Jump to content

Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory

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


White population decrease?

[edit]

I would just like to inquire about the wording of this article, it reads to me, in a misleading way, that the white population isn't decelerating in any way, when this isn't the reality. I think to be transparent, there should be more of a distinguishment between what is conspiracy and what isn't. Specifically, what isn't. ~2025-37535-26 (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a conspiracy theory called "White Genocide". It is not about general demographic shifts. It is about the conspiracy theory that asserts that demographics are being altered deliberately and nefariously to the detriment of white people, which is very obviously not true. There is nothing misleading here. Adding irrelevant content that seemed to lend credence to the conspiracy would be misleading. DanielRigal (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the melanin differential between African and Northern European humans is a result of population isolation. That's vastly less significant now. What we're seeing is merely regression tot he mean. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This comment touches upon one of the elements that contraindicate multiple different racial conspiracy theories and bad science. To be clear: the 'racial' difference between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans is just a small number of traits, most notably melanin levels, hair texture (but not color!) and nose shape. There's no fundamental difference there, just a handful of shared differences.
People who buy into these theories could really benefit from even a pop-science-level understanding of human genetics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielRigal Well immigration is mostly directly approved by countries. It doesnt seem obvious that there is no actual motivation to reduce the white share of the population; in fact some have said things to this effect. ~2026-22568-09 (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"It doesnt seem obvious that there is no..." I am not sure why you are replying to a months old comment of mine but thanks. I needed a laugh. Seriously though, that's not how this works. We do not give credence to unproven assertions just because it "doesn't seem obvious" that they are false to random people on the Talk pages. We don't do original synthesis. Even if your argument made any sense at all, it still wouldn't cut any ice with Wikipedia. There are people for whom it "doesn't seem obvious" that the Moon is real. That doesn't mean that we have to take them seriously. What would do is Reliable Sources making the claim. That's what nobody can provide because it's just a racist conspiracy theory with no basis in fact. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
”Objectively, white people are not dying out or facing extermination.”
This is mentioned in the beginning of the article. How come we don’t add a link to the ”White demographic decline” page, which we link to in the ”See also”. It would add more nuance to the whole conspiracy theory - the theory isn’t saying that the ”genocide” will happen over a single year or two. ~2026-23381-40 (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

3-10-2026 removing reliably sourced and DUE material

[edit]

PARAKANYAA

I started to double check your edits here, and the very first one I looked at you seem to have removed RS due to...(edit summary) "not one of these sources mentions the word "white genocide". absent a reliable source connecting this to the term this is OR"

(RS removed - [1]) The very first page (third paragraph - second to last sentence) states..."The United States and it's 'New World Order' has as one of it's foremost purposes, the eradication of the White race and its culture" (emphasis mine)

You need to realize that "the eradication of the white race" and "White genocide" are synonymous.

