Open main menu

Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory

Article bloated by Rockypedia sockEdit

Eurostatter (a sock of Rockypedia aka Ewen Douglas aka Perspex03 etc.) made 225 edits to this article between May and July, increasing article size from 100 kB to 150 kB. In part, the same content was also added to The Great Replacement and white nationalism. Should there be a blanket revert or are editors willing to scrutinize the additions? Atleast the content sourced to WP:PARTISAN sources like Right Wing Watch, Salon, ThinkProgress and AlterNet could be scrutinized whether the material is WP:DUE reported in weightier sources. I doubt the article needs to cover every single instance someone has referenced to the conspiracy theory. At 150 kB it's WP:TOOBIG. --Pudeo (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, there seem to be outright falsifications done by Eurostatter. The claim inserted by him, 1970s propaganda by Austrian neo-nazi Gerd Honsik, which distorted the writings of Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, fails verification because the source does not even mention Honsik. He has inserted the same claim to Kalergi plan article with another source that does not mention Honsik either. --Pudeo (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
It looks like there have seen a fair number of intervening edits on all these articles, so the choice is between reverting back to the version before Eurostatter started editing aand either losing the intervening edits or re-instating them by hand, or going through their contribs manually and editing them out. You pointed out one specific instance of bad information in their edits, are there others that you know of? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
One could also try taking them out by chubjks, and seeing if the intervening edits were applied to Eurostatter's material or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Not sure yet, atleast some of the content seems usable and properly cited. Extra eye balls could be useful. But for instance, citation [99] uses Breitbart as source despite the site being blocked in Wikipedia. --Pudeo (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, I've put pointers to this discussion on Talk:White nationalism and Talk:The Great Replacement so that this can be the centralized discussion for all three articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the problems with Honsik which I could find, with the help of Google Translate for the Italian source, and a few other issues. Most of the additions look okay but some were blatant fabrications (including dates off by ~40 years) so it's probably a good idea to carefully fact-check the rest. EllenCT (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:TOOBIGEdit

After adding all the mass murders since 1995 and some more photos, it's at 174 kB. The geographic "Advocacy and spread" section is 83 kB, so should it be lopped off into a WP:SUMMARY? I don't really think there is a compelling need because the "prose size" is only about 73 kB and WP:TOOBIG says 100 kB is the recommended upper limit for that. EllenCT (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Not always attributed to a Jewish plotEdit

I am returning this section from the archives to explain why I am making some changes to the initial sentence. EllenCT (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this edit by ZiplineWhy, which changed the opening paragraph from,

The white genocide conspiracy theory is generally associated with neo-Nazi, far-right, alt-right, identitarian and white nationalist, supremacist, and white separatist ideologies, which contends that mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates, abortion, governmental land-confiscation from whites, organised violence or eliminationism are being promoted in either predominantly white countries, or supposedly white-founded countries. The conspiracy theory contends these actions are to deliberately replace, remove, or liquidate white populations, dismantle white collective power, turn the countries minority-white, and hence cause white people to become extinct through forced assimilation or violent genocide. [reference numbers omitted]

to,

The white genocide conspiracy theory is a white supremacist belief that there is a deliberate Jewish plot to promote miscegenation, mass immigration, racial integration, low fertility rates, abortion, governmental land-confiscation from whites, organised violence and eliminationism in supposedly white-founded countries in order to cause the extinction of whites through forced assimilation and violent genocide.

While I think the new version is generally better, there are several examples in the article where the purported genocide is attributed to Muslims or nonwhite ethnicities instead of Jews. Also I don't think "forced assimilation and violent genocide" is a complete definition of the means, as there are plenty of examples of mere demographic "replacement" (as in e.g. The Great Replacement) which aren't covered. EllenCT (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I am removing mentions of Jews from the initial sentence, primarily because, for example, there are very few Jews in South Africa. EllenCT (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Please hold off on that. This theory is not fully based in reality, so the number of Jews in South Africa makes no difference. The theory is deeply anti-Semitic, and while it would be good to explain the ways it is Islamophobic, this doesn't negate this aspect. Grayfell (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
We shouldn't say it "is a white supremacist belief that there is a deliberate Jewish plot" when much if not most of the time there is no reference to Jews. EllenCT (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I changed it to:

The white genocide, white extinction, or white replacement conspiracy theory is a white supremacist, white nationalist, and white separatist belief that there is a deliberate plot to promote miscegenation, mass immigration, racial integration, low fertility rates, abortion, governmental land-confiscation from whites, organised violence, and eliminationism in supposedly white-founded countries to exterminate White people through forced assimilation and violent genocide, said to be led by Jews or other races.

