Wikipedia

Talk:Great Replacement/Archive 3

< Talk:Great Replacement
Latest comment: 8 months ago by Objective3000 in topic " is a white nationalist theory"
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Requested move 16 May 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago173 comments47 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move at this time. Proponents suggested a few various points.

  • 1. The proposed name may or may not be the most common, but it is at least common enough. Consensus reached in favor. We don't have to choose the literal #1 most common name, as was correctly indicated in the discussion. There's a decent argument to be made that it is the most common name, actually, but that's a point that doesn't need to be resolved. It's common enough.
  • 2. It was argued that the proposed title is more consistent with other titles on WP, such as Chemtrail conspiracy theory, White genocide conspiracy theory, and many more. Consensus not reached on this point. Counterpoints like Flat earth, or heck, even Birds Aren't Real, counterbalance and show that we do not always call conspiracy theories as such in the title. Should we call all conspiracy theories as such in their article's title? Maybe! But do we? The record is clearly a very very mixed one, according to the discussion here.
  • 3. While the current title admittedly wins on being more concise and is equally recognizable, the proposed title is argued to be more precise. Consensus not reached. It was said that "we do not explain or disambiguate when there's nothing to disambiguate", an argument that was not satisfactorily answered. When it was argued that the proposed title was indeed more "precise", I think it best to charitably assume they were suggesting it was instead more transparent or accurate (since the meaning of the word "precise", at least in Wikipedia-ese, means "referring to one thing only", which is a meaning that comports very little with the arguments it accompanies). That leads to a whole 'nother kettle of fish; see below.
  • 4. Finally, it was argued that the move must take place because the two-word title is misleading by not explicitly calling out that the term "Great Replacement" refers to a conspiracy theory. This was heatedly argued, though mostly civilly (good job, us!). Consensus not reached. It was powerfully argued that we must not present WP:FRINGE topics as if they were accepted. However, it was also argued that this job is best done by the body of the article, not the title. Memorably, one opposer brought up that we don't have titles named Adolf Hitler the bad guy just because otherwise you might not notice that Hitler was bad. There was a lot of discussion back and forth, and there was emphatically no consensus that as to whether or not the status of the "great replacement" as a conspiracy theory in and of itself must necessitate the addition of "conspiracy theory" to the title.