Thanks and please double check your work next time. DN (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Darknipples The Aryan Nations is not a reliable source! You're really going to argue they are? Extrapolating from a primary source when no secondary source makes the connection is the exact definition of WP:OR, and is very WP:UNDUE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
NYT is reliable, and in this context the AN source is being used (as primary) it's worth examining and discussion. Please use talk instead of just reverting like you did here. DN (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Darknipples The New York Times article does not say this, at all! It does not mention anything about the declaration.
We are not here to examine primary sources. That is WP:OR, and also WP:UNDUE. Unless a reliable source connects it to the subject of the article it cannot be in the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your original edit summary simply stated it was OR because it did not mention white genocide, when the AN source clearly does, so this is purely a precautionary measure. I will come back to this later after you have had some time to calm down and ease up on the exclamation points (no one likes being yelled at BTW). DN (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Darknipples Being disagreed with, or using exclamation points, is not being yelled at.
I said "absent a reliable source connecting this to the term this is OR". What part of that do you take issue with? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to reexamine WP:PRIMARY...These types of sources are not forbidden, and given it's use and clear attribution here, in this context, it may not be as inappropriate as we think. DN (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Darknipples Again, WP:UNDUE, there is no secondary source that associates it with the subject of this article, so why would we put it in this article? The entire paragraph in question is WP:OR extrapolating off of the primary source, which violates WP:PRIMARY as it is not "only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
And why cite this specific document? There are hundreds of racist articles from the time that talk about similar ideas. What is the logic in choosing this one if there is no secondary source that notes this? Or, can I put every single article ever written by a racist white guy pre-2000 that discusses white extinction/genocide/replacement? There are many. If not, why are those any less due than this memorandum?
Also, the link to the memorandum is a copyright violation. So, we shouldn't link it per WP:COPYLINK. But that is neither here nor there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the paragraph in question just so I don't have to click back and forth...
Shortly after Lane's Manifesto, the Aryan Nations published their 1996 Declaration of Independence stating that the Zionist Occupation Government sought "the eradication of the white race and its culture" as "one of its foremost purposes". It accused such Jews of subverting the constitutional rule of law; responsibility for post-Civil War Reconstruction; subverting the monetary system with the Federal Reserve System, confiscating land and property; limiting freedoms of speech, religion, and gun ownership; murdering, kidnapping and imprisoning patriots; abdicating national sovereignty to the United Nations; political repression; wasteful bureaucracy; loosening restrictions on immigration and drug trafficking; raising taxes; polluting the environment; commandeering the military, mercenaries, and police; denying Aryan cultural heritage; and inciting immigrant insurrections.
So it's a also WP:COPYLINK violation? I will see if I can confirm that as well. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is a simply a user upload, without permission of the copyright owner.
How is this due weight? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You started with OR, so I'll check with RSN first. It seems there was another citation for this paragraph that got removed [2]. Perhaps that one would be preferable. DN (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Darknipples Steiger is a conspiracy theorist, and is not RS at all. See his article Brad Steiger.
None of these sources are good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for confirming. DN (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a discussion topic at RSN for us. Thank you for being patient. DN (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this at RSN and made an edit and then realised I'd not read this thread. If this is copyvio then the primary source should be removed for that reason, but if we flag it we should flag it for primary and copyvio and not unreliable - it's reliable for itself. The NYT source failed verification. (I wonder if it was meant to link to a different NYT article about the same trial, as I believe Butler testified there that “The white race is the most endangered species on the face of the earth.” which is also synonymous with a white genocide claim. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have now edited again to remove the primary source and replace with a secondary, and other fixes. Please check. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it seems we have solved the unreliability issue and primary source issue, but concerns remain, as PARAKANYAA has posted this at RSN, which I think should be addressed on this page: Of the two sources there now, one still does not say what we are citing it for, the other is a primary source from a court hearing. Neither of these evidence due weight. There are hundreds of white supremacist articles that reference the idea of white extinction - barring secondary sources, why is this any more due weight than any of those hundreds? There are now three sources. The first two secondary sources are unambiguous imho in saying that the AN Declaration quoted Lane's 14 Words. There does not seem to be a secondary source saying it quoted his Manifesto, so I've removed that. Then the third source is congressional testimony, more easily read here, is the written testimony of the ADL chair Howard Berkowitz to a congressional hearing on hate crime on the internet, where he says: In the early 1970's, Butler formed a new group around his church: Aryan Nations (AN)... AN vilifies Jews as "the natural enemy of our Aryan (White) Race... The Jew is like a destroying virus that attacks our racial body to destroy our Aryan culture and the purity of our Race."... In this struggle between the Jews and "the children of light," AN claims that the Jews have a surrogate: the United States Government, often referred to as "ZOG" (Zionist Occupied Government). In 1996, AN posted to its site an "Aryan Declaration of Independence," which declared, "the history of the present Zionist Occupied Government of the United States of America is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations * * * [all] having a direct object--the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states." Holding "the eradication of the White race and its culture" as "one of its foremost purposes," this "ZOG" is accused of relinquishing the "powers of government to private corporations, White traitors and ruling class Jewish families." That provides the text that we quoted directly from the document before, and clearly refers to the purported genocide of the white race. I think there's a valid question about whether it's due, based on secondary or tertiary sources, but considering how many strong sources put Lane as a key originator of the concept and AN as a key vector of its spread, this seems pretty solid to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Extrapolating the scope of this article from primary sources quotes even if no reliable source makes the connection is textbook WP:OR. We should only be adding things if the secondary sources note it or it is undue weight. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And no, a primary source quoting another primary source with no analysis does not create a secondary source with respect to the material at issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to that on RSN so apologies for repeating myself but I believe that yes it does. This is a primary source for the ADL's testimony, but a secondary source for what Aryan Nations said. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing a few things here.

