Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory

Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White genocide conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Frequently Asked Questions Is white genocide a myth? There are no reliable sources suggesting that the conspiracy theory is not a political myth. There are many reliable sources indicating that it is, such as: "The Myth of White Genocide" Harper's, March 2019 "White genocide: A dangerous myth employed by racists" The Irish Times, August 2019 "The Hate Report: The story behind Trump’s South Africa tweet" Reveal, August 2018 "The South Africans pushing the 'white genocide' myth" CNN, November 2018 "The dangerous myth of 'white genocide'" SPLC, August 2018 "Facebook allowed advertisers to target users interested in “'white genocide" — even in wake of Pittsburgh massacre" The Intercept, November 2018 "The deadly myth of 'White Genocide'" Australian Broadcasting Corporation, March 2019 Are white farmers being targeted in South Africa? While many farmers in South Africa have been targeted in attacks against landowners, there is no evidence that the attackers are targeting people because they are white. This topic is covered in some of the references above and at South African farm attacks. Why doesn't this article include extrapolations of human genetic phenotype expression into the future? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There is no way to validate the accuracy of any such predictions, and those predictions which show a wide demographic shift are based on assumptions which are both uncertain, and likely to substantially change the outcome of the extrapolations if they are wrong. There are at least as many factors at play as expressed alleles in the human genome, leading to confidence intervals much wider than the range of predictions.

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 September 2018. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alternative views High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Low‑importance Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Ethnic groups Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Judaism Low‑importance Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Mid‑importance Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The article White genocide conspiracy theory, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included: Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists. Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles. Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not. Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited. Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

(Hope I did this right, apologies if I didn't!) Change "often blamed on Jews" in the first sentence to "often blamed on Jewish people". Makes it read a bit better.Lulfas (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lulfas:  Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Also I think those two versions are the same, but the original is more concise. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I misunderstood the semi-protection to be the extended confirmed. Lulfas (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you're acting in good faith, and this issue is complicated by the fact that folks have been slandering the Jews for a very long time, but it is wrong to suggest that the noun "Jews" is any more or less offensive than "Germans" or Italians". See this from the American Heritage Dictionary, quoted in our main article Jews:

It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun.

Generalrelative (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Other says not to refer to ethnic groups as "the [term]", but we do this a lot, such as in all titles at Category:Jewish history by country. Yet we don't do this for other groups such as History of Somalis in Maine and History of Arabs in Afghanistan. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous

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.

---

The Sámi are the only indigenous race of Europe as cited by numerous reliable sources. There is no reason to have the words "The idea of a "replacement" of indigenous white people" in the France section, when "The idea of a "replacement" of white colonizers" is more appropriate as per reliable sources. 89.241.55.201 (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time believing that this was posted in good faith. Where does the IP imagine that white people come from if not Europe? Yes I know that Bronze Age and before that Neolithic migrations into Europe contributed most of the genetic background of what would later become "white people", but those events occurred so long ago that they have little to do with the modern phenomenon of colonialism.

That said, in case anyone is confused, and hopefully to shut down another silly debate on this talk page: the word "indigenous" has two meanings, per just about any dictionary: 1) "originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native", and 2) "inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists." See e.g. Merriam-Webster [1].

"White people" are indigenous to Europe in the first sense, at least insofar as any human population group is native to anywhere outside of Africa, whereas if we're looking for people deemed racially distinct who were colonized within Europe in recent history, then yes the Sámi are the only indigenous group in Europe.

Thus, while some may feel that it's insensitive to use the term "indigenous" to refer to white people in Europe, it's not incorrect. The answer to the question of how we should treat the matter in article space is, as always, going to come from a survey of the reliable sources. If they use the term "indigenous" in this way then so will we. Generalrelative (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: From a quick survey of the refs, it seems that "indigenous" is only used by WP:INUNIVERSE sources when talking about "white genocide", so I've removed it except where it appears in the direct quotation from Catherine Blaiklock. If folks have reliable sources that use this term outside of quotation, we can discuss reintroducing it into Wikivoice. Generalrelative (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of a dictionary definition is your own original research.

Where is your reliable source that states explicitly that white colonizers are indigenous to Europe?

Reliable sources declare that Black people are indigenous to Africa and some of the Americas, Native American people are indigenous to the Americas, Indian people are indigenous to India, Chinese people are indigenous to China, Japanese people are indigenous to Japan, the Maori are indigenous to New Zealand, etc.