All that to say, there's clearly no consensus here. I will say that a very strong consensus did form to make sure that the article clearly and emphatically refers to the idea of the so-called "Great Replacement" as being a conspiracy theory. There just wasn't a consensus regarding the article's title. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 20:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Great Replacement → Great Replacement conspiracy theory – Now appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME. Generalrelative (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: Before this is closed, I'd like to clarify that I should have stated in my original move request: Great Replacement conspiracy theory now appears to be a WP:COMMONNAME, as in a commonly recognizable name for the phenomenon, which is what that policy calls for. Some of the arguments below appear to be based on a misreading of COMMONNAME as though it called for using the "most common" name, when in fact it does not do so at all, and explicitly enjoins us to choose a more accurate / less ambiguous name even when another name may be more common: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. . . . When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. So here is my breakdown of the five naming criteria: The current title certainly has concision on its side, but the suggested title is clearly equally recognizable, and I think clearly wins out on precision and consistency, as others have argued below. In terms of naturalness, we should think about how we would expect Wikilinks directed here to be phrased, and on this count I think it's clear that Great Replacement conspiracy theory is preferable to Great Replacement because the latter might give readers the false impression that such a phenomenon actually exists. Generalrelative (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Generalrelative, could this formulation, with the quotes, be added as a choice? I think it's clearer: "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm not against including quotation marks in the new title but I don't think I can change the forumaltion of the move request after others have weighed in. Generalrelative (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. I fully agree that the current title is unsatisfactory. The theory is gaining traction, especially because of Tucker Carlson. It's his daily drumbeat. (Strangely enough, he is only mentioned twice.) Therefore, the exact nature of the subject should be explicit in the title. It's a conspiracy theory, and there are enough RS to justify a restoration of the old title. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I also agree that the title should be corrected (and that Carlson should get significant weight in the text). I can appreciate that editors may be concerned that such a title would be presenting a judgment in Wikipedia's voice, but I believe that where WP:YESPOV says "Avoid stating facts as opinions", that applies here, per the sources listed above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Now that the discussion has been updated to a requested move, I want to register my view as Strong Support. After reading comments by other editors below, I also want to say that I would be fine with Great Replacement theory. Although I believe that sources do justify the word "conspiracy" before the word "theory", I'm also seeing plenty of sources that just call it a theory. I find the present title, however, unacceptable, because it is demonstrably unsourced to say that a "replacement" is an accurate description of what is actually happening (demographic shifts, yes, organized replacement, no). Proponents believe that a replacement has happened or is in the process of happening, but we should not state that belief in Wikipedia's voice. It's unarguably a theory, and is a conspiracy theory as well. I also want to add to my previous quoting of YESPOV, that it equally says not to state opinions as facts. We shouldn't call the opinion that the replacement is real, a fact – and we shouldn't make it sound like the fact that it is at least a theory, is merely an opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I strongly support this proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VibrantThumpcake (talk • contribs) 10:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The problem is that Camus himself does not present it as a conspiracy theory, but rather claims he is describing a demographic proces as a result of policies, without claiming the aim of replacement. Others incorporate TGR into their own conspiracy theories.
I would suggest to write a chapter about conspiracy in the context of TGR first and only reconsider the title thereafter. --Wickey (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Actually, Camus did originally present it as a conspiracy theory. See the sources cited in the article's second sentence, which make clear that he alleges a supposed replacement of whites by non-whites being encouraged by "replacist elites". Generalrelative (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Great Replacement is simpler, more appropriate and precise title. Also, replacing the current title with the proposed one might look like a POV-pushing. The current title is less loaded and presents the topic to the readers without unnecessary sensationalism.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC) Striking confirmed sockpuppet !vote [1]. Generalrelative (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
    • It fails to accurately describe the content of the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    • The current title may be simple but its not very helpful precisely because it doesn't describe the contents of the article. At least "conspiracy theory" provides a clue. Given the first paragraph, "loaded" makes little sense. As to replacing it looking like pov pushing, why wouldn't opposing a change look like pov pushing? Doug Weller talk 15:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Generalrelative: before this goes much further, would you be willing to withdraw and restart as a requested move? Using an RfC for this is explicitly proscribed at WP:RFCNOT. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers: Yes! And thanks for the tip. Generalrelative (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support @Wickey: I see your point, but the article is clearly about the conspiracy theory based on Camus' original concept and we do discuss his concept in some depth. I'm not exactly sure about how many times "conspiracy theory" is mentioned in the body of the article, but it's well above 40. When I was asked about this I did a Google News search and it was clear that the TGR was commonly referred to as a conspiracy theory and more sources have been found. WP:COMMONNAME alone suggests this should now be the title. Doug Weller talk 15:15, May 16, 2022‎ (UTC)
    it was clear that the TGR was commonly referred to as a conspiracy theory and more sources have been found. WP:COMMONNAME alone suggests this should now be the title - huh? I can find plenty of sources which describe ice cream as a food. That does not meant that WP:COMMONNAME dictates that we must move ice cream to ice cream (food). In fact it dictates the opposite. Endwise (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    You find plenty of sources saying “ice cream food”? Actually I came back here to mention this Snopes report I just got which might be of interest. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as OP. I'll just recapitulate my argument from the above section and add a bit. The title was changed from The Great Replacement conspiracy theory to Great Replacement as the result of an RfC just over 3 years ago. In that RfC, it seems that the primary argument against using "conspiracy theory" in the article title was WP:COMMONNAME. Since that time, however, it seems that a preponderance of reliable sources have shifted their usage, and that "Great Replacement conspiracy theory" or some very close approximation is now the norm. Some examples:
  • News: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
  • Academic: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15]
  • Advocacy: [16][17][18]
  • While many sources do continue to refer to it is "Great Replacement theory" or "replacement theory" too, often interchangeably with "Great Replacement conspiracy theory", it appears to be growing less common simply to refer to it as "Great Replacement" (see this from the New York Times yesterday: [19]). I assume that these sources avoid referring to it simply as "Great Replacement" because doing so might seem to imply that such a phenomenon exists, i.e. that white people are in fact being replaced. And RS almost universally include "conspiracy theory" in the immediate description of the term. I suggest therefore that the criteria of WP:COMMONNAME are no longer met by the current title, and that the proposed title is the best fit per PAG. Generalrelative (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    Note: the first Business Insider source under News above is an op-ed by an associate research director of Media Matters for America, and so should be considered advocacy. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    Aha, that's correct. The second one is RS however (per WP:RSP). Thanks for pointing out the disparity. Generalrelative (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    WP:COMMONNAME does not dictate that we should use a term rarely ever used by reliable sources ("Great Replacement conspiracy theory") merely because the "Great Replacement" is replaced by "Great Replacement Theory" in some sources. Endwise (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    Did you even take a look at the sources I provided? Generalrelative (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    They are instances of articles which say something like the 'Great Replacement' conspiracy theory. E.g. in this politico article:[20], the mentions are as follows: the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory... The “Great Replacement” is a french conspiracy theory... The “Great Replacement” theory specifically.... This is in the same sense that people might say "the indie rock genre". Being able to find (comparatively rarer) examples of the three words "indie", "rock", and "genre" next to each other does not mean we must move indie rock to indie rock genre. Endwise (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    I have clearly demonstrated that RS of all kinds use "Great Replacement conspiracy theory" as the common name for this phenomenon. I understand that the type of argument you are using may apply to other cases where the sources are not so clear, but anyone who actually examines the sources I've provided will see that your argument falls apart. Note too that, as WP:COMMONNAME makes clear, Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. As I argued in my !vote above, simply calling this "Great Replacement" gives the reader the false impression that such a phenomenon (white people being replaced) actually exists. The current title is thus ambiguous and inaccurate in the extreme, which is one more policy-based reason to favor the move. Generalrelative (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    The article I was quoting from there was taken from your list; the "indie rock genre" sense of "'Great Replacement' conspiracy theory" is generally how those sources were using it, and regardless that construction still appears far less commonly than the actual concept of either "Great Replacement" or "Great Replacement Theory". You have certainly not demonstrated that Great Replacement conspiracy theory is the common name.
    Concerns about giving readers a false impression make more sense to me than common name arguments (the proposed title isn't the common name), but I think these concerns are in general overblown. If a reader is unsure about what concept the title of an article refers to, they will read the first sentence of the article, which correctly states that it "is a [...] conspiracy theory". I don't think there will be anyone at all who sees this article and walks away thinking "Wikipedia told me that nefarious forces really are orchestrating the replacement of white people". I recently moved We Can't Consent To This campaign to We Can't Consent To This (diff) for a similar reason; if a reader is unsure what it is, they will read the first sentence. If you're still concerned about people thinking Wikipedia really is promoting the idea that the Great Replacement is reality, then we could go with Great Replacement Theory, as that does actually tend to get used by sources. IMO that's not necessary, but I wouldn't oppose it. Endwise (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    Perhaps if there is no consensus here we can re-open with a discussion of "Great Replacement Theory" as a possible compromise. Glad to hear you'd be open to that. And just to clarify, my concern is not what people think of Wikipedia but rather with what they take from it. If Tucker Carlson tells people that nefarious forces really are orchestrating the replacement of white people and a quick glance at Wikipedia gives them any room to imagine that such a view might have a basis in reality, that's a serious failing on our part. And again, this kind of consideration is discussed explicitly within WP:COMMONNAME, so is a part of that policy. Generalrelative (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    Generalrelative, COMMONNAME is not the only consideration (or even the most important), but you seem to recognize that, at least to some degree ("Concerns about giving readers a false impression make more sense to me than common name arguments"). If we don't get a consensus for a restoration of the old and most accurate title, then your idea of "Great Replacement Theory" as a possible compromise is good. It moves us toward a better title. The current title is about as uninformative as the title "Cheese". Duh, what kind of cheese? "North American Swiss cheese". Ah! Now that is much more informative.
This article is not only about the theory by Renaud Camus (as implied by the current title), but about what RS consider a conspiracy theory, the reactions to it, and the societal destabilizations, mass murders, and tragedies caused by it. The title should reflect that, and the current requested move points to such a title, but a compromise would be better than no change. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The Great Replacement as a broader, chiefly American concept seems to be more what White genocide conspiracy theory discusses, though I'm not sure that that split is accurate to the current nomenclature in RS. Perhaps they should be merged? Endwise (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
There is certainly a huge overlap. The believers in each theory would certainly feel as allies. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I definitely sympathise with concerns about the title misleading people, but IMO I just don't think it's that dire. There are two places people will see the title: On Google, they will see the "Great Replacement" title and the first line of the article (both in the knowledge panel, and as one of the first results), and if they click on the article, they will be taken to Wikipedia and either see "This article is about the French far-right conspiracy theory" or "is a white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory" as the first thing other than the title. If someone hears "great replacement" name-dropped by Tucker Carlson or whoever else and decides to google it, I don't think opening this article or seeing it embedded in their google search will leave anyone feeling more confident in the truthfulness of the theory than before they had googled it. Endwise (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. On that point it seems we just have a difference of opinion. Generalrelative (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Endwise, but what degree of "truthfulness" does the current title leave them with? The current title is a fringe title and does not reflect any input from RS. It's a title from the author, a decidedly unreliable and fringe source, so we need a title that has the flavor found in RS, IOW one that "leaves anyone feeling more less confident in the truthfulness of the theory". Wikipedia doesn't take sides when there is a legitimate disagreement between RS, but when it's a disagreement between fringe and mainstream sources, we always tip the scales in favor of RS. We do not present false or dangerous ideas without some sort of warning from RS. That's how we apply policy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. WP:RECENTISM should be considered, as well as WP:HEADLINES and WP:ADVOCACY (no matter how well-intentioned). Current media zeitgeist and personal opinions regarding Tucker Carlson or the 2022 Buffalo shooting should be tempered. While undoubtedly some sources use the exact phrase "great replacement conspiracy theory", this doesn't seem to be an overwhelmingly predominant usage: variations include "The Great Replacement Theory, "Great Replacement", a conspiracy theory, and some don't mention the word "conspiracy" at all. And just because something is something doesn't mean we need to shoehorn it into the title (hence we have evolution not evolutionary theory, Cheesesteak not Cheesesteak sandwich, Black Lives Matter not Black Lives Matter movement, etc.). The first few sentences are sufficient to characterize the GRT as a conspiracy theory as appropriate. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. RS consistently describe it as a conspiracy theory. There is no "Great Replacement". There is a Great Replacement conspiracy theory, so the title needs to make that clear. Cpotisch (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons outlined by Endwise and Animalparty. Springee (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong support. The current title reads as if it's referring to something that exists, rather than to a falsehood that's promoted by extremists such as Tucker Carlson and Payton Gendron. Adding the word "theory", as suggested by Endwise as a compromise, still leaves the impression that there's actual evidence supporting it. The word theory by itself implies that whether it's true or false is an open question. Adding "conspiracy theory" identifies it for what it is. And an inaccurate or misleading title can't be justified by saying that the inaccuracy is corrected in the first sentence. NightHeron (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Very well said. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    • It's an idea: whether it's a false or conspiratorial idea is beside the point. It appears to most often be called "Great Replacement theory" or "Replacement Theory" or "Great Replacement", even when discussed as a conspiracy theory. Should we similarly rename Paul is dead and Epstein didn't kill himself and Pacte de Famine and Kalergi Plan and Lost Cosmonauts and Phantom time hypothesis to ensure that no readers ever get a false impression? Should we append "conspiracy theory" to every article in Category:Conspiracy theories that doesn't yet have such? --Animalparty! (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