  • The AN source categorically does mention this. Using a descriptive term instead of a (highly informal) proper name for something does not disqualify a source. As for the remark that we can't make that connection without a source, I would point out that literally every source which defines this conspiracy theory (many of which are used here) makes that connection. That's a non-issue.
  • The AN source is WP:PRIMARY, yes, but it is perfectly acceptable for the words of the AN. As long as we are not phrasing their claims in wikivoice and attributing them, this is a perfectly valid use.
  • As for whether or not the AN source is a copyright-violating upload to the internet archives, I don't see any reason to believe that. The IA is subject to to all the same laws as any other website and is required to remove copyrighted material upon a request from the copyright holder. No such request has been issued, per the fact that this link is still active, and indeed, one wonders why the AN or Richard Butler would even want to enforce any copyright over this document, as broad dissemination of it was precisely the point of writing it.
  • Regarding this diff, the ADL source supports the cited material, and is categorically a a reliable source per WP:RSPADL. As explained above, the AN source is perfectly fine for this use as well, so the unreliable source tagging was not warranted.
  • That being said, the NYT source tagged as failing verification does, indeed, fail verification, and should not be cited there. Indeed, I see little that the NYT source could be used for on this page, other than pointing out the court case it documents.

That's about all I saw worth commenting on. I haven't reviewed Bob's edit. If I find anything worth commenting on there, I'll add a new one to this discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations are copyright violations even if the person who owns the rights does not request a takedown. See WP:COPYLINK. The AN owns the rights to the memorandum and the upload is not by the AN. Hence, copyright violation.
The ADL source does not mention anything about white genocide, so citing it to support inclusion on a page about that is not helpful. How is this due weight? We have no secondary source that connects this to the idea of white genocide at all. Should we include all the hundreds of racist articles written that advocate the same idea? Why would those be any less due weight? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violations are copyright violations even if the person who owns the rights does not request a takedown. You must show that the material in question has not been released into either the public domain or through a license which permits distribution to assert that something is a copyright violation. Unless you do that, you have no argument here.
The ADL source does not mention anything about white genocide The ADL source was not used to support a description of the theory, but to support statements about the beliefs of the AN.
We have no secondary source that connects this to the idea of white genocide at all. This is a truly bizarre argument. The paragraph it was used in is about the AN source itself. The ADL source clearly helps characterize that source, which clearly espouses this theory. Why would we need a third source to link these two? That makes no sense at all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We do not presume that the material is public domain until proven otherwise, we presume it is copyrighted until we have proof it is not. Can I paste full book chapters onwiki and then say it is fine because maybe they put it in the public domain? What proof do you have that it is in the public domain?
Yes, but I'm saying it doesn't say anything about the topic at issue so it doesn't evidence due weight. Perhaps could have been clearer about that my bad.
We are writing an article about the white genocide conspiracy. We need a source about the conspiracy to put it in an article about the conspiracy, or it is WP:OR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to defer on the copyvio issue, but simply don't get the need for a source to mention the exact words "white genocide conspiracy theory" to be citable in this article. We have multiple sources saying Lane was a key disseminator of this theory and that Aryan Nations played a role in this. We have multiple sources saying the 14 words is a key slogan of the conspiracy theory. And we have a reliable sources for the content of Aryan Nations' declaration, (a) that it included said 14 words (two sources) and (b) that it spoke of the "eradication of the white race" (one source if we exclude the declaration itself), which is an obvious synonym for white genocide. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep bringing up the 14 words? This is not the 14 words article.
We have no reliable secondary sources for it talking about that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a slogan of white genocide conspiracy theory (per Michael 2009, a peer reviewed journal article cited in the preceding sentence).
The reliable secondary sources cited for "it" (presumably you mean the Declaration?) "talking about that" (if by "that" you mean this slogan) are Martin 2010 (a chapter in a scholarly book) and the ADL.
Maybe time to drop the stick? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We do not presume that the material is public domain until proven otherwise, we presume it is copyrighted until we have proof it is not. There are two problems with this. First, that is categorically not our policy. Second, that ignores the fact that IA's hosting of user-submitted documents is almost certainly a clear-cut example of the fair use doctrine, as their purpose is non-profit education, and this document has educational value.
Speaking to the first problem, we can look at the relevant guideline at WP:COPYLINK, and read "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder." (emphasis added) That text puts the onus on you to demonstrate that source is a copyright violation (again, fair use is not a violation of copyright law). It says nothing about 'presuming' that the link is a violation.