The original early 1900s complaints about Jews were only regarding their immigration, and the multiple instances in Africa have no accusations of Jewish plots. EllenCT (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

BRD failEdit

@QuestFour: I object to this second reversion. Some of the sources blame Jews, some do not, and the article notes this discrepancy in multiple places. Are you claiming that there are any sources which say Jews are always blamed? EllenCT (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"BRD fail"? Not to put too fine a point on it, but you've already started a discussion and I already asked you not to make this edit. Another editor has reverted.
The first source says In similar fashion, the related concept of "White Genocide" is an allegation of a Jewish plot to "destroy" the European races. The mythology is that the Jews ― along with their lackeys, in the form of other non-whites and leftists ― are plotting...[1] This seems clear enough to me. I get that not all sources link this to anti-Semitism, but this is a defining trait according to many sources. Downplaying this aspect as just one of many doesn't seem appropriate based on sources I have seen. Grayfell (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect, I don't think you get that Africans are blamed solely in South Africa, where there are very few Jews, just as Africans were blamed solely in Rhodesia, and Muslims are blamed to the exclusion of Jews in parts of Europe. And Crusius's manifesto blames Hispanics alone, just as Tarrant's manifesto said nothing about Jews, just Muslims. Similar attributions are described throughout the article. Implying that the conspiracy is always blamed on Jews is factually incorrect and a disservice to the reader, especially in the initial paragraph which is all most people will see of the entire article. EllenCT (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
As I said, I get that not all sources link this to anti-Semitism, but this is a defining trait according to many sources. I also said that I would like the lede to more clearly explain the links to Islamophobia. Regardless, downplaying this specific, defining trait based on some examples isn't going to work. This isn't the place to discuss Antisemitism in South Africa, but even in places with many Jews, the theory is still statistically illiterate nonsense. There being "very few Jews" in some places doesn't necessarily matter, because the theory isn't grounded in reality, it's a fantasy based on blaming vilified outgroups for social status anxiety. The Jews are widely blamed in many places because they are constantly portrayed as remote and powerful in places where these theories spread. With that in mind, why would the actual quantity of Jewish people in the country matter?
These manifestos are not reliable, and not usable for anything, not even their own motives. We all agree on this point, right? Grayfell (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Grayfell: Which sources do you claim suggest that blaming the conspiracy on Jews alone is a "defining trait"? EllenCT (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll point to the one I just mentioned and quoted, which was already used as a source for this claim. I think you know how to use Google as well as I do, so before we both start dumping more refs into an already bloated article, let's discuss the issue.
Almost all conspiracy theories are loosely defined by design, so that they can be modified to accommodate conflicting facts which cannot be easily dismissed. With that caveat, most versions of this theory I have seen treat both whites and the non-white "replacers" as pawns of some nefarious global force which is intentionally pushing for white people to be eliminated by low birth rates and "interbreeding". Even when Muslims are blamed, which is often, Jews are frequently also blamed as the hidden force behind this push. Since this is all nonsense, it would be nice to say it doesn't matter, but clearly some people treat it deadly serious, and some of those people have specifically targeted Jewish communities. This is why I want to repeat that the number of Jews in South Africa doesn't matter unless reliable sources explain how it matters.
As a specific example, the South African far-right has fostered ties to the American alt-right, and the European "new-right", and when these visitors go back to their home countries, they absolutely do apply their own anti-Semitism to the South African version of this myth. South Africa's adherent may be an exception, but this would need to be properly contextualized as such, which would need a source directly and unambiguously about this issue. Grayfell (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
[2] is an opinion column, and as such is inappropriate support for an assertion of fact, let alone one directly contradicted by several sources cited throughout the body. And in any case, that source says,
the ... concept of "White Genocide" is an allegation of a Jewish plot to "destroy" the European races. The mythology is that the Jews ― along with their lackeys, in the form of other non-whites and leftists ― are plotting a form of racial dilution cum extinction....
That clearly states that "other non-whites" are behind the plot. Yes, I know how to use Google, and I can't find a single source which says that the idea Jews alone are responsible is a "defining trait" of the theory, or anything like it. You said there are "many" such sources, so let's have a look at them, please. EllenCT (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@QuestFour: what is your opinion of this source: Saletan, William (7 August 2019). "White Nationalists Are Debunking White Supremacy". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 15 August 2019. Crusius claimed to be fighting a 'Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me,' he wrote. 'I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.'? Do you still believe that only Jews are blamed? EllenCT (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

RFC on whether Jews are always blamedEdit

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Withdrawn to prevent further legobot RFC FRS summonings, as a suitable compromise was reached during discussion. EllenCT (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