      • Yes, at least more often than we already do. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
        • Then sorry but this strikes me as more of an agenda-based rather than PAG-based argument. Calling out conspiracies wherever they exist as immediately and as often as possible at the expense of conciseness or common usage because we really want readers to know it's a conspiracy is like renaming Po' boy to Po' boy sandwich so that readers don't falsely think it's about an actual impoverished young male. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
          • Good example, as it should say "sandwich" as those not from Louisiana will likely not know the local slang. I'm American and had to look it up! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
          • Two problems with your argument, Animalparty: 1) The stakes at play in the case of the sandwich are extremely low. In the case of the conspiracy theory they are high. This difference matters for an encyclopedia. 2) Conciseness and common usage are not the only naming criteria. There is also of course precision, and no one can I think argue in good faith that "Great Replacement conspiracy theory" isn't more precise. The idea was from the very beginning a conspiracy theory and has remained so. Treating it in any other way invites ambiguity, which WP:COMMONNAME explicitly advises us to avoid. Generalrelative (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
            • "Extremely high stakes" for some people are called moral panic by others. To each their own. No such user (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is not about the "Great Replacement", which does not exist, but about the "Great Replacement conspiracy theory", which does exist. Tercer (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Similar to White genocide conspiracy theory, Great Replacement is overwhelmingly presented by sources within the context of a conspiracy theory, and so the explicit title is justified. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. I think the analogies made above by Animalparty effectively demonstrate why adding more detail to a title (beyond what's needed for disambiguation) to be more "descriptive" of the topic is not appropriate or in line with current practice. Colin M (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I said this above, but I'd like to repeat it, in case anyone didn't see it. The existing title is misleading, because it says in Wikipedia's voice that there actually is a Great Replacement. That's an opinion stated as fact, and it's not concision. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Does the title Ascension of Jesus falsely state in Wikipedia's voice that Jesus actually flew up to Heaven from Earth? (Repeat for any number of articles about topics relating to religion/fiction/superstition/conspiracy theories/etc.) Colin M (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
      • Good question. Similarly, we don't call Devil a fictional figure in the pagename. For things like religion and fiction, we can generally feel comfortable that our readers understand that the page subject is from religion or from fiction. And for something like Friday the 13th, we can similarly feel comfortable that readers don't need to be told in the pagename that it's a superstition. And I was about to say that some present-day conspiracy theories have names that are self-evidently silly, and I was going to link Pizzagate as an example. But look what that redirects to! Here, unlike Pizzagate, the name Great Replacement doesn't, in itself, sound dubious. Great Depression is a real thing, not a theory, and Great Replacement sounds a lot like it. And given that proponents push the theory as though it were true, much as Pizzagate believers do, we must not mislead readers in Wikipedia's voice. As I said above, I'm not married to "conspiracy theory" here, although I believe it to be accurate and widely used by reliable sources, but I do believe that we must, at a minimum, call it a "theory". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
      • Ascension of Jesus is not a good analogy. Belief in Biblical literalism is not the same as an extremist conspiracy theory full of racist invective, used recently to justify the mass murder of innocent people. NightHeron (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
        Disagree - Sorry, no, biblical literalism is much worse by every account - even if we ignore the Crusades, you can't ignore its use to justify the harassment and murder of LGBT+ people. 2001:569:5270:A400:71E8:6F3B:BEE7:464A (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Good point. I shouldn't have referred to Biblical literalism as a whole. My point was about belief in Ascension of Jesus. A Christian can believe in the literal truth of the myth of Ascension of Jesus without being homophobic or hating non-believers. By itself it's an innocuous belief. But it's not likely that someone would believe in the Great Replacement conspiracy theory without supporting anti-immigrant racist paranoia. NightHeron (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Belief in the ascension of Jesus does not imply hatred of others and does not lead to hate crimes. Do you know of any case where someone justified mass murder by citing the ascension of Jesus? NightHeron (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
That's not what the IP is saying, they are saying that religion can be the cause of hate crimes and has been used far to often to justify mass murder. I don't think that using AD should be forbidden and certainly not on that basis, but it can clearly be seen as a religious statement by others no matter why it was used. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, after rereading the IP's statement I realized that I shouldn't have referred to Biblical literalism, but rather only to belief in Ascension of Jesus, which is a small part of Biblical literalism and a relatively innocuous part. NightHeron (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose- similar to Yellow Peril, the negative concept does not claim or rely upon any deliberate conspiracy, but consists of negative generalizations about immmigration and race. The frequent article references to the "white genocide conspiracy theory" are enough to make the connection clear. 2001:569:5270:A400:71E8:6F3B:BEE7:464A (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not concise, and I'm not convinced it's COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    • The proposed title is much more precise, accurate, and descriptive. COMMONNAME is not the only thing to consider and can sometimes be ignored. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
      • I'll try not to keep on repeating this but folks need to read WP:COMMONNAME. We are enjoined by that policy to pick a title that is commonly recognizable, not necessarily the most common, especially when other considerations apply, as they clearly do here. The numerous sources I've provided above demonstrate that this is a commonly used name to describe the phenomenon in question. Therefore COMMONNAME is pretty clearly satisfied. Generalrelative (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:HEADLINES, WP:ADVOCACY and other arguments outlines above. Eccekevin (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. The current name risks violating WP:PROFRINGE by presenting something universally described among high-quality sources as a conspiracy theory as if it is a seriously-debated theory or as if its reality is somehow under dispute. For titles like these, WP:NPOVNAME requires that we adhere to NPOV - which means adhering to the sources and avoiding giving parity to extreme minority views; presenting a conspiracy theory without that qualifier is a NPOV violation. And, indeed, as the numerous examples it is common practice for us to identify conspiracy theories as such in their title - demonstrating that such titles are considered NPOV in comparable situations. Arguing that a bare title of "Great Replacement" satisfies NPOV is giving false balance to a position that essentially no RS holds; neither has anyone successfully demonstrated that "Great Replacement" alone sufficiently satisfies WP:COMMONNAME to ignore that problem (indeed, if anything, the analysis above shows that "Great Replacement conspiracy theory" is a more likely common name.) To answer some of the other arguments people have made: WP:NPOV and WP:PROFRINGE are more important policies than WP:CONCISE; and, of course, the reminder that we must avoid WP:ADVOCACY cuts both ways. We avoid advocacy by adhering closely to the sources, not by deferring to anyone's gut feelings about what the truth is - and the sources here are unanimous. That means that by removing "conspiracy theory" from the title, we effectively shifted to advocating it - especially given that, as mentioned, we do have a longstanding practice of describing many articles about conspiracy theories using that term, and since WP:CONSISTENT would normally suggest we should have it. For examples, see Pizzagate conspiracy theory, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Chemtrail conspiracy theory, Moon landing conspiracy theories, White genocide conspiracy theory, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Reptilian conspiracy theory, Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory, Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, Global warming conspiracy theory, Ukraine biolabs conspiracy theory, and so on. Advocacy in favor of a fringe theory is, per PROFRINGE, far more dangerous to our mission than other sorts of advocacy, which means we have to err on the side of the non-fringe sources even if it makes for a longer title (hence why we have such a long history of doing so in comparable cases.) And the recentism argument is just baffling to the point of incoherence - this article was originally under that title, and coverage has uniformly treated it as a conspiracy theory for its entire existence; the fact that it's a conspiracy theory isn't some new thing. --Aquillion (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a WP:FRINGE/racist/conspiracist concept, obviously and according to reliable sources. As such, WP:TINFOILHAT requires that it be "prominently identified" as such. The article's title is the starting place where such prominent identification shall be achieved. Not doing so would be counter to the English Wikipedia's absolute requirement for WP:NPOV, which is not negotiable. Alexbrn (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, and "Replacement conspiracy theory" without "Great" may be even more DUE if more sources describe it as such. Llll5032 (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per the rationales of the nominator, Generalrelative, Aquillion, et al. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NPOVNAME, When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, [...], Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title [...] In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name , generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. That explicitly does not support Aquillion's interpretation that presenting a conspiracy theory without that qualifier is a NPOV violation, on the contrary. Knowing the policy shortcut does not substitute knowing its contents. No such user (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - adding the words "conspiracy theory" to the name of a conspiracy theory implies that the conspiracy theory refers to something that actually exists. Many of the presented sources above actually use both forms interchangeably. And, furthermore, the sources that do use "great replacement conspiracy theory" seem to be using compound noun (great replacement, with various permutations of quotation marks and capitalization) + postmodifier (conspiracy or conspiracy theory, generally without capitalization) i.e. they are saying there is a conspiracy (theory), which is named '[G/g]reat [R/r]eplacement'. Finally, Ngram viewer gives zero results for "Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory" with initial capitalization i.e. as a compound proper noun, clearly demonstrating that this is not the name of this conspiracy theory. Tewdar  12:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. "The Great Replacement" specifically refers to the theory of Camus, which exactly has this title. While "conspiracy" is added many times in the article, this is not based on sources about "The Great Replacement" proper. If the article should cover 'replacement theories' in general, it should not include "Great Replacement" at all. Instead it should be renamed Replacement theory (population policy), of which "The Great Replacement" is one. I just wrote such an article in Dutch. --Wickey (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    none of that is true. "The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory" is not a population policy theory. Mvbaron (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is bullshit, but we don't regularly flag bullshit with some kind of bullshit qualifier in the title of the article. The lead section and the general tone of the article can be used to demonstrate its clear bullshitiness, but the title is not necessary. Most Wikipedia articles don't feel the need to shout BULLSHIT in the title (c.f. flat earth, alien abduction, bigfoot, etc.) and this one shouldn't either. There are perhaps times when exceptions should be made, but this clearly isn't it. It's fine to call it a "conspiracy theory" in the description of it in the article text, but it doesn't need to also do so in the title. The title should be concise and easily identifiable, and this one is.--Jayron32 17:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    The major difference between those articles and this one is the fact that most people acknowledge that the Flat Earth theory, alien abductions, and bigfoot are all fake; the Great Replacement theory, on the other hand, has gained considerable traction. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 18:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong support. The title as is seems to refer to an ongoing or historical event. The adjective "Great" echoes titles of valid historical events, and misdirects readers as to the truth of the conspiracy theory. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. If you enter Fake Moon Landing you get to Moon landing conspiracy theories. If you enter Chemtrails you get to Chemtrail conspiracy theory. I find some of the oppose votes at odds with these established comparisons. CT55555 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    Whaddabout Birds Aren't Real?  Tewdar  20:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    It's self-evident that "birds aren't real" is untrue, with no more need to point it out than to point out that the sky is blue. In contrast, the moon landing really did happen, and conspiracy theories about it are not the same as the real thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    The Great Replacement also did not happen / is not happening. And what about Paul is dead and Epstein didn't kill himself and Pacte de Famine and Kalergi Plan and Lost Cosmonauts and Phantom time hypothesis, which animalparty mentioned earlier. Do we need to add the words "conspiracy theory" to these, too, or are these also self-evidently untrue?  Tewdar  20:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    I guess we could trade examples, some of yours are debatable. I didn't cherry pick mine, they were just the first two conspiracy theories I thought of. So I'm not sure how to answer, as maybe the best answer would be some sort of scientific analysis of all conspiracy theories ranked. My feeling (and I'm open minded here, didn't !vote yet) is that the question is about if we need to make it more obvious or not, and I lean towards thinking that is a good idea. But I'm watching, reading, thinking before !voting, so feedback and critique of that is welcome. CT55555 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    We don't call it "Phantom time", and "hypothesis" is comparable to "theory". Paul is dead was a meme before there were memes, and Epstein didn't kill himself is indeed in self-evident territory. If we're going to do "what about", then what about Pizzagate conspiracy theory? Pizzagate is more self-evidently silly than something that superficially sounds like the Great Depression, which really did happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    Well, Pizzagate should be the article name, in my opinion. The name of the conspiracy theory is Great Replacement.  Tewdar  20:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    While it is evident to many people that it is not happening, [it is clearly not to some.] Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 19:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    That is satire, not an actual conspiracy theory. Swordman97 talk to me 03:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Tewdar, you write "The Great Replacement also did not happen / is not happening" but people do believe it's happening. 30% of Americans.