Not a single reliable source states that white colonizers are indigenous to any location on Earth. All people have a place they can call their ancestral homeland, somewhere they are indigenous to, so "white people" should read "white colonizers" due to them not being indigenous. 89.241.55.201 (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for you, what you just said is only your own fringe theory/original research that will not be taken into account. Summer ^talk 15:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at this IP's edit history, it's clear they are trolling. In any event, they alerted me to the fact that "inigenous" was being used improperly in Wikivoice a couple times in the article, and I've removed these instances, which I'm quite sure is contrary to the IP's intent. WP:NOTDUMB, etc. Generalrelative (talk) 16:06, 22 August 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 7 September 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Ten stages of genocide to the See Also section MeetYourPotatoes (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: That article is not sufficiently related to this one. Day Creature (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The See Also section has over 100 links including Fat acceptance movement, how is that more related than Ten stages of genocide --MeetYourPotatoes (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you're referring to. There are only 9 links and that article is not included. Day Creature (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change the grammar

"It purports that this goal is advanced through the promotion of miscegenation". How this is such a word mistake? "That this"? Self contraindictary since the both word are exact opposite showing direction. "That" = far object. "This" = near object. 182.253.54.110 (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the grammar there is completely fine. CoconutOctopus talk 07:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"That this"? Should be "that that!" 182.253.54.110 (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of the grammar is wrong here. "That" is being used to indicate the conjunction from the purporting to the advancement, whereas "this" is being used to indicate the subject (in this sentence, it is the goal being referred to). Instead of reading them as individual words, read them as terms, the way they are intended. "Purports that" and "this goal". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"that this" is something any English-speaker will say dozens of times a day. It's clear that you* aren't a fluent speaker so I have no idea why you're trying to critique grammar you evidently don't understand.

• P.S.: By "that you", I don't mean "the you that is far away".

2A02:8084:255C:EE00:9806:CE34:23BD:32C5 (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to change the wording of the article to better fit Wikipedia's Guidelines

Before the content of my question gets deleted (which it has already been), I ask the mods reading my proposition to ask themselves: 1. Is my proposition general discussion of the topic of the article? (No, it is a suggestion to change the wording, and I will in fact not even MENTION what the article is about, nor will I discuss my opinions, because my opinions as well as everyone else's is irrelevant in determining how we must write this article.) 2. Am I following the Wikipedia guideline to assume good faith? (If you say that I am sealioning, whatever that means, I would assume that is not following Wikipedia's guidelines.)

I have a suggestion to change the wording of the article to better fit Wikipedia's guidelines. The current wording states that the idea discussed in the article is "debunked." I have read the mod's justification for using this word, but it is insufficient. The mod states that because Academia holds the view, it is therefore ok for us to say it. That, however, does not fit Wikipedia's guidelines.

Here is Wikipedia's policy, quoted verbatim: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

Let us apply Wikipedia's policy to the article. There are certain sources of information which we classify as reliable enough to belong in a Wikipedia article. We must rely on these sources to provide the facts of the case. However, even if the source is reliable, we are not allowed to state its opinions as facts. Thus, if the reliable source provides a definition of the theory discussed in the article (I will not discuss it), and states other facts about it, we may report these facts. However, if the author uses these premises (or facts) to make the conclusion that the theory is "debunked," that is an opinion. An opinion is something drawn off of factual premises, but is formed based on personal interpretation of the facts. For instance, the Wikipedia guidelines state that even if a reliable source concludes that genocide is evil (with which basically every human agrees), we are not allowed to say "genocide is evil;" we must instead say "'John So-and-so' finds that genocide is evil." If you claim that a theory is debunked, that is an opinion given that it is a conclusion drawn from observable premises (the facts).

I will state additionally that before deleting my post, if you could cite specific parts of my posts that violate the policies, I would greatly appreciate it. That would in my opinion be the way to best follow the Wikipedia policy which states that we must act in good faith towards each other. I work hard to ensure that our articles maintain academic integrity and are not excessively opinionated. Juicyj2311 (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please stop ranting about (whatever the hell that was) and clearly state what you think should be changed in the article in the form "change X to Y" providing Reliable Sources to support the change. If we can't understand what you are talking about, or if it digresses into an off-topic rant then it may be removed so please try to focus on making a clear and comprehensible request. DanielRigal (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for responding to me. I am not ranting, I have not even once expressed anger in my messages. I was just careful with my words to not even discuss the content of the article because last time I did a message (which was more done under your format), my message got deleted.

My issue with the article is that the article describes the theory as "debunked" because reliable sources state that it is debunked. My issue is that under Wikipedia guidelines, even if a reliable source states an opinion, we cannot just repeat what the article says. We are allowed to state the author's opinion, but we must clarify it as an opinion and not a fact. We can rely on the articles for more objective statements, such as the definition of the "White Genocide Conspiracy Theory," as well as information such as who has supported and opposed this conspiracy theory, when it began, who coined the term, why many authors hold the view that the theory is debunked, etc. We cannot, however, just claim it is debunked.

Please refer to this manuscript of Wikipedia's policy on the matter:

"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

Regarding the fact that you had trouble understanding my previous message, I would like to apologize. I guess I generally assume most people interact with language with the same degree of precision as I do, but I can see now that that is not the case. This might also explain why you have assumed that my message conveyed a sentiment of uncontrolled anger, which was far from the truth. I hope I have written this second message more attuned to your "speed." Juicyj2311 (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an 'apology', it's just a passive-aggressive insult. Do not insult other editors, and please, please figure out how to be more succinct out of respect for other people's time and intelligence. If you do not respect other people's time and intelligence, you should not be editing at all. Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read the last paragraph. It's just a personal attack. So why read all the rest? This wiki is built upon consensus. You won't get it in that manner. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]