Talk:Remigration

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Are you sure

[edit]

"Are you sure that white means of European origin? Because there are many Arabs who look more European than Greeks."

it's rather a precision, not a synonym. Azerty82 (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
“A precision” is a term originating in the European Union administration. “Euro-English” DenverCoder19 (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remigration is not just some euro France political concept

[edit]

Remigration is not a word invented by a French communist newspaper. This article is ridiculous. Remigration is defined in several dictionaries but you use a newspaper to define it. This is a word with a vast history(i.e a people remigrating back to their country after war) not a new political concept. Here is a definition. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/remigration. I move toward writing the introduction with the actual definition and then mentioning it as political concept. This will allow the article to be expanded overtime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.89.222 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remigration on Wiktionary uses the prevailing definition per Webster's as well. At this point, linking to that entry instead of this article seems preferable. --NFSreloaded (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to lie this is the first time I've ever heard of repatriation as a far-right Ideology. This article confuses Remigration and repatriation with some Right wing ideology. Its either that the article needs to be rewritten or the page needs to get moved to something like Remigration (Far-Right Ideology) or Remigration (Right-wing Ideology). The Article title is extremely misleading and I actually find it amusing. Zyxrq (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to moving to Remigration (Right-wing Ideology) or even outright deletion/redirect to repatriation, this article just isn't what the word means according to history or widespread dictionary usage. Many other issues on this page too LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this article is a mess. It is a simple word with a clear definition and long history outside Europe. DenverCoder19 (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issues

[edit]