The title should be "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, with the quote marks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

If the argument is that we should title our articles based on what Americans erroneously believe, then perhaps this article needs to be moved to From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (not in the United States constitution).  Tewdar  08:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
It occurs to me that the original believers in the Pizzagate conspiracy theory would not, themselves, call it "Pizzagate". Rather, that's a name given to it by people independent of the original proponents, as it spread through popular culture. Therefore, even if that page were renamed to just "Pizzagate", the new pagename would not carry the non-neutral POV of the conspiracy theorists. On the other hand, "Great Replacement" is the name favored by conspiracy theorists who believe in it. Therefore, a reasonable case can be made that the current, shorter pagename is actually more POV, more given to editorializing in the pagename, than would be the proposed new name. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Question: I'm not at all arguing this is not a conspiracy theory, but do we have good evidence that the proposed title is largely consistent with WP:COMMONNAME or any other WP:CRITERIA? "Great Replacement", "Great Replacement Theory" and "Replacement Theory" still seem rather more abundant, but that's anecdotal. The examples posted by Generalrelative above verify the proposed term is used, but not that it is necessarily the most common or widespread. A search for the phrase "Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory" will of course be biased towards sources that include that phrase (regardless of frequency), just as a search for "Great Replacement Theory" will be biased towards that phrase. I think we need good data to guide choosing an appropriate name: overly-hasty Wikipedia name changes on controversial social issues could unduly influence the real-world usage of writers. I think Wikipedia should be conservative in follow shifting terminology, not necessarily place itself at the front of the wave. Out of the 5 WP:CRITERIA (Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision, and Consistency), only Consistency seems to hold any water due to some (but not all) conspiracy theory article titles ending in "conspiracy theory". WP:COMMONNAME warns against pedantic names: Expressionism is a movement without needing to say "movement" in title, and Garage rock is a music genre, not a rock. And while this conspiracy is racist and harmful to society, the same could be said for White supremacy, yet I don't think we should change that to White supremacy (idea) (without good reason) for fears of promoting or legitimizing it. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Animalparty: I have stated this above and so am wary of repeating myself, but since I was pinged I think it behooves me to say it once again: WP:COMMONNAME is very explicitly about picking a title that is commonly recognizable, not necessarily the most common, especially when other considerations apply, as they clearly do here. And indeed, the sources I've provided above demonstrate that this is certainly a recognizable name for the phenomenon in question. Therefore COMMONNAME is pretty clearly satisfied. And since I'm repeating myself, I'll even quote the relevant sections of the policy once again: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. . . . When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. Folks can argue about other issues, but if the basis of someone's Oppose !vote is that "Great Replacement conspiracy theory" is somewhat less common than other names, attempting to tie this to the COMMONNAME policy is just wrong. I'll note as well that another of the 5 naming criteria, precision also clearly favors the proposed name, for all the reasons others have stated above: there is no such phenomenon as a "great replacement", and the current title is at best ambiguous about this fact. Finally, I will concede that I should have phrased my rationale better in the original move request text. I apologize for any confusion that may have caused in the ensuing discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. From a brief search of google scholar, it looks like most sources use either 'Great Replacement' or 'Great Replacement theory' in the title. The words 'conspiracy' and 'conspiracy theory' are often used to describe the idea, but they're not usually used to modulate the general term in the title. Compare the results for 'Great Replacement' with 'Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory'. We should retain what is clearly the more common usage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Please read the previous explanations of how COMMONNAME tells us when and why we don't have to or should not use the most common usage. There are other considerations, especially "precision" and not letting a fringe term trump RS interpretations. Just read previous comments. 30% of Americans take this title as a true statement, whereas RS do not. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
      • There are ways to make clear that a concept is a bullshit concept, and the text in the article itself is adequate to the task. The article title is not the place to do so. It's not the tool fit to the purpose. --Jayron32 17:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Support as the Great Replacement is a conspiracy theory and most readers at cursory view at the title may misinterpret this as fact. With more people becoming radicalized online I believe it is important to differentiate conspiracy theories from facts, especially as they can have violent and deadly consequences as we have seen with the Buffalo mass shooting. Dr. Van Nostrand (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The same could be said for White supremacy or Antisemitism or American exceptionalism. All kinds of bad ideas are mentioned in Wikipedia without qualifying titles. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
To use a crude analogy to fiction, the "Great Replacement" is an in-universe concept. That is, the Great Replacement conspiracy theory is belief in something called the "Great Replacement". "Great Replacement" refers to what the conspiracy theory believes in, not the conspiracy theory itself.
In contrast, the term "white supremacy" refers to the ideology itself, not the thing that the ideology believes in. White supremacy is the belief in white superiority. If white supremacy had that name, its article would be titled "belief in white superiority", not "White superiority".
If you say "white supremacy is a real issue", you're saying that systemic racism in favor of white people exists. If you say "antisemitism is a real issue", you're saying that discrimination against Jews exists. If you say "the Great Replacement is a real issue", you're saying that you believe in the conspiracy theory, not merely that the conspiracy theory exists. PBZE (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I can see that logic, and I would be fine with this being moved to Great replacement theory (fully cognizant that it's not a scientific theory) because that seems to be what most scholars call it when they write about it, and it more readily indicates that is an idea. The proposed title just seems to me as somewhat ahead of the curve of common usage, and trying to bash readers over the head with the fact that it is, in fact, a conspiracy theory, and not actually true factual fact, which seems redundant or pedantic at the very least, and agenda driven at the worst. Ditto for several other conspiracy theory titles that seem to get singular treatment. And maybe I have too much faith in the average reader, but I don't think a title alone will inspire widespread confusion or adoption of an idea, just as I don't think Manifest destiny lures readers to move out west, or that Stupid White Men inspires anti-white misandry. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Animalparty, good-faith question: what "agenda" are you concerned about? I'm truly trying to wrap my head around your concern here but can't figure it out. Of course "redundant or pedantic" I get, and there we seem to simply have a difference of opinion. Generalrelative (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
By 'agenda-driven' I'm concerned about using this to call out or "get back" at certain media personalities or politicians or people, as several arguments on this page are of the variety: "X is talking about it, lots of people beleive it, we have to do something!" And perhaps 'agenda' is the wrong word, but there's a larger trend towards needlessly "calling out" conspiracies in the title. Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory and Science fiction is a genre and a Cheesesteak is a sandwich, but only the first gets the noun appended. I have no qualms against describing conspiracies as such in articles, and there are cases where "conspiracy theory/-ies" is appropriate in the title (e.g. in the case of disambiguating two concepts of the same name, or an article covering multiple theories such as John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories). Lastly, I think there's a well-established culture of inordinate hostility towards pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, fringe, and other controversial topics, from WP:FTN to WP:YWAB, and in the laudable goal to reduce falsehoods and promotion, some editors go too far in the opposite direction into more of a crusading mindset. Again, I've never argued GRT is not a conspiracy theory or not a bad idea. I just think the proposed title is unnecessary for reasons I've explained. If my opinion is in the minority, I'll accept that. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I certainly don't agree but I can see where you're coming from. Generalrelative (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Animalparty, you write: "trying to bash readers over the head with the fact" seems to denigrate stating a fact, as if doing so is wrong. It is not improper ADVOCACY, which is aimed at promotion of fringe ideas and unreliable sources. We should feel free to advocate facts and reliable sources. That is in line with policy and is as it should be, and in this case we should feel comfortable stating that the "Great Replacement" is a conspiracy theory, ergo "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
If a reader thinks that calling it a conspiracy theory is "agenda-driven", they're probably too far gone anyway. It's not worth it. The problem with titling the article "Great Replacement theory" is that "theory" usually implies a scientific theory, or at least a theory backed by evidence. A conspiracy theory is not a theory. There's also the fact that article titles should be easy to integrate into a sentence using wikilinks. A mention of this conspiracy theory elsewhere on the wiki is misleadingly described if it's just called "Great Replacement" or "Great Replacement theory", since those give it unwarranted legitimacy. PBZE (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
As the discussion has been going along, I've been increasingly warming to the idea of calling it Great Replacement theory, leaving out the word conspiracy. I, too, have thought about the issue that using the same term as in scientific theories might be misleading. On the other hand, a theory is an idea that has been put forth, but which is not necessarily proven to be correct. I found it useful to look at Category:Theories, where there are theories that are not in the subcategories of conspiracy theories or fringe theories, that are nonetheless considered to be dubious theories. One that caught my notice right away is Toothpaste tube theory, which is described in the lead sentence as "jocular". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
We also have Nobel disease, which is not actually a disease (but you might not know it until the last sentence of the lead). Many things are widely and commonly called other things despite not actually being that thing. Rocking horse, Silverfish, etc. And don't forget The Big Bang Theory. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per WP:FRINGE. This is not a mainstream idea accepted by the general public, and the title should reflect that. It would be original research to think anything but this. Swordman97 talk to me 01:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    By this logic, we should also rename the Phrenology article, for example, to Pseudoscience of Phrenology, a very common description in the reliable sources...  Tewdar  08:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    I wouldn't be opposed to such a move, what kind of point are you trying to make? See Aquilons answer Swordman97 talk to me 03:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    My point was that such a page move would be ludicrous. I am genuinely surprised to see that you wouldn't be opposed to such a move. Aquillion's apparent proposal of attaching "conspiracy theory" to all conspiracy theories, regardless of their actual name, is not a good idea, imho.  Tewdar  06:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    It is not just to every conspiracy theory. The change is in reference to the traction the conspiracy has obtained, as quite a considerable amount of Republicans agree with this theory; thus, the change is more agreeable here than it would be with, for example, something like Birds Aren't Real. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    Acceptance of the theory by a large group would argue against the addition of "conspiracy". Wickey (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    Really?? The "stolen 2020 election" conspiracy theory [21] is accepted by roughly 1/3 of Americans. NightHeron (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    I would not consider that true without further elaboration, as I think the momentum in acceptance from this portion of the population would only reaffirm the addition of "conspiracy theory" to the title to establish the untenable foundation upon which the theory is built; the change of title would leave no ambiguity while preserving a common name. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Seriously???? Wickey, on the contrary. That this bogus conspiracy theory is taken seriously makes it even more important that readers know, from the title, that RS consider it a conspiracy theory, not a settled fact. I agree with NightHeron and Maxxhiato. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment As others have said in the thread this conspiracy has gained some prominence in mainstream right-wing media. It frequently gets mentioned on Tucker Carlson's show which is one of the leading late-night shows in all of media. I don't think this should be brushed aside as WP:Recentism. Swordman97 talk to me 03:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Articles about conspiracy theories generally add "conspiracy theory" to the end, like white genocide conspiracy theory, Pizzagate conspiracy theory, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, and Chemtrail conspiracy theory. More broadly, articles about hoaxes add "hoax" to the end, like Momo Challenge hoax. This avoids misleading people into thinking that these are real things. A few articles do not follow this trend though, like "New World Order (conspiracy theory)" which should be "New World Order conspiracy theory". The titling of articles about hoaxes and conspiracy theories should probably be standardized in the manual of style. PBZE (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    Piltdown Man? Fuckart & Pimp? Cello scrotum? If anything, the trend seems to be "if it's about something real, append 'conspiracy theory/hoax' to the title. If it is about something fictitious, don't. Thus, adding the words 'conspiracy theory' to the term 'Great Replacement' may mislead readers into thinking this conspiracy theory is about something real.  Tewdar  10:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    Not really. White genocide, Cultural Marxism, chemtrails, and the Momo Challenge are not real. PBZE (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    Tewdar, you write something that seems to be misleading hyperbole: "if it's about something real, append 'conspiracy theory/hoax' to the title. If it is about something fictitious, don't." In a backwards and misleading way, you're actually touching on something real. If a title about something "not real" is misleading, then the context from RS should be present in the title to avoid us becoming a misinformation source. That's the case here, as 30% of Americans believe this nonsense, even though it's "not real". Titles that are obviously nonsense or rarely misunderstood don't need the addition of RS input in the title.
PBZE makes a good point. Note that White genocide, Cultural Marxism, Chemtrails, and the Momo Challenge all redirect, even though they are "not real". That's because they are widely believed by many people. Hence we add the "conspiracy theory" or "hoax" label to the title as their articles are largely about those aspects from RS. That is also the case here, so we should add the "conspiracy theory" to the title. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • No, we do not append our preferred descriptors to (proper) compound nouns which are the COMMONNAME of a topic just because we are upset that people are stupid enough to believe in a conspiracy theory. We do not attach disclaimers, health warnings, and other criticisms to article titles just because we want to make a point of showing that we don't believe the article describes something real, or we don't think much of the subject, or whatever. That is what the article is for. Else we'd have Donald Trump the terrible president, Phrenology the pseudoscience, Spontaneous generation the pre-scientific mumbo-jumbo, etc. Arguing that we should attach the words 'conspiracy theory' to every conspiracy theory article title because they are described that way by RS is preposterous.  Tewdar  17:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    The three that you linked make it clear that they are about hoaxes or frauds, not conspiracy theories; the Great Replacement conspiracy theory does seem to, unfortunately, have some traction, adding "conspiracy theory" to the title would establish a more accurate reflection of what it is. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 19:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Although most reliable sources do describe it as a conspiracy theory and this should be made clear in the article, the common name is clearly plain "Great Replacement":
    • "Great Replacement": 1,300 hits on Google Scholar since 2020
    • "Great Replacement theory": 223
    • "Great Replacement conspiracy theory": 77
Sample article titles of papers include, eg. "The great replacement: Strategic mainstreaming of far-right conspiracy claims" (Convergence, 2022) or "From Pizzagate to the great replacement: the globalization of conspiracy theories" (Springer, 2020), which indicates "conspiracy theory" is not part of the name. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. While some say "Great Replacement" is the common name, I see a good number of sources with the headline that it is either a theory or a conspiracy theory, as others have pointed out. In a contextual manner of speaking, it is a conspiracy theory and the new title would accurately reflect it as such. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 19:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Makes more sense to me. I’ve no idea why it isn’t called a theory already. To be clear, I support calling it “great replacement conspiracy theory” or “great replacement theory”. I prefer conspiracy though. It really is a conspiracy theory with no evidence at all. Common sense dictates we change the name. Such-change47 (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. There are many instances from mainstream media sources, in which this topic & related subject matter is referred to as the "great replacement" conspiracy theory. Some examples:
The "Great Replacement”: The conspiracy theory that unites the Far Right MSNBC - March 21, 2020
→"What is the 'Great Replacement' conspiracy theory? Richard Engel travels to the south of France to meet the man who coined the term."
A racist conspiracy theory called the 'great replacement' has made its way from far-right media to the GOP Business Insider - September 7, 2020
Misogyny is a Powerful Undercurrent of the “Great Replacement” Conspiracy Theory ADL - July 23, 2021
In France, a Racist Conspiracy Theory Edges Into the Mainstream New York Times - February 15, 2022
Buffalo mass shooter cited racist 'Great Replacement' conspiracy theory in 106-page manifesto: report Raw Story - May 14, 2022
A Fringe Conspiracy Theory, Fostered Online, Is Refashioned by the G.O.P. New York Times - May 15, 2022
→"Replacement theory, espoused by the suspect in the Buffalo massacre, has been embraced by some right-wing politicians and commentators."
Buffalo Suspect Embraced Racist 'Replacement' Conspiracy Pushed By Tucker Carlson HuffPost - May 16, 2022
The 'great replacement' conspiracy theory isn't fringe anymore, it's mainstream NPR - May 17, 2022
→"A 180-page online screed attributed to the white man accused of killing 10 people at a Tops Friendly Market in Buffalo on Saturday has brought a once-fringe white extremist conspiracy theory into the spotlight. But the underpinnings of the 'great replacement' conspiracy theory, which has been iterated on over time to appeal to wider audiences, has penetrated a much more mainstream portion of American society."
Kremlin Links Buffalo Suspect to Ukraine, Except He Had Pro-Russia Views Polygraph - May 17, 2022
→"A manifesto widely linked to Gendron showed a mishmash of beliefs. He did identify as a fascist and supported neo-Nazism. Gendron also espoused the 'great replacement' conspiracy theory, the belief that white people are intentionally being replaced with non-white migrants in Europe, North America and elsewhere."
Mainstream Republican Senate candidates promote ‘replacement’ conspiracy theory MarketWatch - May 17, 2022
→"Several mainstream Republican Senate candidates are drawing on the 'great replacement' conspiracy theory once confined to the far-right fringes of U.S. politics to court voters this campaign season, promoting the baseless notion that there is a plot to diminish the influence of white people in America."