Should the introductory paragraph state that the conspiracy theory blames the alleged plot on Jews alone (as in [3]), or should it describe Muslims and other races as also blamed (as per e.g. [4])? 09:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Multiple races as RFC proposer. This shouldn't be necessary since the article states in multiple locations and with eminently reliable sources that the conspiracy is often blamed on Muslims, Africans, and less often Hispanics as well as Jews, but due to [5], [6], and [7] some editors are implying that Jews are always blamed solely for the alleged conspiracy. EllenCT (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment this is difficult because this article is a collection of different things bordering on WP:SYNTH. At White genocide conspiracy theory#Eurabia, the Eurabia thing is connected to this. So is the Eurabia a "Jewish plot" as well - despite the fact that writers who coined the term (like Bat Ye'or) were either Jews or people who strongly support Israel and generally dislike just Muslims? Either don't call it a Jewish plot in the lede with a broad brush, or then trim the contents to avoid synthesis. --Pudeo (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe that subsection on Eurabia is SYNTH: perhaps the first 21st-century attempt to intellectualize the "white genocide" narrative is not supported by sources at all. Instead, the Eurabia nonsense should be mentioned as one of the secondary influences in The Great Replacement subsection.--Pharos (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Put origin in historical Neo-Nazi context I propose the following: "a belief originating in the American Nazi Party and developed as a conspiracy theory by Neo-Nazi David Lane that there is a deliberate Jewish plot to...". And perhaps a sentence afterward that subsequent conspiracy theorists have sometimes blamed other minority groups or the political left.--Pharos (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
As per #American Neo-Nazi origin below, there do not appear to be any sources supporting this proposal. EllenCT (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
"Tarrant does not subscribe to antisemitic conspiracy theories: Jews (“Semites”) should leave Europe but otherwise pose no threat to Europeans.... As with Anders Breivik, there is no adoration for Nazi Germany and Hitler whose excesses paved the way for the anti-nationalist reaction that they think paralyses Europe today. It is the demographic threat supposedly posed by Muslim and other Third World migrants that is the problem for them."
Similarly, this James Pogue piece in Harpers indicates that Blacks alone are blamed in South Africa. After weeks of asking, there are clearly no sources which claim that Jews are always blamed for the conspiracy, and several reliable counter-examples. EllenCT (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Neither (EDIT: And to clarify unambiguously, by neither I mean we can't say all versions are anti-Semitic, but strong oppose the "multiple races" version", or any version that lumps blaming Jews in with other races in the same sentence. No version where a single sentence lumps all these races together could ever be considered a reasonable summary, since it loses vital nuance about how the anti-Semitic version works.) Both options are unworkable and fail to accurately represent the article and the sources. It is certainly true that not all iterations of the conspiracy theory blame Jews, but the ones that do, do so in a distinctly different way that should be mentioned specifically in the lead rather than just turning it into a laundry-list of blame on different groups, as here does. That version misses important aspects of how the older versions of the conspiracy theory fit into broader anti-Semitic canards and this general concept of sinister Jewish intellectuals plotting to overthrow Western Civilization from within; the way in which antisemitism is referenced in the anti-Semitic versions of the conspiracy theory (and in the sources covering it) is not comparable to the way other races are mentioned in the other versions. It's important to understand that a lot of these racist conspiracy theories assume that blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims lack agency and are essentially being used as foot soldiers by the elites. As a result, the sources that "blame" other races generally don't give them the same type of conspiratorial focus or put them in the same role - basically there are anti-Semitic versions that say "the Jews are manipulating immigration to undermine the white race by bringing in these other races", and other versions, either from people who realize anti-Semitism is no longer selling or from countries without enough Jews to scapegoat, which downplay or omit that aspect, attributing the role of sinister conspiracy-master to less well-defined intellectuals or liberals instead. As one well-cited sentence in the article says, While individual iterations of the conspiracy theory vary on who is assigned blame, Jewish influence, people who hate whites, and liberal political forces are commonly cited by white supremacists as being the main factors leading to a white genocide. We should probably have something like that in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Is "...belief that there is a deliberate plot, often blamed on Jews, and sometimes blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims, to promote mass immigration...." a sufficient compromise? In any case, I believe we've reached some kind of an agreement that Antisemitic canard should be wikilinked from "blamed on Jews". (EllenCT (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
No, that's the specific language I feel is unacceptable. We cannot equate the way it is blamed on the Jews to the way it is blamed on the other races mentioned, because the way the conspiracy theory treats them is substantially different (and the coverage by sources, likewise, reflects this difference.) In anti-Semitic variations on the conspiracy theory, Jews are blamed as the sinister masterminds; in other versions they are replaced with generic intellectuals or liberals or the like. Blacks, Hispanic and Muslims are blamed as the the effects. That's part of what makes this a conspiracy theory. The sourcing used for Jews highlights the anti-Semitic nature of the conspiracy theory and the role that plays in it; the other versions merely mention the various races that have been considered "invaders" or "demographic threats" without describing them as conspiratorial masterminds in the same way. I want to be 100% clear (since I thought I was before and you seem to have severely misinterpreted me) - no "list of races"-style sentence, which seems to be your preference, would ever be acceptable to me under any circumstance. The current "sometimes blamed on the Jews" structure seems perfect, catching the essential anti-Semitic character of the original conspiracy theory without implying that it is universal. --Aquillion (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I agree that's probably a legitimate distinction (even though I have yet to see a source which discusses it) so I added a second sentence, "Less frequently, blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims are blamed, but merely as more fertile immigrants, invaders, or violent aggressors, rather than masterminds of a secret plot." EllenCT (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: EllenCT, you've been on the project long enough that you ought to know that when utilizing the RfC format, the issue is to be presented neutrally/in a fashion that does not look like it could bias the outcome. Ideally, each position should be presented in terms that the position's advocates would recognize as their own, but at a minimum the RfC should not be headed by you denouncing the opposition perspective, advancing your own as the clear "correct" solution and only then even allowing for the RfC template! The entirety of that portion of this content (the portion before the template, essentially a part of your !vote that you've leveraged into the head of the discussion) should be moved to just after "Multiple races as RFC proposer." As to the more substantive issues here, I'd like to dig in to the edit history, previous discussion, and sources before endorsing a position. Snow let's rap 12:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: I think there was some misunderstanding of the subtleties on both sides, and I realize my frustration was out of line. But we edited through the RFC and I think we're all okay with the current compromise wording now. EllenCT (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, you can do as you wish, but I'm warning you that you risk having any consensus you earn here overturned in a closure review at WP:AN if you don't move the elements that are clearly a part of your !vote down to where your !vote is lodged, rather than before rest of the further discussion. It might seem trivial to you, but a neutral framing of the issue is required under the WP:RfC guidelines, and here you launch into a very vehement renunciation of a position before you even allow for the RfC template, let alone a neutral, disinterested presentation of the competing views. That's just not how the process is supposed to be ordered. In this case, you have the benefit of the situation where simply moving that advocacy to your !vote section will remedy the situation in its entirety. It's your choice--it's the type of thing some editors might refactor for you themselves, but I am not prepared to do that in these circumstances. Therefor it's your prerogative. But again, I think you are shooting yourself in the foot if you choose not do so: you give your rhetorical opponents in this editorial disagreement a tool to invalidate any consensus you might earn here, so why risk complicating matters? Snow let's rap 05:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok to close as resolved? unless there are any further objections to the current wording I'd like to withdraw this to keep the RFCbot from wasting any further time on what I hope is a resolved issue. EllenCT (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued removal of additional sources showing non-Jews blamedEdit