This article seems to suffer from neutrality problems. The term appears has a range of meanings in different contexts (such as the social sciences vs political movements) and to different people. The article relies heavily on only one interpretation of the term and uses contentious terms such as "extremist" to represent a particular viewpoint. Accordingly, I have added a POV tag to the article. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Remigration" is a concept in far-right thought that is widely discussed in scholarship. A Google Scholar search for "remigration" and "far right" returns approximately 6,100 results: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=remigration+far+right&btnG= Alcaios (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remigration in English is 300+ years old indeed. However, it was a very obscure subject until picked up by Identitarians, so it is almost impossible to find anything substantial (beyond definitions, the term is also used in biology and chemistry) on the pre-radical-right meaning of the term (I tried). We currently have a section "Wider usage" that can be expanded (if you have some good sources, please let me know). If detailed coverage of the old meaning is found somewhere (I doubt it), it would be easy to split the article. Until then, the bulk of the article will be about radical right per WP:WEIGHT. Викидим (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the POV tag because the article lacks neutrality in its presentation of the subject. Specifically, it gives undue weight to one perspective while downplaying or omitting significant opposing views. Additionally, the language used in certain sections is biased or promotional rather than encyclopedic. These issues compromise the article’s adherence to Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy and require further review and balancing of content. ZeroGlyph (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you tried to remove included several well-sourced paragraphs about the connections to the identitarianism and other far-right movements. Do you have a problem with the sources themselves? Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've been edit warring today, across two separate accounts, in order to force that pov.
please stop that.
As regards identitarian thought as relates to historical meanings, and finding balance in the article, let's do it without removing other sourced content. Augmented Seventh🎱 08:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't but you've been canvassing, please stop that. Only confirms wikipedia's reputation of being run by power-user mafias enforcing their bias on pet articles.
I acted to apply WP:NPOV and excised irrelevant text even if it is technically correctly sourced. If my correction was too excessive, I apologize and I will refrain from further edits until a better consensus is reached.
My issue is that it is very clear that that there is adamant and high interest in your group to guard the biased language of the article. I acknowledge that the sources cited are academic, but there's a noticeable pattern of privileging works that align with a particular ideological perspective. This risks giving a distorted impression of the academic consensus. ZeroGlyph (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the edits made during the edit war, I think we should remove the POV tag. Removing top-quality sources and their description of the topic would worsen the NPOV of the article. If there are issues that can be fixed without making the article worse, it would help to discuss them specifically. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not. The article is already bad due to egregious neutrality issues. Reduction in content isn't making the article worse. It is in need of a complete makeover.
But we can certainly try to point to concrete issues with the article, and seek consensus. Or escalate it to a dispute resolution board and have other parties look at it if there is no consensus.
The article labels and leads with “remigration” as “ethnic cleansing,” which reflects a fairly extreme critical lens and without framing this assertion as being contested. Which it 100% is. It lacks clear attribution and balance with proponents' perspectives.
The tone is overwhelmingly condemnatory and presumes malicious intent to an abstract concept (remigration), without neutrally explaining how different groups define or use the term—even though some argue it refers to voluntary return.
The sourcing on a cursory look appears to be some sociology student-editor's pet academic articles/books. There is a heavy use of watchdog and activist sourcing. These are explicitly anti-extremist NGOs or state-funded media with an overt focus on far-right monitoring. While not necessarily unreliable for reporting on extremism, they are not neutral or academic and are not balanced with opposing or more scholarly or public perspectives. ZeroGlyph (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've summed up a lot of the issues very well LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the user turned out ti be using sockpuppeted accounts, and the way he's insulted the site "being run by power-user mafias enforcing their bias on pet articles", I can't take his critiques or POV tag for the article as being in good faith. Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tu quoque fallacy. A smoker pointing out that meth is bad for you doesn't mean the smoker's claims are wrong. The substance of the argument still stands. Itefutue (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even then his arguments basically amount to whitewashing the subject, as we saw with the numerous sources that he tried to remove, sneering at "watchdog and activist sourcing". I do agree the focus on AfD specifically could be cut back, but otherwise I still object to the substance of his arguments. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. You enforcing your own counter-agenda and preferences is also "washing." Since you are troubled by his hypocrisy, you should be keenly aware of your own.
Only relying on majority watchdog/opinion sources is something to look down upon; this point should not be lost on you if you are serious about factuality and balanced neutrality. I'm sure your intents are noble in seeking to prevent right-wingers from trying to co-opt articles on Wikipedia, but enforcing an overwhelming leftist-narrative view on this article is fighting fire with fire. This is an encyclopedia at the end of the day.
If you want to prove your own good faith and sincerity for the neutrality debate, what are your suggestions for actually improving the neutrality of this article? Itefutue (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not rely solely on "watchdog/opinion sources", and I wouldn't want that either. I was just pointing out where the editor's biases were, and that was an example of it.
As for my suggestions? Aside from cutting back on the AfD focus, I think this article's current state is as neutral as it can be given the fraught nature of the subject matter. But if there are reliable sources editors can bring to the table which presents a different perspective, we can go from there. Harryhenry1 (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does describing remigration as ethnic cleansing "lack clear attribution"? The citation in the lead cites 6 different sources that refer to it as such. Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was rambling to give a very broad summary of issues, I'm sure there are lots of nitpicks to make in my ramble, especially since I'm not a native english speaker.
The full context is: "It lacks clear attribution and balance with proponents' perspectives."
My attempted point was that what room has been given for proponents of remigration? Barely any it seems? All of the attribution that has been given to sources, are for critical sources. But that is just *one* major problem with this article. ZeroGlyph (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that it is only now that I'm also realizing why there was a bee-hive reaction from multiple users over any edits. They have perched over this article in some kind of battle against Afd over in Germany.
Ctrl + F searching "Afd" and "Germany" makes this very clear that this article is being used a bludgeoning tool in some kind of slapfight activist editors are having with the Afd. Huge swathes of content is just about 2010s and 2020s german politics. Which is extra noteworthy as this is the english article and not the german langauge article.
It explains the extremely weird euro-centric focus. And it suddenly makes sense why the whole article mimics the structure of a watchdog report, not an encyclopedia entry. Very tiresome. ZeroGlyph (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article Security

[edit]

I don’t think anyone is surprised that this is a hotly debated topic, but I feel like this is the kind of article that should have edit restrictions.