The article title should reflect this mainstream media representation, and help to make it obvious to readers of Wikipedia that the "great replacement" is in fact a conspiracy theory. Please include this wording in the title for sake of clarity. Thank you! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for research. However, almost all of those examples use the form "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, indicating that its name is Grand Replacement, and "conspiracy theory" is a qualifier or, if you like, disambiguator. And per WP:PRECISE we do not explain or disambiguate when there's nothing to disambiguate. No such user (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    Those that refer to it as the Grand Remplacement (or, as you say, Grand Replacement) are doing so in reference to how it is known in French since the book from which we get the name is titled Le Grand Remplacement; this is most evident on the French article, which is indeed titled Grand remplacement. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 14:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. The original book and the more recently popularized conspiracy theory are separate (but related) things. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - As many others have already said, this term is not used by reliable sources for a real phenomenon, instead, it is used to describe a conspiracy theory. POV is best preserved by including this context. Also, as mentioned by LuckyLouie and others above, this change is similar to White genocide conspiracy theory which very closely overlaps this article. Sources treat these two similarly, as a conspiracy theory, and so should Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Strong support for Pizzagate conspiracy theory ➡️ Pizzagate, White genocide conspiracy theory ➡️ White genocide, and of course who could forget Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory ➡️ Cultural Marxism 👍  Tewdar  08:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Tewdar, I unbolded your !vote to avoid confusion as this RfC isn't about those topics. Otherwise, your suggestion is a point violation. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and it's a really bad one, as your suggestion makes the titles less informative, does not describe the full contents of the articles, and makes the titles suggest these conspiracy theories are maybe true. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
First of all, it was 'No such user' who initially WP:POINTed out that certain titles should be aligned with the rest of the field, not me, so if you think the suggestion was a bad one, why not direct your ire at whoever raised the topic too? I'd really like to know why. Don't you like me? ☹️ Secondly, it is the addition, not the removal, of the words "conspiracy theory" which suggest these conspiracy theories are maybe true when applied to something that does not exist. Thirdly, articles do not need to, and should not, have "descriptive" titles when they already have a proper name, which is true in the case of the 'Great replacement" conspiracy theory. Finally, I'm pretty sure that "confusion" is not listed in the exceptions at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, so please don't edit my comments again, ever, unless the reason is specifically listed here. Thanks.  Tewdar  16:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
And for gawds sake stop pinging me. It doesn't put me in a very good mood getting those horrible red circles!  Tewdar  16:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
"White genocide conspiracy theory" is indeed a wrong title, because the 'conspiracy' part is based on interpretations of (many) sources, not on the 'White genocide theory' itself. The interpretations are points of view and thus should not be part of the title. --Wickey (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Wickey, it is actually the right title as it describes the full content of the article. This article is not only about the conspiracy theory but also the reception described by RS, and that makes the inclusion of "conspiracy theory" in the title essential. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The article should speak for itself, put the conspiracy theory stuff in the lede. AtFirstLight (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Concise and consistent with the article and its lead. I also often see "Great Replacement theory" but that lacks clarity unless used in prose with more context, making conspiracy theory implicit only. —PaleoNeonate – 16:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support The title should be changed to accurately describe the article, that the "Great Replacement" is a conspiracy theory, and not a real event that is occurring. Similarly, White genocide conspiracy theory is not titled "White genocide" because that article is not about a genocide. 1857a (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per buidhe, Tewdar, Animalparty!. The numbers illustrated by buidhe are persuasive. buidhe has produced the closest thing to a denominator here and it's very helpful. Descriptors should be avoided to prevent POV issues, unless their usage is unanimous(which here it is not). SmolBrane (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
    "closest thing to a denominator here" Huh?? You lost me. NightHeron (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
    Common denominator, probably. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the link. But what are the 2 or more fractions for which Buidhe found the common denominator? And what's the relevance? NightHeron (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    In the more general sense, a common denominator is something everybody in a group of people can agree on. SmolBrane thinks that what buidhe said is close to a consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    I was referring to the fact that buidhe has posted the closest thing to statistics to help us assess what the common name actually is here. 1300/1600 results on google scholar use "great replacement" as the common name. Many editors here are commenting on what they think, or what a selection of sources say, rather than what the aggregate of sources demonstrate. SmolBrane (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Sure, but scholarly sources and academic papers are one thing, while more recent reliable media sources reporting on current events are another. Also, do the 1,300 hits on Google Scholar for "Great Replacement" refer to the book title? Or the conspiracy theory being pushed by right-wing pundits? We just don't know, and can't know, from such vague statistics.
Please take a look at my original post above. Many reliable, mainstream media sources include "conspiracy theory" in the title, or use it as a descriptor in the article lede, in order to avoid any confusion on the topic. My brief list posted above was accomplished with a quick rudimentary news feed search. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Case in point, just did another query for recent news:
'Replacement' conspiracies driving gunmen creep into mainstream politics CNN - May 16, 2022
Reality Check: The growing body count behind 'Great Replacement' conspiracy theory CNN - May 16, 2022
What is the “Great Replacement” right-wing conspiracy theory? The Economist - May 17, 2022
Republican Senate candidates promote ‘replacement’ theory PBS - May 17, 2022
→"Several mainstream Republican Senate candidates are drawing on the 'great replacement' conspiracy theory once confined to the far-right fringes of U.S. politics to court voters this campaign season ..."
The Racist 'Great Replacement' Conspiracy Theory Explained SPLC - May 17, 2022
Great Replacement: The conspiracy theory stoking racist violence Al Jazeera - May 18, 2022
What Is the ‘Great Replacement’ Conspiracy Theory That Inspired the Buffalo Shooter? The Wall Street Journal - May 19, 2022
Hate Groups Expert: White Supremacist ‘Great Replacement' Conspiracy is On the Rise NBC 5 Chicago - May 19, 2022
Racist conspiracy theory unified white supremacists long before Buffalo, N.Y., shooting CBC - May 20, 2022
‘Replacement theory’ still Republican orthodoxy despite Buffalo shooting The Guardian - May 22, 2022
→"GOP leaders seem unlikely to abandon nods to the conspiracy theory even though it was cited by the alleged perpetrator of a racist mass murder."
Yes, American voter demographics are changing. No, that’s not what Replacement Theory is USA Today - May 22, 2022
→"Last week's mass shooting in Buffalo has drawn renewed attention to a racist conspiracy theory known as 'replacement theory.'"
And again, these are cursory results, not the outcome of an exhaustive search. Lots of credible, reliable media sources are referring to this as the "great replacement" conspiracy theory, or some similar variation on that theme. We should be doing the same. Thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
This is why I mentioned a denominator. A selection of sources appears persuasive but the stats yielded at google scholar demonstrates that the conspiracy theory descriptor is still marginally used. "Great replacement" when searched in google news yields 1.5 million results, "great replacement conspiracy theory" only 69 thousand. SmolBrane (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it is correct that many credible and reliable sources refer to this as a conspiracy theory. Why should that alone not be persuasive? 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@SmolBrane: Since you like buidhe's Google numbers, which show about 22 times as many Google search results for "Great replacement" as for "Great replacement conspiracy theory", you should also look at the similar comparisons for White genocide conspiracy theory and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (see Tow's comment a few lines below). There are 25 times as many Google search results for "White genocide" as for "White genocide conspiracy theory" and 11 times as many Google search results for "Cultural Marxism" as for "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". In fact, shorter search strings normally lead to more results than longer ones. No surprise there. Such numbers are irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes. NightHeron (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree, I think the reason "great replacement" yields more results is because it is the common name. I cannot select text in google news results unfortunately, but the majority of sources I see in my results (al Jazeera, USA Today, WaPo, PBS etc) are all using "great replacement" or "great replacement theory". I think "great replacement theory" would also work here but for simplicity in the rfc I am opposing. Given that "great replacement conspiracy theory" is not unanimously used, it is better to defer to the common name without the descriptor since the value of doing so is limited, and the risk of doing so is a bad POV issue, as animalparty described--'redundant or pedantic at the very least, and agenda driven at the worst.' SmolBrane (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
In doing a Google search of this type, it's best to put the search terms in quotation marks, as in "Great Replacement". That way, one does not get results for sites that have great and replacement appearing in different places or in lower case. But here's the problem with arguing that it is a more common name based on the number of hits found that way: A search for "Great Replacement" will return all pages calling it "Great Rreplacement", "Great Replacement theory", "Great Replacement conspiracy theory", and on and on. That's because such a search does not exclude results with more than just the two search words. A search for "Great Replacement conspiracy theory" will return only those pages that use the four words together, but every one of those hits will have also counted towards the two-word search. (There are ways to have the search also exclude specific words.) It's built into the search process that shorter search terms will produce more results than longer, and thus more specific, search terms will. (Doing a basic Google search for bush gives 1,260,000,000 hits; bush plants gives 644,000,000; and George W. Bush gives 257,000,000.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@SmolBrane: How exactly is this "bad POV" or "agenda driven"? Are you disputing that the "great replacement" is in fact *not* a conspiracy theory? Where is the evidence that "global and liberal elites" are engineering population movements and migration in order to lessen the political power of white people? (Hint: there isn't any!)
Ahem. This *is* very clearly a conspiracy theory. It would be disingenuous to call it otherwise. How is that a POV? There is no information to backup this fake "theory" and it seems rather the opposite, that by mislabeling a conspiracy theory, and referring to it as simply a "theory" is perhaps agenda driven. This "theory" has no credibility, and is a complete fiction & racist cultural narrative. Is that "POV"? No, of course not. This is a fact, based on reliable sources. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I think the reason "great replacement" yields more results is because it is the common name. This is clearly wrong because it is mathematically impossible for a string of words to yield more hits than a shorter string of words contained in it. Every hit for GRCT is also a hit for GR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but since GR has more than 10x as many hits as GRCT, it indicates the latter is not the common name even after subtracting GRCT results from the former. (t · c) buidhe 17:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
That still doesn't get you there. It's not enough just to subtract GRCT results; one also has to subtract GRT results, GR-various-other-things results, and results that include GR but also call it by one of the longer names somewhere else in the source, as well as hits that are mirrors of other sources that just say GR (including this WP page under its present title!) or are quoting such sources. Simply having the name that generates the most hits doesn't mean the name is the most encyclopedic one. Just look at all the caveats WP has about this at WP:GHITS. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Expanding further on that, one would also need to subtract hits from conspiracy websites that promote the conspiracy theory, since they will not label it as such but are not reliable sources for our purposes. And there are surely a lot of those. (I do realize that Google Scholar will return fewer of those than Google web will, although some scholarly works focused on how conspiracy theorists think about it might choose to call it GR to reflect what their research subjects call it.) It's worth reading Wikipedia:Search engine test, and especially Wikipedia:Search engine test#What a search test can do, and what it can't. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
The bottom line is--we can either defer to a marginal selection of sources(like the dozen or so listed by IP editor here) with a high risk of sampling error(n=12), or we can defer to an aggregate count that may lack specificity(n=1600). I favor the latter since it has far greater total numbers, and it wasn't sampled by an individual(who can be subject to bias). SmolBrane (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
As I see it, the bottom line is really that we should name pages with clarity and not in misleading ways, rather than conjure up numerical rationales that are not based on policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
So I take this comment to mean that you have assessed all 1600 mentions in google scholar that use the term? Because otherwise we are essentially guessing based on a marginal selection of sources. I don't like marginal selections of sources, so I defer to the other option. The common name has to be common, and that requires a numerical rationale. SmolBrane (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to "guess" that neither one of us has read 1600 mentions. But one of us has taken into consideration what is, or is not, the most encyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
That's your [SmolBrane's] opinion, but it's not Wikipedia policy. See WP:CRITERIA, which lists 5 criteria for deciding on an article title, none of which is numerical. NightHeron (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Good luck with this approach. Needless to say, I find it unpersuasive. SmolBrane (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
You do not need to find it persuasive. It is enough that the admin who decides this recognizes that it is an actual policy-based reason and that I find it unpersuasive is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Please note the locations of the single hooks in the sources listed above. Only one says 'racist conspiracy theory' and only two call it a 'replacement theory'. The vast majority isolate "great replacement" from the following descriptions(or they include 'theory' and mention 'conspiracy' later). SmolBrane (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
For the second time you've used the argument that "great replacement conspiracy theory" is not unanimously used. That is not the standard in WP:COMMONNAME. Rather, when there are two or more common names that are used, as in this case, the selection should be whichever one is more precise and unambiguous. The current title is misleading because it suggests that the article is about something real or at least about a theory for which there is evidence, and neither is true. NightHeron (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
It's not ambiguous, and there is no implication that the theory is true if we do not characterize it in the title. As per Tewdar, we do not have articles entitled Donald Trump the terrible president, Phrenology the pseudoscience, Adolf Hitler the bad guy etc. I had hoped that citing other editors' prior objections would make my position here clear but evidently I had to repeat what those other editors have already said. SmolBrane (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Donald Trump is really Donald Trump. Phrenology is really phrenology. Adolf Hitler was really Adolf Hitler. There's nothing misleading about naming those pages accordingly. The Great Replacement is not, however, a Great Replacement. (Note, in fact, that Pizzagate was really Pizzagate, whereas "children kept captive in a pizza parlor" was not really children kept captive in a pizza parlor.) There's a difference between editorializing in a page name, and clarifying something that, in isolation, is misleading. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Is phrenology really phrenology though? The suffix -ology suggests a scientific or academic field. Your argument would suggest that this is misleading? SmolBrane (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
The suffix -ology suggests a scientific or academic field. Is astrology a scientitic or academic field? NightHeron (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Whoa. There are no POV issues here. Only primitive racist loons and their gullible followers believe that the Great Replacement conspiracy is a real thing, and we don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. I agree with arguments stated above. DerTag14 (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Striking confirmed sockpuppet !vote. Generalrelative (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong support: as per arguments above, the article is about the conspiracy theory itself, like Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, and White genocide conspiracy theory. -Tow (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per evidence supplied by Buidhe. The phrase "conspiracy theory" is not routinely included in the title of this concept in reliable sources, therefore WP:COMMONNAME tells us that we shouldn't do that either. The proposed title is basically editorializing based on the notion that many editors don't like the Great Replacement theory. Neither do I, but that doesn't mean there's any reason to add extra words to the title.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    Once again, that is not what WP:COMMONNAME tells us. It tells us to choose a title that is commonly recognizable, and that a less frequently used name may be the appropriate choice if the more frequently used name is ambiguous or inaccurate, as is clearly the case here. I'm not sure what sense of "routine" you're intending, but the numerous references cited above show that the proposed title is indeed fairly common, which is the standard called for by the policy. Generalrelative (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    The proposed name change is *not* because "editors don't like the Great Replacement theory" it's because the title is misleading, as this isn't a theory based on anything factual whatsoever. It's not even pseudo-science. It's a completely false narrative, and this is according to reliable sources:
    Poll: 61% of Trump voters agree with idea behind 'great replacement' conspiracy theory MSN - May 25, 2022
    "A new Yahoo News/YouGov poll shows that more than 6 in 10 Donald Trump voters (61%) agree that 'a group of people in this country are trying to replace native-born Americans with immigrants and people of color who share their political views' — a core tenet of the false conspiracy theory known as the 'great replacement.'
    "Less than a quarter of Trump voters (22%) disagree with that statement.
    "So-called replacement theory has been covered extensively in the days following the May 14 murder spree carried out by a white supremacist at a Buffalo, N.Y., grocery store. The suspect, an adherent of the conspiracy theory, shot and killed 10 Black shoppers in the attack."
    The article continues:
    "This [the poll] represents a striking degree of mainstream GOP consensus around a falsehood that’s a cornerstone of white-supremacist rhetoric. White nationalist proponents of the conspiracy theory have carried out several recent mass shootings, from Buffalo to Pittsburgh to El Paso to Christchurch, New Zealand.
    "The theory itself has no basis in reality. Demographic change is one thing. A secret, elite plot to create a more pliable electorate is something else entirely."
    Reliable sources agree that this "theory" is pure fiction. The title should reflect this fact.
    And as an aside, it is wild that some editors here believe the proposed name change to be "editorializing" or "agenda driven" and I don't quite understand where this accusation is coming from, or what it's based on? It is purely projection and speculation. Maybe better that we stick to Wikipedia policy about naming conventions and avoid playing a blame game? Thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
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.

