary anymore. EnTerbury (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is on inclusion of contested material. The burden of proof is not on ivanvector. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

huh? i was asking for what they meant.

not quite sure why you had to jump to ONUS so defensively. is the current consensus not open to discussion? EnTerbury (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

As of this edit there are eight open discussion threads on this talk page, and six of them are about this very argument. You're welcome to read my responses to any of them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

... And no, I don't think anyone here is arguing that the subject of return migration is not also correctly described as "remigration" in the social sciences, that's just not the topic of this article. I had attempted a discussion earlier about expanding and contextualizing the "wider usage" section, but discussions here are very quickly derailed by POV pushers insisting that Wikipedia should describe the dictionary definition and nothing else. Looking at it now, I think it would be reasonable to roll the "wider usage" entirely into the "origins and development" section. For one thing the social science definition is not really properly described as "wider usage", but it most certainly is relevant background. This would make the article flow better, in my opinion. It would also give a logical point to add a discussion of how Identitarians co-opted the term, which would be a better approach to encyclopedic coverage of the topic than the laundry list of examples we have currently. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, I'm open to re-wording the hatnote to be more explanatory. It could read something like "This article is about the promotion of forced deportation. For the social science concept, see return migration." The problem with that is getting editors to agree on a neutral version of that wording, and then having that description not be something else we're constantly brigaded over, although semiprotection does help. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• There wasn't any more discussion on this, and it's becoming a pattern here that we only improve the article in response to POV agitation, so I've boldly gone ahead and started implementing some of these suggestions. See [2]. I did expand the hatnote, and I've also made some (I think minor) changes to combine the "wider usage" and "origins" section into an "etymology and development" section, which I think appropriately describes the historic use of the term and the Identitarians' redefinition of it, along with their motivation to appropriate neutral terminology for their own means. Almost all of this was already in the article, I just shuffled it. Hopefully this will help to address some of the good-faith concerns about definitions (I doubt it, but it's worth trying). Any other thoughts? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)