If there are prerequisites to it like vandalism that it doesn’t qualify for, I understand. If not, wouldn’t it be best to add a little security for this page? Kabaivanoff (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pages on Wikipedia aren't typically protected pre-emptively. In this case, actual disruptive editing must occur before protection is applied. ―Howard • 🌽33 19:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocentrism bias

[edit]

This article is enormously Eurocentric, I propose making it more neutral in the lead and moving the more Eurocentric parts to "Modern use" LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reliable sources (already cited in the article) that emphasize the European origin and continuing nature of remigration discourse. Are there sources that disagree with that origin story or that frame the issue as less predominately European? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Remigration" As a word with varied meanings

[edit]

Remigration can sometimes be a word referring to a mass deportation of all non-Whites, but it is frequently also used to refer to the mass deportation of *illegal* immigrants, which, regardless of your political perspective, clearly does not fall under the definition of ethnic cleansing. I would like to propose an alternative introduction to note this nuance.

A good source on this:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/30/state-department-plans-office-of-remigration-to-support-trump-agenda WriterOfScrolls (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A more nuanced, less Eurocentric introduction:
"Remigration is a far-right European and American political goal, which varies in meaning between mass deportations of illegal immigrants to soft ethnic cleansing via the mass deportation or promoted voluntary return of non-white immigrants and their descendants, usually including those born in Europe, to their place of racial ancestry."
Good additional sources for this:
https://repository.unic.ac.cy/archive/item/2894
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/30/state-department-plans-office-of-remigration-to-support-trump-agenda WriterOfScrolls (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments: promoted voluntary return

[edit]