I object to these multiple reverts of the initial paragraph without any discussion by QuestFour after pings and their own referral to the discussion here on Talk about whether Jews alone are universally blamed by the conspiracists, removing the following sources:

In both cases, the edit summary given in the rationale was a lack of consensus, but in fact there have been no sources presented in support of the Jews-only-blamed position, and a lack of consensus is no justification for removing sources opposed to your position in a content dispute, so I will be reverting to restore the removed material. EllenCT (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I also added Stern, Alexandra Minna (14 July 2019). "Alt-right women and the 'white baby challenge'". Salon. Retrieved 15 August 2019. EllenCT (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding these edits... This is really frustrating. Setting aside my opinions on the substance of these changes (which are mixed) the sources are not appropriate. This looks like an attempt to back-fill a common sense summary with after-the-fact sources.
For the Journal quote, Mass shooters are not reliable sources. Do I really need to explain why? Using this journal to explain their positions might work in some cases, in some contexts. We cannot, however, use the comments of mass shooters support a conclusion which is not directly made by a reliable source. I also dispute that this quote even supports the claim it is attached to. Saying that "Jews ('Semites') should leave Europe" pretty strongly implies that they are seen as a threat. Saying that Tarrant wants to drive the Jews out of Europe but isn't "otherwise" an anti-Semite is nonsensical. Interpreting this paraphrase of a quote to imply something about a conspiracy theory is WP:SYNTH.
With the Slate source there is the same issue, but also that source doesn't link Crusius to the white genocide conspiracy theory. We do not assume that every source for every racist mass shooter will contextualize every nuance of this complicated and inconsistent conspiracy theory. In other words, a lack of support from a source is not enough to say a source disputes another source.
The Salon article (like the Slate one) is an opinion, and should be avoided for factual claims. In this case, it's an excerpt from a longer book. From Google Books, the book does connect "white genocide" to Jewish conspiracy, on page 75.
I have not read the book, but it (and the excerpt) might be useful. I do not yet accept that it undermines the point that this is an anti-Semitic theory. There are two mentions of "genocide" in the excerpt. The first talks about how demographic projections are abused via pseudoscience to support the conspiracy. Nothing about this contradicts the many sources which describes Jews as architects of this replacement. The theory is that Jews will orchestrate the replacement of white people by non-white people for their own nefarious purposes. This doesn't necessarily mean that other vilified groups are not also involved. The second mention is a reference to Holocaust denier and friend to anti-Semites Lana Lokteff. I don't think this is useful either way. Grayfell (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • ...belief that there is a deliberate Jewish plot... to
  • ...belief that there is a deliberate plot, often blamed on Jews...
Having 'Jews' link to Antisemitic canard is an WP:EGG, but hopefully this is a minor problem. Making the link "often blamed on Jews" is one way to fix this. Grayfell (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
When the Journal of Genocide Research describes the motivation of a group of terrorists, it is the source, not the terrorists, and as such is secondary. Similarly for the Slate source, which you say, "doesn't link Crusius to the white genocide conspiracy theory," but quotes his stated motivation as, "fighting a 'Hispanic invasion of Texas.... defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion," (emphasis added.)
At least we agree on the "common sense" text of the initial paragraph, and I agree on the wider anchor for the Antisemitic canard wikilink. EllenCT (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell: you just reverted back from the wording and link anchor you said you supported. What specifically do you consider to be in dispute? EllenCT (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I have some issues with these sources being undue here, but in the interest of compromise I have tried to include them in a way which addresses my concerns.
If a source says that these other groups are often blamed for the conspiracy, that would simplify this. My reading is that these other groups are seen as the replacers/invaders/etc. but not as the conspirators. I think this distinction matters enough that it should not be glossed-over in the lede.
To put it another way, they are not blaming the Jews in the same way they are blaming other groups, so presenting them as one entry in a single list misrepresents the "conspiracy" part of conspiracy theory. Both Jews and the "invaders" in this conspiracy are being dehumanized, but in significantly different ways. You earlier mentioned a lack of Jews in South Africa, and this demonstrates the issue. As a percentage of the population, the number of Jews in Europe and the US has declined in the past few decades. As I've said, these conspiracy theorists are not grounded in reality, but they do (sometimes) seem to understand this detail, at least. Jews are not the ones doing the supposed "replacing" in this theory. Jews are not being "blamed" for the same thing as the other groups listed. This is why citing a couple of mass shooters as sources, even indirectly, doesn't support this point enough to place it in the lead as a simple comparison. Does this make sense?
"Common sense" was not intended to be an endorsement of this content. My point was that assuming something and then looking for sources afterward often misses other perspectives which might not be as obvious. Grayfell (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Is there any source which says Jews are being blamed for the migration of blacks? Don't all the sources describing blacks as being blamed say that they are accused of doing all the murdering and outbreeding themselves? I believe I said that there weren't very many Jews in South Africa. ("In 2018, the Jewish community was estimated at 69,300, 0.5% of the total population."[8] In contrast, the figure is 1.7% in the US, 1.1% in Canada... Jewish population by country#Table has a list.) But that's beside the point -- are there any sources saying that the purported white genocide in South Africa is due at all to Jews? I can't see any. Of course the Rhodesian propaganda from the 1960s had nothing to do with Jews, and at least a couple of our sources trace the South African conspiracy theory to the bush war there. The conspiracists simply aren't coherent enough, and the sort of racists who support the idea of white genocide often don't see Jews as nonwhite at all. I don't think it's reasonable to say that this is limited to "a couple of mass shooters" when we already have at least four (Crusius, Tarrant, Roof, and Breivik) described in secondary source -- the masses of people who don't believe it but haven't published a manifesto and then killed a bunch of people are a substantial group, and the sources say so. Yes, Jews are "often" blamed and Muslims, Hispanics, and blacks are "sometimes," so I hope saying it that way is a reasonable compromise. EllenCT (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell: - You object to the Journal quote because "mass shooters are not reliable sources." Of course they are not reliable sources when it comes to, say, the crime rate among Muslim immigrants. And an isolated statement by a mass shooter without any scrutiny is not a reliable source. But when it comes to their own mindset, prejudices, and beliefs (including those surrounding conspiracy theories) and that of the people they associate with, communicate with online, and who are members of the same organizations, they are our only sources and (with proper scrutiny, interpretation, etc) can be reliable sources. EllenCT's quote above is not Tarrant's direct words; it appears to be someone's analysis. Thus I don't understand your objection.Niccast (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said, the journal article may be useful, but all sources need to be judged in context. In it's full context, the quote from the Journal of Genocide Research is used to introduce and discuss the distinction between "emotional antisemitism" and "rational antisemitism". The article is lengthy, and the specific quote above cuts off the first part of the sentence ("Unlike this tradition, however, ...") which links the sentence to one of dozens of mentions of Tarrent's use of Nazi imagery. For example, the previous paragraph mentions that Tarrent's "heroes" include Oswald Mosley (who was overtly antisemitic). This quote is a partial sentence on these shooters' views. Extrapolating from that to make specific claims about their views on this specific perspective is WP:SYNTH. We cannot use our own interpretation of a source to jump from A to C. At the very least, we need a source to tie this all together for us. Note that the quote says that Tarrent and Breivik attribute Hitler with "excesses", but they do not view him as wrong. To me, that seems telling, but that's just my interpretation, and that's precisely the problem with this approach. If we're reading the same sources and coming to different conclusions, we need to step-back and reevaluate.
The rest of the journal article, from my shallow reading of it anyway, is cautious on making any conclusions about their motives. The purpose of the article is to comment on how journalists and academics have fed-into the conspiracy, and have in turn profited from the panic caused by these shootings. This is an interesting topic which could belong in this Wikipedia article, but it's not necessarily relevant to this specific point.
The source does, however, discuss the origins of the term in David Lane's writings, which precedes these shootings by decades. Lane believed that western nations were ruled by a "Zionist conspiracy", which is exactly relevant. Significantly, the source also directly links Lane's white genocide claims to South African farm attacks, with some sources. This is probably worth a closer look.
As for you comment about primary sources: Mass shooters are not reliable sources at all. No, not even for their own mindsets. For one thing, the only reason they are being discussed is due to their actions. They are inherently unreliable by their very nature. For another, reliable sources are not in agreement on why a person would do these things to other people, even when they purport to explain themselves. This is made worse by Tarrent's [intentionally trolling and facetious forum post. If reliable sources treat these motives skeptically (for obvious reasons), we cannot cite one of the sources which takes a specific position and ignore those sources which are opposed to this interpretation. Grayfell (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Bulleted sub-referencesEdit