Right now, the only evidence we have as to the copyright status of this document is:
  1. It was uploaded to IA more than a decade ago and has not been subject to a DMCA takedown. (This may indicate that the document is public domain, or it may indicate that IA's hosting of it is fair use, but either way, it suggests that this is not a copyright violation.)
  2. The AN published it as a 'declaration', which, by definition, is intended to be widely disseminated and freely shared.
As you can see, while there is no 'proof' either way, the evidence suggests a perfectly valid use.
(I acknowledge that not every document that can be uploaded to IA would constitute fair use: documents published by for-profit institutions for the purpose of making profits, such as many books, would require the IA to either purchase a copy for themselves or otherwise secure the rights to republish them. However, as I pointed out above, this document is not one of those. The AN is not a for-profit institution and they have, to my knowledge, never sold this document for profit.)
In order for this line of argument to work, you would need to first argue compellingly that IA's hosting is not an example of fair use, and then you would need to provide some evidence of it being a copyright violation which is compelling enough to overcome the evidence I mentioned above. I'm sorry, but I don't see any way for you to do that.
Yes, but I'm saying it doesn't say anything about the topic at issue so it doesn't evidence due weight. The AN source explicitly endorses and pushes this conspiracy theory. If you're referring to the ADL source, that is explicitly about the AN source.
We are writing an article about the white genocide conspiracy. We need a source about the conspiracy to put it in an article about the conspiracy, or it is WP:OR. That's not true. WP:OR prohibits the inclusion of material for which no reliable source exists. That includes WP:SYNTH, which is what I believe you are referring to. However, there is no synthesis of information here. Synth is a subset of OR, which means that for something to be synth, it must be OR. However, there are no claims in that paragraph which were not reliably sourced.
I've also seen you bring up WP:DUE, but I would ask you to take a good read of that section and understand that it is not about whether or not we can include tangential information about a topic, but rather about how much text to devote to competing views and whether or not we need to attribute those views, or can state them as facts in wikivoice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all that apart maybe from the SYNTH issue. SYNTH can be reliably sourced, but when you synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. I understand the concern because if there is no source linking the two parts it pushes in that direction, but I'm very confident we've not made that leap here for the reasons I've set out. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. The problematic part of WP:SYNTH is the conclusion that two or more sources are combined to reach, which is not present in any one. That's the part that's OR.
Without that conclusion, what is being done is not synth. See WP:SYNTHNOT for an essay explaining a lot of common misconceptions about the rather tricky topic of synth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reproducing the entire document, a clear replacement of the original work, is not fair use, which indicates it be a minimal use and to not replace the original value of the work. It is the entire document, so not fair use.
By your own logic, how could we "reasonably suspect" anything? Why can't we just link to Anna's Archive for all books? After all, we can't prove they didn't give a public domain release. Obviously not the case. Aryan Nations was a commercial institution, they sold merchandise, they sold books, they sold numerous things. Intended to be shared does not mean copyright free!
That something has not been taken down yet is absolutely not an indication of anything. There are decades old copyright violation uploads on YouTube. There are full length university press books on archive.org uploaded for free still in copyright that haven't been taken down. That means absolutely nothing.
Due weight is on all content and is based on material in reliable, secondary sources. It is not about theories but also includes minority aspects, of which this is one, as no secondary source about white genocide has ever mentioned it. The AN source is not secondary. We have no secondary source that connects this very obscure document to the topic. There are hundreds of articles written by white supremacists that reflect similar themes - should we have a paragraph for each one? If not, why not?
If you make a connection through your presentation of primary source materials that no secondary source has made, that is synth, it is combining material in a way sources have never done, and that is exactly what we are doing here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have no secondary source that connects this very obscure document to the topic. Why do you keep saying this? ADL and Martin 2010 are secondary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC) (And up to 206 scholarly sources connect the authors of this document to white genocide, so...) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reproducing the entire document, a clear replacement of the original work, is not fair use, which indicates it be a minimal use and to not replace the original value of the work. It is the entire document, so not fair use. The enumerated standard is minimal use, not partial use. For something like this, the whole document is the minimum necessary to preserve for educational use. I have dealt with copyright law many times in my life, and I know for a fact that an entire work can be considered minimal use when it's necessary. That's how we get away with using trademarked logos and the like here on WP.
By your own logic, how could we "reasonably suspect" anything? First off, that is not "my own" logic, that is a direct quote from the policy page.
Now, in this case? There's no grounds to reasonably suspect anything. But, for example, if you found a copy of Storm Front on IA as a user upload, it would be very reasonable to suspect it's a copyright violation.