Should this article describe remigration as "promoted voluntary return" in the lede? Should it be presented as-is, attributed to the groups which describe it as such, removed entirely, or something else? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Attribute or remove. This article is about the concept of deporting non-whites from a territory and sending them to a supposed place of racial origin. We briefly describe the history of the social sciences term which is better described in articles such as return migration and voluntary return, then present the evolution of the term as co-opted by Identitarians and other far-right populists in the 21st century, specifically as a response to the Great Replacement conspiracy theory and to package the deportation and ethnic cleansing intent of those groups in a way that would be palatable to voters. The examples we give in the article show that to be the case - the closest that any get to "voluntary" are those of Sweden, where it's made clear that if the targeted minorities don't accept the voluntary repatriation programs then forced deportation will follow. It fails NPOV for Wikipedia to describe this concept as "voluntary" without some kind of qualification; I feel that attributing the phrase to the groups that use it (such as in this edit, since reverted) is better service to readers than removing it entirely. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atribute, but I don't think it should be likened exclusively to whites and Europeans. The current term is used by them, sure, but historically you did have diasporas getting expelled or more or less voluntarily compelled to leave, as in Population transfers, but also Voluntary_return and Third country resettlement. I wonder if maybe the article should reflect this in context or talk about this phenomenon in a more broader sense. Also given that this was done by the left in Denmark of all places and now entertained by centrist parties over the EU I think we should also not exclusively link it to the far right. FelipeFritschF (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My gut reaction was that "promoted voluntary return" is a euphemism, but a look at the lead reveals important context. The lead says: Remigration is a far-right European concept of ethnic cleansing via the mass deportation or promoted voluntary return of non-white immigrants and their descendants.... "mass deportation or promoted voluntary return" is very different from "voluntary return" alone, and I don't see the issue with this wording (except that it's a grammatically awkward). Also, @Ivanvector, where's the RFCBEFORE? I don't see any prior discussion of this topic on this talk page. Toadspike [Talk] 20:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attribute or remove per Ivanvector. "Voluntary" is an euphemism that downplays what is, in reality, a case of ethnic cleansing. I get why certain groups choose to frame it that way, but we shouldn't be repeating that in our voice. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AS IS. Since this is presented as an alternative to forced deportation. That is, it is said in the article that remigration can take the form of either forceful deportation or promoted voluntary migration. Seems like a reasonable description of reality. Vegan416 (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AS IS. Exactly, when people talk about remigration, promoted voluntary migration is described as a method to achieve it, it's fundamentally different to forced deportation. It's only a euphemism if they're the same concept, but they're not. So unless someone can explain how they're the exact same thing it should stay the same LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attribute or remove - per Ivanvector. This is not the article on voluntary return, this is about something else. I'm not seeing any explanation in the body of the article of how this form of ethnic cleansing is meaningfully 'voluntary'. The UK section attributes this, so 'voluntary' is not coming from a disinterested party. The Sweden section mentions an allowance as a supposed incentive, but per sources already cited in the article, that allowance already exists and is mostly unsuccessful and irrelevant. To present this in Wikipedia's voice would be buying into far-right propaganda. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments below have swayed me that this doesn't belong here even with attribution. Grayfell (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Of the two sources currently cited for this being 'voluntary' in Sweden, one seems to indicate that it was irrelevant, at least in its previous form, and the other explains that these incentives are a prelude to forced deportations. Per these sources, the 'remigration' plan is to deport them regardless of their personal preference. Saying this is 'voluntary' is tissue-thin.
If this wrong the article should explain this via sources, otherwise it doesn't belong in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see what the Sweden section says is that on the side a member of the Sweden Democrats party which is not part of the government, and only supports it from the outside, said that if the voluntary action will fail then they will demand forceful deportation. But on other side the minister from party that actually leads the government (the Moderates) only speaks of voluntary remigration and nothing about forceful deportations. So there is a clear distinctions between the voluntary and forceful propositions. But anyway I'll try to add sources and clarifications to this section when I have more time. Vegan416 (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This is not the article on voluntary return, this is about something else." Likewise this article is not on deportations, it's on "remigration" which can be achieved in part through multiple avenues.
I don't see why the existance of some form of incentive in sweden with questionable success proves "promoted voluntary return" policies aren't relevant for the lede.