Replacement theory

Latest comment: 1 year ago23 comments6 people in discussion

I'm probably just being a glutton for punishment, but now that the requested move has ended in "no consensus", I'm going to float an alternative possibility. I'm not formally proposing it, just testing the waters to see whether or not there would be sufficient interest and insufficient opposition to the idea.

Instead of Great Replacement conspiracy theory, it would be Replacement theory. This avoids the concern about possible editorializing in the pagename. (On the other hand, it may not satisfy editors who feel strongly that it needs to be identified as a conspiracy theory, even though that did not get consensus.) It also addresses one area of consensus found in the RM discussion: that this page is about the (conspiracy) theory, rather than about the demographic shifts. In that regard, it makes the pagename about the theory, rather than about what the theory asserts falsely to be happening.

I did the following searches on Google News:

  • "Replacement theory": [22], 188,000 hits.
  • "Great Replacement": [23], 149,000 hits.
  • "Great Replacement theory": [24], 72,500 hits, for sources that use the words together, and would be a subset of both of the other search results.

By this measure, it actually is the WP:COMMONNAME. (I had noticed that this name was appearing in news accounts that I've encountered recently.) I think that a news search is better than a basic web search, in that it focuses on terminology used (especially used recently) by sources who are often independent of the proponents of the conspiracy theory. But I also want to disclose that this pattern does not hold up with other categories of Google searches. Also, in Google Scholar, replacement theory gives results for a variety of other kinds of theories unrelated to this one. That might, perhaps, be addressed with a hatnote, but I also recognize that this would be a potential argument against the precision of the proposed pagename. (Right now, it's a DAB page, but the only other listing on the DAB is a page which has a completely different pagename, and only refers to "replacement hypothesis" in the lead, so it's not like there is really any other primary topic here.)

Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a note for now: I've asked Red Slash to withdrawn their close over on their talk page. If they're unwilling I may request a review. That's in no way meant to call into question Red Slash's good faith or effort, just to say that I don't think an adequate rationale was given for closing against a clear majority of 25–16 !voters. Suggesting that we table any discussion of other possible article titles until this is settled. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Waiting for now is fine with me. (Just fyi, I'd have a hard time finding anything other than no consensus, although I have issues with the reasoning, but that's just my opinion.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
In any case, Red Slash has (very politely) declined to withdraw. After looking over the move review instructions, it seems my appeal wouldn't be likely to succeed, so I'll drop the stick. Please proceed, and don't mind me! Generalrelative (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Interesting! I thought it was always the admins who were tasked with closing and deciding upon such things! Learning something new here almost every single day about Wikipedian culture haha.  : )   Cheers!   98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
In any case, I'm inviting anybody to say anything they want about this idea. Just brainstorming, no formal proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Looks like an attempt to do an end run (whatever that is!) around the (extremely) recent move request result (which ended in failure)...  Tewdar  23:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
A more charitable perspective might be that the idea is an effort to find a middle ground where consensus could possibly be reached by more folks. I think the question being asked is if simply leaving off "conspiracy" from the name is somehow less offensive (more agreeable) to those who opposed the previous move request? Would including only "theory" as a descriptor be somehow "more okay" to more folks? 98.155.8.5 (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The word "theory" dignifies it, as if there's some evidence that supports it. We wouldn't title an article "Stolen Biden election theory" or "Democrats' child sex-trafficking theory". NightHeron (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Agree that "theory" alone may misrepresent the idea as somehow scientific. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it is not a middle ground because adding "conspiracy theory" takes respectability away while adding "theory" adds respectability. Knowing Tryptofish, this undesirable effect is clearly not the motivation.
There is another problem with "Replacement theory": it originally denotes other things. See [25] and [26], which I found by searching for "Replacement theory" -great and looking at hits from 2010 or older. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Right, the disambiguation page for Replacement theory links to Recent African origin of modern humans (aka replacement hypothesis, among many other names) and our problematic conspiracy theory Great Replacement. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Although 'Replacement theory' is commonly used, I don't think this would be an improvement. I don't think many of the people who opposed the previous move request were "offended" by the word 'conspiracy', because almost everyone except sockpuppet accounts agreed that it is certainly a conspiracy theory. If that is really the motivation behind leaving out the word 'conspiracy', perhaps the proposer needs to go back and take a look at the discussion again.  Tewdar  08:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps Tewdar needs to be reminded that this page is subject to discretionary sanctions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps Tryptofish could explain to me why they think that is relevant. I doubt that removing the word "conspiracy" from the proposed title would appeal to anybody, and anyone that does think that would probably benefit from re-reading the entire requested move discussion. If you find that stating this requires some sort of admin enforcement on the basis of discretionary sanctions, feel free to report this vile slander to the relevant dramaboard.  Tewdar  13:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
It is relevant because it means that your insinuations about the motivations of other contributors are more dangerous to you here than at other places. Just stop playing the man and return to playing the ball, and everything is well. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
It isn't, because (i) I didn't say anything wrong, as far as I can tell, and (ii) discretionary sanctions do not appear to be operative on this article.  Tewdar  15:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Even if there were no sanctions, playing the ball would be better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Look, IP 98.155.8.5 suggested that Trypto's idea may have been to find a middle ground where consensus could possibly be reached by more folks. I think the question being asked is if simply leaving off "conspiracy" from the name is somehow less offensive (more agreeable) to those who opposed the previous move request, and I responded that, if that was the idea, then it doesn't seem to have taken much notice of the oppose votes at the discussion. If that was the problem with what I said. I'm not really sure, because nobody will tell me, just veiled threats about discretionary sanctions and talk about men and balls...  Tewdar  16:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
You know what, I'm sorry. Whatever it was that made people think of discretionary sanctions, I apologise for whatever it was I did. Sorry to Tryptofish, Hob, and anyone else. Have a good afternoon or whatever it is where you are.  Tewdar  17:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
And anyhow, you sure about that? There's no edit notice unless I've missed it, and it's not listed here, at least as far as I can see? 🤔  Tewdar  14:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Tewdar, no problem. I appreciate that, and am happy to move on. As for my motivations, they are what I said they are, higher up in this thread, and not so much what any other editor might have (entirely in good faith) characterized them as. As for DS, since this page is very much about a controversy that directly involves the Republican party in the US, American Politics 2 is the applicable topic area. And as for the idea that I raised at the top of this talk section, it looks to me like there are enough objections to it that I don't see any point in making a formal proposal about it, although editors can certainly feel free to continue discussing it if they want to. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Cool. I will try and moderate my comportement a little more (I'm much better than I was, I think - Newimpartial even gave me a quasi-compliment about it the other day... at least, I think it was a quasi-compliment!)  Tewdar  18:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Refutation

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

That's quite a long article about a conspiracy theory, but its refutation is covered in only a few sentences (and with some dubious arguments). Would anyone care to expand those? Athenianepirote (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

To pick on a recent addition, 1/3 Americans believe that they are being 'replaced' with immigrants for the sake of elections. While immigrants are moving into the United States, there is zero reason to suspect that such a theory is true; to refute that a societal elite is moving immigrants for such a purpose, we would have to show that they either could not do such a thing or, simply, they are not; in any such case it should be in the hands of the claimant to illustrate even as much as a hint that such machinations are in motion by a cabal before anyone could consider it little more than a delusional war cry that seeks to achieve the same goals they accuse the villains of having schemed to procure. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Several articles about other conspiracy theories take the time to explain why they're wrong. I can't see why we can't do the same for this one. Athenianepirote (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
On the off chance that anyone here actually needs this explained to them in good faith, here is a recent article published by FiveThirtyEight (in my view one of the most objective sources on US politics): [27]. Generalrelative (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced POV

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion

"...and as a way of signalling their loyalty to Donald Trump". The last part is not in the cited source and of course highly biased. Please cite a reliable and neutral source for this extreme point of view. If one can not be found then this point of view should be removed. 2A02:A420:45:2D66:A802:2A15:6E4D:BA4D (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The source (Britannica) says, verbatim: Some Republican politicians endorsed the theory as a way of appealing to far-right members of their party and of demonstrating, to some degree, their continued loyalty to Trump. No doubt you will be back soon to admit you got it wrong...  Tewdar  09:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
When did "demonstrating to some degree" become the same thing as virtue signalling? 2A02:A420:45:2D66:A802:2A15:6E4D:BA4D (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
You see, there's this thing called paraphrasing, and the words "signaling" and "demonstrating" mean effectively the same thing, so we do that. Your attempt to microscopically nitpick this standard feature of encyclopedia writing suggests an overdose of copium that you do not understand how to write and edit an encyclopedia. I suggest that you focus your efforts on learning how Wikipedia is written before making unwarranted criticisms which only serve to demonstrate your lack of knowledge. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
And inexplicably inserting the word "virtue" before "signalling" is a tacit admission that the criticism of the wording was without merit. Virtue signalling has nothing to do with what's in the text. NightHeron (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@NightHeron: Thanks for sharing your opinion. @NorthBySouthBaranof: Your unprovoked personal attack will be reported. 2A02:A420:45:2D66:A802:2A15:6E4D:BA4D (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Morality of replacism

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could it be argued that in the case Camus is indeed true and the consequences of "replacement" that he mentions are indeed happening, then being replaced is justified because it is the result of meekness and inability to defend your native identity and are thus undeserving of one? 176.92.100.9 (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources?? See WP:NOTFORUM. NightHeron (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


Camus did not invent anything new, these theories were born in the 19th century

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/05/17/racist-great-replacement-conspiracy-theory-explained

"Grant’s own scientific-racist 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race, warned of the decline and extinction of America’s “Nordic” racial stock. (Scientific racism is the discredited, pseudoscientific belief that scientific evidence exists to support racism and racially biased state policy.) Grant did not write from the fringes: His book influenced the widespread adoption of eugenic policies, restrictions on non-white immigration and anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S. in the interwar period. (Eugenics is a debunked pseudoscience whose believers are obsessed with controlling heredity through hateful notions like “racial hygiene” to preserve supposedly superior races and ethnicities.)

Grant’s book had an influence far beyond North America. In devising their own racist political order, Germany’s Nazi regime and Hitler himself drew on narratives of white extinction and on American policies influenced by Grant and like-minded authors. The Nazis falsely attributed the declining “racial hygiene” of white races, and the advance of “Bolshevism” in Europe, to Jewish plots.

In many majority-white countries in the early 20th century, ideas of white extinction were recited in the halls of power and fed into policies of racial exclusion, segregation and genocide.

Figureheads of the U.S.-based eugenics movement – such as Harry Laughlin of the Eugenics Record Office and Wickliffe Draper, who provided the first endowment for the eugenicist Pioneer Fund – collaborated with lawmakers, researchers and political groups to sustain the eugenic policies, ensure a white-Christian majority and quash efforts to achieve racial equality.

Laughlin, for example, helped structure the racist quota system used in American immigration policy that President Calvin Coolidge signed into law in 1924. (The 1924 Immigration Act’s provisions were overturned in the 1960s.) Draper’s Pioneer Fund and Laughlin, who was also its first president, communicated with Nazi scientists who established the conceptual framework for Hitler’s own aspirations for “racial hygiene” in Germany." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longsars (talk • contribs) 08:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I think Camus received undeserved attention in this article, despite he was just one person in a very long story.--Longsars (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Experimental research shows it leads to violence

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think at the end of the intro, we should add that "Psychological experiments show that beliefs in the Great Replacement Theories motivate extremist violent tendencies."

Source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13684302211028293 Safa33331 (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the United States

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just noticed this article was split off in June 2022, a week after the close of the Great Great Replacement requested move discussion. Both articles seemed have cooled down considerably since the summer, but people interested in this article might wish to keep an eye on the spin-off, especially since much of the contemporary coverage regards US matters. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Great Replacement

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Great Replacement's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "rhetoric":

  • From Tucker Carlson: Bump, Philip (September 23, 2021). "Don't ignore the normalization of Tucker Carlson's poisonous rhetoric on race". The Washington Post.
  • From Owen Benjamin: Holt, Jared (March 18, 2019). "Owen Benjamin's Rhetoric is Growing More Extreme". Right Wing Watch. People for the American Way. Archived from the original on July 17, 2019. Retrieved July 11, 2019.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Nebraska Republican Says Six-Week Abortion Ban Is Necessary Because White People Are Being Replaced

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[28] Doug Weller talk 14:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

" is a white nationalist theory"

Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I know that this article is subject to the censorship of the leftist and their anti white racist agenda and that you try to push your ideology by quoting other leftist quotes that confirm the ideology you try to push. But things has to be very clear, "great replacement" as defined by the inventor of this term: Renaud Camus (who is a member of the LGBT community by the way) is not at all especially link to White nationalist. This is simply a pure lie. And Renaud Camus said it multiple time in his interviews.

To this fact it must be added that great replacement and re migration are not ideas that are defended and endorsed only by White on a political level. Indeed during the last election in France the candidate Eric Zemmour (which is a sefaradic Jews) totally defend this opinion.

Furthermore the great replacement is a statistical fact in a lot of area in Europe for exemple in London where the majority of the population is not from European origin.