That something has not been taken down yet is absolutely not an indication of anything. You should take a read of Inductive reasoning and inference and understand that you are simply incorrect here. There is nothing illogical with making probabilistic determinations. The vast majority of conclusions people come to are probabilistic, though they often seem deductive to those who don't study logic closely.
Due weight is on all content and is based on material in reliable, secondary sources. It is not about theories but also includes minority aspects, That doesn't address anything I said except in a way that agrees with me.
as no secondary source about white genocide has ever mentioned it. This is a falsehood which you have been corrected on multiple times now.
The AN source is not secondary. Nobody has claimed it is.
We have no secondary source that connects this very obscure document to the topic. That is the same falsehood as above. Please read WP:HONEST. You may feel that ignoring the fact that the ADL source is explicitly about the AN source and continuing to insist otherwise might gain you some ground in this discussion, but all it will actually do is predispose any good-faith newcomers or readers towards not taking your argument seriously.
There are hundreds of articles written by white supremacists that reflect similar themes - should we have a paragraph for each one? If not, why not? No, because none of them have been written about by the ADL, which is likely because they are not foundational documents for a large, influential white supremacist organization (a fact which also contributes to the 'why' question).
If you make a connection through your presentation of primary source materials that no secondary source has made, that is synth, it is combining material in a way sources have never done, and that is exactly what we are doing here. This is the third repetition of this falsehood. I would remind you that at some point (a point we are rapidly approaching), it will become clear to all that you are not mistaken, but willfully lying. I strongly advise you to avoid reaching that point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The whole document is not the minimum necessary, the minimum necessary would be relative to the purpose. In our case one or two sentences in a quote= parameter would suffice.
Why would a copy of Storm Front be reasonably suspected but not this document? What is the difference?
The ADL has written about all the white supremacist periodicals I mention that extensively wrote about white genocide. So, if the ADL is the bar, why can't all these magazines be added here? Foundational, no, it was one document they issued several decades into their operations which had little impact.
No secondary source that discusses white genocide has discussed this document as relevant to the conspiracy theory. I stand by this. Sources that discuss the Aryan Nations are not generalizable to a specific document they issued, and the handful of sources that discuss the memorandum do not mention white genocide. All that has been provided are sources about the Aryan Nations which are not about the document, or primary sources. Combining them to say something that no source says about the document is SYNTH and undue weight. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of every white supremacist magazine I am aware of that
1) has been mentioned by the ADL either online or in one of their print publications
2) discusses white genocide or some synonym of it
Includes: The Rockwell Report, White Power, National Vanguard, The Stormtrooper, Attack!, NSW, Instauration, The Thunderbolt, Siege (not the Mason one), White Power Report (unrelated to the other White Power magazine), Liberty Bell, and WAR, to name a few (I had to make the list before for a college project).
All of these magazines are notable and have been discussed by the ADL. Why should each article they have written discussing white genocide not be mentioned here, by the same logic we are including this incredibly irrelevant document? Each has articles that discuss white genocide AND they are discussed by the ADL. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I still share a lot of the same confusion and concerns about these arguments, and it's getting harder to engage because of what I can only describe as certain disconnects. If Bob's edits might be improved, you are welcome to make detailed proposals, or even take it to a second noticeboard for even more opinions, but after that point I think it starts to become a drain on resources. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is premised upon multiple false claims of fact which you have repeated multiple times, despite multiple corrections from multiple editors. I would remind you that AGF is not a suicide pact, and if you continue to behave like this with regards to this topic or related ones, you are very likely to end up on the wrong side of an WP:ANI filing that mentiones WP:NONAZIS. I am not accusing you of being a Nazi, but I am saying that your engagement here aligns with that which any reasonable editor would expect of a Nazi.
I have already addressed your entire argument and will not be replying further. I do not support any efforts to alter this article in line with the edits you have made or in alignment with the arguments you have made here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Caring about Wikipedia's own policies for OR and SYNTH is not being a Nazi and to say that me doing so is Nazism whitewashes the horrible beliefs of actual Nazis. No one here has supplied any reliable source that says the material in question without violating OR and no one here has debunked what I said. We are currently combining material from various primary sources to imply a conclusion that no one source states. That is my issue.
Saying you're not accusing me of being one and then saying that "your engagement here aligns with that which any reasonable editor would expect of a Nazi" - really? How does it make neo-Nazism look any worse to include this utterly irrelevant document? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Poll 3-13-2026