And let's not play the righteous card, write grand meaningless statements and make discussions on wikipedia a right/left debate thank you. LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article strikes me as inconsistent with WP:NPOV, due to its extreme overemphasis on recent interpretations of "remigration", almost to the exclusion of its use during the hundreds of preceding years. I also find some wording, such as "their place of racial ancestry," pretty problematic. Rather than focus on whether "promoted voluntary return" should be in the lead, I think those interested in this article should work on creating a significant section that addresses its non-recent use, which right now only has a few sentences devoted to it, so that the recent far-right use is seen in a larger context. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't an article about the word "remigration", nor is it a dictionary definition. It's also not about the social science concept of return migration (adequately covered at return migration), nor is it about repatriation nor deportation as general social science concepts. It's an article about the specific anti-immigration policy concept developed by specific far-right writers and groups, rebranded as "remigration" to be more palatable to voters. The history of the word itself is provided in an adequate level of detail and appropriate context for this subject (see WP:WEIGHT). The "significant section that addresses its non-recent use" is either voluntary return or return migration, two articles which are probably due for a merger (I don't understand what the difference is between the concepts described in those two articles). The "wider usage" section could use a rewrite, though, it currently reads like a grade school essay. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If this article is intended to address only the far-right concept, where the word "remigration" has been adopted as a euphemism, it makes no sense to have a Wider usage section in the first place. What would such a section address other than the usage of the word? Instead, I'd add a Terminology section, where you can note that the word "remigration" has long been used for the concept of "return migration", but these right-wing groups have adopted it as a euphemism, and also discuss the relationship to concepts such as forced migration. It would also be good to explain whatever these right-wing groups mean by a "place of racial ancestry." Where, for example, is the "place of racial ancestry" for a Black person who immigrated from Haiti? (Is it Haiti? anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa? ...) How about for a Jewish person? Etc. Who gets to determine what race someone is in the first place? FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like you agree on the page moving to Remigration (right wing ideology) LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how you read that from my comments, but no, I do not. This is a distinct topic; disambiguation is already adequately handled by natural disambiguation and hatnotes. I do, however, agree that replacing the "wider usage" section with terminology (or maybe etymology?) would better serve readers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. The body describes a couple national parties that pursue "voluntary return" policies in parallel to their remigration policies. This is important information to detail in the body, but it is not an essential characteristic of the remigration concept such that it needs a first sentence mention. I'm surprised to see so many people support attribution, as that would lengthen the attention given to this minor aspect of the subject. I oppose in particular the specific version of attribution linked by the OP, as the cited source does not use the term "promoted voluntary return", and I'm not aware of any major proponents of remigration that use "promoted voluntary return" as a synonym for the mass deportation that is central to remigration. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Actual sources covering the subject, especially academic ones, don't use this terminology. Only groups with a political bias seem to. The term, properly attributed, can be used in the body when discussing the stance of said groups, where appropriate. But I see no reason why it should be included in the lede. SilverserenC 22:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. The sources on that sentence describe it as 'expulsion' (Feffer pp.48) or 'compulsory return' (Camus, ed. McAdams & Castrillon pp.74). The other sources in the lede I could access all seem to agree, with Wilhelmson (pp.298) even addressing claims that mass 'remigration' could occur voluntarily, suggesting they are not credible or representative of the broader movement. The description of it as potentially being voluntary return migration is WP:FRINGE and is not appropriate for inclusion in the lede, even with attribution. Chaste Krassley (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove some forced WP:FALSEBALANCE is not enough to save such a load assertion. Ivanvector explains it best Bluethricecreamman (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from the lead. It's not how the WP:BESTSOURCES use the term, and even when other sources are quoted on it they're usually treated with skepticism by the best available sources, so it shouldn't be in the lead at all. It can be mentioned in the body, but with the elaboration people mentioned above that "voluntary" is in this case a euphemism for coercion. --Aquillion (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove The word "remigration" was exactly chosen as a far-right euphemism for the expulsion/deportation of selected ethnic groups, the intent is laid bare by the coiners of the term such as Renaud Camus (e.g. [1]: "While the concept of remigration has long existed in academia, its hijacking by the far right on social media appears to have begun about a decade ago when French adherents to identitarianism, an ethno-nationalist movement, organised what they described as the inaugural meeting in Paris on remigration."; [2]: "Last January, the German investigative media Correctiv revealed that members of the AFD had participated in a meeting with Austrian neo-Nazis to discuss a plan for remigration to Germany, that is, the expulsion of foreigners as well as German citizens of foreign origin."; [3]: "The former head of the 'Identitarian Movement' in Austria, Martin Sellner, had, according to his own account, spoken about 'remigration' at the meeting. When right-wing extremists use this term, they usually mean that a large number of people of foreign origin should leave the country – even under duress.") The far-right usage of the term (which our article is about) has nothing to do with voluntary back-migration, this was the "unword" of the year 2023 Institute for German Linguistics, Philipps University of Marburg ([4]): "because in 2023 it was used as a right-wing battle cry, a euphemistic camouflage term, and an expression that conceals the true intentions. ... reinterpreted in such a way that a – politically demanded – inhumane deportation and deportation practice is concealed." Voluntary et. al. propaganda should never have been in the article in the first place (and this is 2025). Gotitbro (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove – Nothing to add in terms of reasoning for the removal, but as a response to the spirit of Wikipedia and principle, if Wikipedia administrators are quick to ban Nazis from the site per community guidelines and the wider community's wishes, there should be no justification for Nazi talking points being parroted in Wikivoice. Yue🌙 21:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]