It is a TRUE SHAME that the wikipedia article has been blocked for editing by the leftist. And don't go with the argument that this article has not a leftist bias because there are even more extreme leftist bigot (or less subtil from some of you?) that find that your article doesn't convince enough of the reader that read it that a White genocide is not occurring actually in a lot of countries in Western Europe. 2A01:CB04:6D8:1100:5DB4:D911:FDBC:67A4 (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I stopped reading at: I know that this article is subject to the censorship of the leftist and their anti white racist agenda. While we are certainly against white racists or any other kind, starting out with an absurd accusation makes it clear you are WP:NOTHERE and there is no point in reading further. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Repeat this, and I will report you for open and explicit racism. - 37.4.249.254 (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I have received your threat and will be moving to Tibet where you cannot harm me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Bad sentence

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion

quip from the satirical poem Die Lösung that the easiest thing to do for a government was to change the people had the people forfeited its confidence.

What the hell does the last line mean? It is grammatically incorrect and meaningless. Fix the line 2600:1003:B13B:3387:B4AC:E067:3CE6:1FAE (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

So, I think it made sense the former way, but it was very stilted and unidiomatic. I tried my own spin on it -- see if it passes your muster (and anyone should feel free to undo/edit as they see fit). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The source cited is in French, but the Google translation into English of the Brecht quotation (footnote [52] in the source) is "Wouldn't it be possible for a government to dissolve the people and elect another?" NightHeron (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I noticed this as well, and the connection to the name 'Grand Remplacement' remains unexplained. I also took a stab at this, which Dumuzid's version replaced. The current one is closer to what was originally added, but it would still benefit from more context in order to make sense. I don't like the current implication that Brecht would have endorsed Camus conspiracy theory. Camus is not qualified to interpret Brecht's intentions, nor would a satire about the East German uprising of 1953 be a valid basis for this claim if he were. ("Declared" also seems grandiose, per WP:SAID). Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I tried to make things a little more explicit; I could not find the "implementation" language anywhere, and I am not sure that the sentence is really needed, however I do kind of like it stylistically. Eager to hear what others' thoughts are. As ever, feel free to change or undo. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Grayfell that we don't want to falsely suggest that Brecht made that quip in a context that had any relation to what Camus is saying. Perhaps it would be best to remove the sentence. NightHeron (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
"Depose" would a better translation than "dissolve", since that is what you do with a government you do not want anymore. Dissolving is for parliaments.
Brecht switched the roles of government and people. "Depose the people and elect a new one". --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

List of proponents of replacement

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I added this list, it's pertinent:

"We Can Replace Them: …an embittered white conservative minority [is] terrified at being swamped by a new multiracial polyglot majority. … American voters can do to white nationalists what they fear most. Show them they’re being replaced." Oct. 29, 2018

"American Prosperity Depends on a Nonwhite Future", May 24, 2017

"EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief, 21 June 2012

tickle me 03:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This is all pure WP:SYNTH, and in fact it's nonsense. Those publications have not expressed support for the conspiracy theory that's the subject of this article. Obviously the first quote means that the white nationalists should be shown the door politically. It does not mean that white people should be "replaced". NightHeron (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
> Obviously the first quote means that the white nationalists should be shown the door politically.
That actually is pure WP:SYNTH, you're interpreting the meaning of the word "replaced" as used by the NYT. Proper procedure would be to let the reader decide.
> It does not mean that white people should be "replaced".
Same. When foreign voters are being imported for political reasons –non-whites, as specified per the author– that dilutes the franchise of all resident voters, whether they are white nationalists or white anti-nationalists. tickle me 04:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
This should be added as well – the last time a German politician would denigrate an ethnic group with social-Darwinist and biologistic terms like "degeneration" and "inbreeding" was 1933-45:

"The Federal Minister of Finance also clearly rejects the idea that Europe could seal itself off from immigration: 'Sealing ourselves off is what would destroy us, what would make us degenerate into inbreeding. ...'

Original German: "Auch der Idee, Europa könne sich gegenüber der Einwanderung abschotten, erteilt der Bundesfinanzminister eine klare Absage: "Die Abschottung ist doch das, was uns kaputt machen würde, was uns in Inzucht degenerieren ließe. ..." tickle me 04:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Of course, the pertinence of any such addition depends on the idea this is actually, a 'conspiracy theory.' Again, how about the reader decides?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Sontag#White_civilization_as_a_cancer
»The white race is the cancer of human history;« It »eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads« and upsets »the ecological balance of the planet«
– Susan Sontag, 1967, Partisan Review, p. 57, 58
verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/whiteness-is-a-pandemic-1846494770
»Whiteness is a public health crisis. It shortens life expectancies, it pollutes air, it constricts equilibrium, it devastates forests, it melts ice caps, it sparks (and funds) wars, it flattens dialects, it infests consciousnesses, and it kills people—white people and people who are not white …White supremacy is a virus that, like other viruses, will not die until there are no bodies left for it to infect. Which means the only way to stop it is to locate it, isolate it, extract it, and kill it.«
– Damon Young, 17/03/2021, contributing opinion writer for The New York Times
c-span.org/video/?c4926142/user-clip-joe-biden-unrelenting-stream-immigration
Joe Biden, February 17, 2015: »An unrelenting stream of immigration. Nonstop. Nonstop. Folks like me who were Caucasian of European descent for the first time in 2017 will be in an absolute minority in the United States of America, absolute minority. Fewer than 50 percent of the people in America from then and on will be White European stock. That’s not a bad thing. That’s a source of our strength.« tickle me 04:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment - the idea that these pull-quotes have anything to do with the topic of this article appears to he original research. Independent, reliable sourcing would he required to include material of this kind. Newimpartial (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  • This is cherry picking of the worst sort, and drawing a pattern from a few old, obscure quotes is the definition of original synthesis. Merely "adding a list" which is "pertinent" (in your opinion) doesn't seem to support this article and gives the appearance of misinterpreting the sources themselves. I'd be interested in seeing academic material about this subject. User:Tickle me: What assertion are you trying to put forward? BusterD (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
    > old, obscure quotes
    Quotes from:
    – New York Times, national and international "newspaper of record"
    – Bloomberg News, international news agency belonging to one of the most influential US billionaires, former presidential contender
    Peter Sutherland, UN Special Representative for International Migration , Attorney General of Ireland, European Commissioner, founding Director-General of the WTO, chairman of BP, ABB, Goldman Sachs, Ericsson, Bank of Scotland, and dozens of other global players, member of the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, WEF etc. pp.
    – Susan Sontag, one of the West's preeminent public intellectuals
    – Joe Biden, US president
    – Wolfgang Schäuble, German minister, for 16 years right hand man for Chancellor Merkel, earlier 16 years right hand man for her predecessor Helmut Kohl.
    ...and I can quote hundreds more of that caliber.
    > doesn't seem to support this article
    It sure doesn't.
    > and gives the appearance of misinterpreting the sources themselves.
    > I'd be interested in seeing academic material about this subject.
    Yes, when the most powerful voices of the West ask for Europeans to be "undermined," feel they're prone to "inbreeding" and "degeneration," that whites are a "cancer," a "virus," are to be "replaced" etc. pp then we sure need a study for that.
    > What assertion are you trying to put forward?
    That this article is as batshit crazy and corrupt as by now most of Western academe and media, including WP. As WP relies on said academe and media that can't be helped, sure. Yet, I feel we could and should do with a little less mental gymnastics, it's becoming ridiculous. tickle me 01:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ We Can Replace Them, Oct. 29, 2018, New York Times.
  2. ^ American Prosperity Depends on a Nonwhite Future, Bloomberg News, May 24, 2017
  3. ^ EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief, BBC, 21 June 2012
  4. ^ Wolfgang Schäuble: "Afrika wird unser Problem sein" (archive.is), Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 8 June 2016

Islamophobia

Latest comment: 10 months ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Isn't pinning this as being primarily about Islamophobia a bit of a failure to internationalize the issue? It seems a little more like, "Any brown person from wherever the brown people are coming from." ... "Oh yeah, also black people." ... "Oh yeah, and Jews sometimes." ... "Really just anyone who isn't light skinned...but also Jews." It seems like the Islamophobia sidebar is really underselling the boundless creativity of racists and conspiracy theorists. GMGtalk 10:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The sidebar does not say that this is "primarily about Islamophobia", but only that it's "part of a series" of articles that deal with Islamophobia. And certainly Islamophobia is a large part of the story. If you want, you could add other related issues in the sidebar under "issues". NightHeron (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
It...very strongly implies that this is primarily an issue of Islamophobia. And no, I don't want to add more sidebars, because sidebars tend to be disruptive to formatting. GMGtalk 12:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
In some countries it does seem to be primarily Islamophobia, and in other countries it's not. The former cases provide justification for the article being listed in a series of articles that deal with Islamophobia. NightHeron (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the single, coherent subject standard means "not a complex multifaceted subject." GMGtalk 13:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I read "All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject" to be saying in this case that all articles having the Islamophobia template must relate to the topic of Islamophobia, and that Islamophobia must be a single, coherent subject, which it is. I do not think it says that the Great Replacement topic can't have several other aspects in addition to Islamophobia. NightHeron (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I could also go with The placement of a sidebar in the lead is generally discouraged from WP:LEAD. GMGtalk 14:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
But that policy also says that this can be decided on a case by case basis. Where would you want to move the sidebar to? NightHeron (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
To an article that is primarily about Islamophobia? To...an article that doesn't include like...the president of Tunisia saying that his country was becoming too black? Kais Saied is a Muslim. Template:Discrimination sidebar...like...exists. GMGtalk 12:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Your previous comment said you didn't think the sidebar should go in the lead. So I was asking where in the article other than in the lead would you prefer. We were not talking about other articles where the sidebar should go, which wouldn't be an appropriate topic for this talk-page anyway. NightHeron (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
It was a rhetorical device. Like if...I dunno...some drunk frat kid leaves their car on your lawn, and says "Well where do you want me to put it?" And you reply "Some other lawn." GMGtalk 12:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I have boldly shifted it to Template:Discrimination sidebar -- because the bold word "Islamaphobia" does make an argument consistent with what GMG is highlighting, and we should be careful about how much we make implied arguments about a topic like this -- its a really vile theory already, we don't need to give it other attributes that are not universal to the theory, Sadads (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect source

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Some Republican politicians have endorsed the theory in order to appeal to far-right members of the Republican Party and as a way of signalling their loyalty to Donald Trump

The linked source says nothing in the subject and cannot be verified. Proposal to remove or add a source for such a charged political statement. 24.191.98.196 (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the entire source? It clearly makes that statement. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Replacement/Archive_3&oldid=1191947756"