[edit]

Participants may add to the discussion above or simply state their position below with a polling option. I added this for editors who wish to move on. This is not a formal RfC, but simply a means to gauge current consensus. Cheers.

Do you support or object to the current version made in the White genocide conspiracy theory article subsection (Neo-Nazis' accusations against Jews)?

  • Support- As the editor that originally objected to the removal of context here, and after looking at both sides of the debate on the talk page and at RSN. PARAKANYAA's edits are well intentioned and have improved this article in many ways, however I prefer the changes and rationale by the majority of volunteers from RSN on this concern. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Bob's version, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources now are certainly less bad but I still don't see how such a minor detail is due weight for an article that already is too long per WP:SIZE and where we have extrapolated from quotes for its inclusion. This article is already 10,000 words long. But ok? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify: I maintain my opinion that this is kind of a random inclusion given what sourcing we have, but I will no longer actively object to it as Bob has improved the sourcing to where the sentences we are saying are now backed up by reliable sources, at least. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

”More than 400 U.S. counties are now minority white” (Axios 2021)

[edit]

Yeah I went and updated the FAQ. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Biased wording on the topic of South Africa

[edit]
Please keep WP:NOTFORUM advocacy for conspiracy theories off Wikipedia. See Wp:FRINGE Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The section about South Africa and Namibia seems to have a very biased tone. In these countries, it is not a conspiracy, something false. It is a possibility, as it has legitimate, proveable evidence behind it, amongst untruth. ChaoticAškenazi (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the FAQ near the top of this page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2026 (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.

It is quite interesting to call this a conspiracy theory

[edit]

I am of the opinion that we should be more reserved and wait until this era of history is bygone to make such an aggresive and harsh judgement. Sigmarecep31 (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAQ at the top of this page. This article is about a white nationalist conspiracy theory that claims there is a deliberate plot (often blamed on Jews) to cause the extinction of white people through forced assimilation, mass immigration, or violent genocide. No reliable sources suggest this is anything but a conspiracy theory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1359876280"