Thirteen of the references are bulleted lists of three or more, sometimes many more, other references. This is contrary to the Manual of Style because it makes it difficult to verify sourced assertions and looks terrible. I'm inclined to move all of the bulleted references which do not obviously support the source where they are cited, or where at least one other source supports the same statement in a group of citations, and move them into a "Further reading" section. EllenCT (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

In a controversial article such as this, it's often good to have multiple sources supported any potentially disputable facts. I generally have no problem with just listing each source separately but some people find the multple raised footnot numbers to be intrusive, hence we got the "ganged" sources. I would not advise removing any source from the text and moving it into "Further Reading", which is only used for sources which were not used in the preparation of the article, so Think the only available options are multiple bulleted refs ganged together, or multiple separate refs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
(ec)::I have undone your move of footnotes to "Further Reading" which, as I said, is not intended for works which were used in the preparation of the article. There was some collateral ldamage when I reverted: because of overlaping edits I could not revert just the changes in which you moved material "further reading". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm trying to leave in those which actually support the statements where they occur, but most of them added by the Eurostatter/Rockypedia sock usually don't, and those that do are almost always very recent news sources which are not nearly as comprehensive as the peer-reviewed sources they are swamping. I can say with absolute certainty that almost none of them were used for preparation, including the few that I already moved before reading your reply, and the many which remain. EllenCT (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, how can you possibly have "absolute certainty" that they weren't used? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Because they were added at least several months after the original body text inclusions. EllenCT (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be an ass, here. If a reference was added after the fact, but it supports the statement made, then it is a good reference and should stay in the article. I'm sure it's been your experience, as it has been mine, that in articles such as this one, some people will use any excuse to niggle over any statement which is not supported by more than one source - they'll complain that it's only that person's POV, that it's not a consensus view. Multiple sources help to alleviate that problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not that big of a deal for me either. The first reference is now five very recent sources about "white extinction" which don't render in the pop-up without scrolling. I understand your concern, but I doubt anyone is going to challenge the "white extinction" synonym. EllenCT (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  Resolved: broke each reference out into its own ref EllenCT (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

American Neo-Nazi originEdit

Recent edits have obscured that this conspiracy theory has a plain origin in a specific place and time - American Neo-Nazis of the latter part of the 20th century. There are some generic precursors, and some inspirations and parallels since then, but this is the actual origin.--Pharos (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That was an unintentional mistake on my part. I was trying to replace work I did merging similar paragraphs before Beyond My Ken reverted it, but I picked the wrong revision and copied one of the two split paragraphs.
And in any case, the prevalence of the term generally fell from the time the American Nazi Party started using it to refer to birth control and abortion, until 1986, when the Foreign Broadcast Information Service started using the term to refer to the Armenian Genocide in Turkey. EllenCT (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pharos: do you have a source saying it started with American Neo-Nazis? This long form James Pogue piece doesn't even mention them, attributing it entirely to South Africa. EllenCT (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Please see all the sources after The conspiracy theory was developed by the neo-Nazi David Lane in his White Genocide Manifesto (c. 1995, origin of the later use of the term), in White genocide conspiracy theory#Neo-Nazis.--Pharos (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Pharos: none of those four say that the theory originated with Lane; the third doesn't even attribute it to him at all, and the fourth is quite explicit:
The phrase white genocide emerged in the decades following World War II. One early appearance is in a 1972 issue of White Power, the official newspaper of the National Socialist White People’s Party, in a piece proclaiming that the “Over-Population Myth Is Cover for White Genocide.” The article accuses “birth control campaigns” of focusing on white people while ignoring overpopulation in countries without white majorities, threatening a near future where “whites will be outnumbered four to one.”
Nearly two decades later, the term achieved prominence among white nationalists through the writing of David Lane....
Do you have any sources which explicitly say that that the term or idea originated with Lane or any of the other neo-nazis? EllenCT (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pharos: I owe you an apology. Lane clearly spurred the Aryan Nations' "Declaration of Independence" which is an obvious point of origin as the sources in the Neo-nazi section state plainly in their excerpts. EllenCT (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Jared TaylorEdit

Regarding these edits. I think this is WP:SYNTH, so let's quickly go through the sources:

  • Arnold, Kathleen (2011). Anti-Immigration in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia: A Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 508. ISBN 9780313375217. Unlike many other white supremacists, Taylor is not anti-Semitic, and in fact encourages Jews to join his fight ... however many within the white supremacist/anti-immigration movement disagree with Taylor, most notably David Duke, and he has been under tremendous pressure to break ties with the Jewish community. Taylor, at least for now, has refused to submit to this pressure and continues to work with Jews to further his platform.
  • This doesn't mention "white genocide" at all, and therefore doesn't mention Taylor's position on the concept. It should not be used here, as this is WP:SYNTH. This was previously the sole source, which I removed for this reason.
  • This barely mentions Taylor, grouping him together with Alex Jones, Henrik Palmgren, and Michael Hill (I assume this is Michael Hill (activist)). It doesn't mention Jews or anti-Semitism at all, and doesn't mention Taylor's views of Jews and white genocide. It therefor cannot be used for this content, but I will note in passing that Palmgren and Hill are both holocaust deniers.
  • Barely mentions Taylor. Also mentions that Palmgren is a holocaust denier, and doesn't otherwise mention anti-Semitism or Jews, unless I missed it.
  • American Renaissance is absolutely not a reliable source for any factual claims. Take it to WP:RSN if you disagree. The only mention of "genocide" in this article is a direct quote from The Camp of the Saints, and it doesn't mention Jews or anti-Semitism.

Absolutely none of these sources support the statement:

  • However, the view that Jews are responsible for a white genocide is contested by other white supremacist figures, such as Jared Taylor.

To be clear, I am not disputing that Taylor might have "disputed" this at some point, but sources completely fail to explain why this would belong in the article. Grayfell (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I have asked for other editors' opinions about this at WP:RSN#Is Jared Taylor a reliable source for his own advocacy of white genocide conspiracy theory? EllenCT (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Since there has been no further challenge to the issues with these sources, I have again removed this sentence. Again, none of these sources say that Taylor "contests" a Jewish role in the conspiracy.
While Jared Taylor is not as overtly anti-Semitic as other white supremacists, this specific issue is not relevant to this article unless a reliable source directly explains how it is relevant. These sources fail to connect A to B.
Taylor is also not a credible expert on anything at all, nor are his opinions consistent or entirely coherent, so there would have to be a well-sourced reason to present his opinions at all. These sources seem flimsy in this regard. Grayfell (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I have added [9] and [10] to the replaced deleted material, both of which go in to detail about Taylor's support of Jews such as Michael H. Hart, and opposition to Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis. EllenCT (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I am sincerely confused about these additions. Do you understand my problem with this content? These sources do not address my concerns at all. Neither of these sources says anything about Taylor's views on the role of Jews in "white genocide". Therefore, neither source can be used to indicate that Taylor is a notable example of this perspective. This would need to be supported directly by reliable sources. Otherwise, this is WP:SYNTH. I am at a loss for how else I could explain this problem, but here goes anyway:
I am asking for a reliable, independent source which directly state that Taylor disputes the widespread claims that white genocide is a Jewish plot. This source must also indicate that Taylor's position is significant enough to mention.
The more I think about it, the more problems I have with this sentence. One of those is that, as sourced, it presents Taylor's position as significant, which is setting the bar way, way too low. Reliable sources sometimes acknowledge that he's not as overtly anti-Semitic as those he helps promote, but that's not directly relevant. Sources do not give him 'credit' for diplomatically ignoring the anti-Semitic aspects of this incoherent conspiracy, and why would they? All of this would need a source, otherwise it's unduly promoting the opinion (which is fringe even within this movement) of a fringe person in an article on a fringe theory.
There is no bottom floor on this kind of thing. Conspiracy theories always include escape clauses like this, and they always prop-up superficially contrary opinions like Taylor's so they can maintain "respectability" and the pretense of ideological diversity. Padding out the article with arbitrary exceptions gives them far more credibility than reliable sources do, which is a problem for a lot of reasons. Grayfell (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Grayfell: more than a week ago, you said there were "many" sources supporting your claim that Jews alone are blamed for the alleged plot behind the conspiracy theory. Since then, after repeated requests, you have been unable to provide a single source which does; neither has either of the two other editors who made the same claim. Saying again that there were many such sources, you provided a source which said blame is laid on both Jews and "other non-whites." Do you or do you not have any such sources?
As for Taylor, you're splitting hairs. The idea that Taylor, after repeatedly having reached out to Jews and expelled antisemites from his organization, somehow simultaneously believes but has never stated that Jews are behind the alleged conspiracy, is absurd. It is not synthesis, it is common sense and adequately supported by the sources.
Moreover, you haven't addressed any of the sources which explicitly state that many of the conspiracists do not blame Jews, instead accusing Muslims, blacks, or hispanics. Look, imagine if our positions were reversed. What reasons would you have to believe that I was arguing and editing in good faith? EllenCT (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
What? First, what would it prove if I provided sources for a separate issue? This isn't a Googling contest, and I'm not interested in getting bogged down in abstractions. I have explained why these sources are unacceptable to me for this point.
Second, if you want me to reverse our positions, first you should demonstrate the same courtesy and be more diligent in reading what I am saying. I did not say that Jews "alone" are blamed for this. It appears this is your interpretation of the claim, but it is not mine. For brevity, I did not challenge this point in my response, but I did specifically say that Muslims are also often blamed. I also said multiple times that not all sources link this to anti-Semitism. Jumping from that to "...your claim that Jews alone are blamed..." at best fundamentally misinterprets my point, and at worst is bad faith.
Regardless, there is already a talk section for this larger issue above. This section here, and the edit I am discussing, is specifically about Jared Taylor. This is not about the larger issue. I think many of my problems with this edit also apply to the above issue, but spreading this out over two sections will only make this more confusion than it needs to be. I will post comments about those issues above. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Your words were that antisemitism is a "defining trait" of the theory, according to many sources. But fine, let's talk about Taylor. Look at what the SPLC says about him:
One thing that separates Taylor from much of the radical right, however, is his lack of antisemitism. He told MSNBC interviewer Phil Donahue in 2003 that Jews “are fine by me” and “look white to me.” Taking this position, however, has proven problematic for Taylor. Although he once banned discussion of the so-called “Jewish question” from American Renaissance venues and, in 1997, kicked Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis off his email list, Taylor still continued to allow people like Don Black, the former Klan leader who runs the neo-Nazi Stormfront.org web forum, and Jamie Kelso, a onetime Stormfront moderator, to attend his conferences. The problem for Taylor is that many of the most active participants at his conferences and the most committed members of the American radical right are passionately antisemitic. To ban them for their antisemitic views would be a devastating blow to Taylor’s efforts to make his journal and conferences the flagship institutions of the American radical right.
Despite Taylor’s best efforts to keep the internal peace, this long-smoldering issue finally burst into the open when David Duke, the former Klan leader and author of an antisemitic autobiography, My Awakening, grabbed the microphone at the 2006 American Renaissance conference and went on a thinly veiled antisemitic rant.... This incident set off a months-long battle of words, with each side declaring that the other was undermining the broader efforts of the movement.
Taylor issued a nonsectarian statement in which he said that all sorts of extremists would be welcome at his conferences as long as they acted appropriately. That didn’t sit well with some of his racist Jewish supporters, such as Hart, who had hoped for a more declarative statement banning antisemites from the conferences. Such former associates of Taylor as onetime American Renaissance webmaster Ian Jobling and well-known anti-black commentator Lawrence Auster have spoken out against Taylor’s refusal to clearly condemn antisemitism....
On Sept. 29, 2014, Taylor and other white nationalists began to arrive in Hungary to attend an international conference of anti-immigrant and far-right extremists. Co-hosted by Taylor and Richard Spencer’s National Policy Institute (NPI), the symposium was intended to link white nationalists from around the world. (Most of the attendees were from America and Europe.) Taylor and Spencer may have chosen Hungary because of what they anticipated would be a politically hospitable environment, given the far-right political ideology of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party. If so, that was a miscalculation; Orbán not only banned the conference but ordered some attendees to return immediately to their countries of origin. Some, including Spencer, were jailed for several days.....
If these actions are not active disputation of the involvement of Jews in white genocide, then what would be? Risking jail and deportation by antisemitic despots while orchestrating an international white nationalist symposium isn't enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EllenCT (talkcontribs) 03:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────Copy/pasting four paragraphs from a source you've already linked seems like a good way to make this section so long that nobody else will bother to read it. Copy/pasting four edited, discontiguous paragraph is also bad practice. If the source is reliable, it's reliable to provide context.

Anyway, interpreting "his actions" seems like another red flag that this fails analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis.

Notice that one of those paragraph includes a line about ...Taylor's refusal to clearly condemn antisemitism... That's not a typo. That article links to an interview with Ian Jobing (which I recommend, by the way). In that, he says "Taylor’s position always was we should just remain silent about Jewish issues. In an organization so rife with anti-Semites, that kind of silence is the same as complicity." Jobing also says that "Taylor doesn’t believe in genocide. But the basic idea here is the same—there is a natural and a moral obligation to side with your own race and compete with other races. This is how he sees the world." In its larger context this line is about the Holocaust, but it's not entirely clear what that means. How can someone who doesn't believe in "genocide" (which is real) have an opinion on "white genocide" (which is not)? This is probably a distraction, but the one mention of "genocide" in that interview is still one more than the Extremist Files entry. Grayfell (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Change Second ParagraphEdit

The second paragraph is, quite obviously, a violation of Wikipedia's Rule 9. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, however, this has very clear leftist implications and bias. I would highly recommend changing it or deleting it altogether.

We follow reliable sources when they draw conclusions. The homeopathy article, for example, says it's an ineffective treatment. EllenCT (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
What has this to do with homeopathy? Reading that paragraph made me check the URL whether I'm really reading Wikipedia or a straw-man parody of a far-left or a black supremacist propaganda site. The language and style of that paragraph is reminiscent of propaganda pamphlets, not of an encyclopedia. All in all, it is actually reinforcing the belief in a conspiracy. --188.26.16.206 (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The paragraph is supported by citations meeting Wikipedia's reliable source criteria. Do you have any sources suggesting alternatives to the statements with which you disagree? EllenCT (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, anyone can read that paragraph and tell it's biased. Half your sources are from the same brand of left-wing news outlets, with a few articles of dubious quality sprinkled in there. You can, and should, write better than this. The Person Who Is Always Correct (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Would you suggest a source you think should be summarized? There are a lot more sources for the "myth" statement than are currently cited after it. This objection comes up pretty frequently, but the sources opposed to the characterization (which summarizes longer paragraphs in the Criticism section) are usually WP:FRINGE such as from the white supremacist groups themselves. There is no serious academic scholarship suggesting that the conspiracists have any evidence for their fears. EllenCT (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Some reasons why article needs less "according to" type languageEdit

  1. Article is very long
  2. WP:INTEXT
  3. Muddying the waters, a classic move
  4. Article is a ghastly WP:QUOTEFARM

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abductive (talkcontribs) 02:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  • The article is not anywhere near being a quote farm. Citing who says something stops it from being said in Wikipedia's voice, a necessity for articles about controversial subjects. The article is pretty much as long as it needs to be to adequately cover the subject, and in any case cutting 4 or 5 words from it doesn't make any appreciable difference in its length. Saying who said something cannot be "muddying the waters", it can only clarify things.
    This seems to be a bête noire of yours. See this, from 5 days ago, which displays a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia articles are written.
    Please sign your posts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I only count six uses in the article text, which isn't many given its size. We could replace some of them with "said" if you want, but generally speaking, inline citations are important in an article on a controversial topic. --Aquillion (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. Here's my problem; it seem to me that Wikipedia users are trying to get every single instance of somebody backing the notion of white genocide, or of debunking it, or of explaining why people are drawn to it, into the article. The article is overlong and unwieldy as a result. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, made from secondary source material. This article needs editing down. As an example, look at how Lauren Southern is mentioned multiple times as if it was the readers' first time encountering her name in the text. Abductive (reasoning) 21:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Abductive: Please remind yourself about the importance of WP:DUEWEIGHT, and how Wikipedia handles the case where are multiple opinions on a topic and not just one overwhelming favorite by distinguishing between writing in Wikipedia's voice and using in-text attribution to handle cases of starkly differing opinions about a subject.
In the article General relativity, for example, there is overwhelming agreement on what's true and what isn't, and the many citations there need not quote sources by name in the text; the article is written in Wikipedia's voice. This article is not like that one, and in-text attribution of POV statements is needed, so we know who says what, in case it might be biased, controversial, or open to interpretation by people with different views.
In addition, since the topic is controversial, Wikipedia editors with differing backgrounds might have difficulty coming to agreement on how best to summarize some of the statements by authors publishing in the field. However, if we quote their views exactly, everyone can agree whether or not they have been accurately quoted, and leave the interpretation of those words to the reader. All these factors contribute to the fact that there are some (not that many) quotations in this article. Does this help any? Mathglot (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I know, but my above punchlist is still valid. The article is a ghastly mess and could use some editing. Abductive (reasoning) 00:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Most of the parts you were complaining about (and the big one in the intro you put back in Wikipedia's voice) were the result of specific disputes about the lack of inline attribution. After going through a few of those (which are in the talk archives, of course) it's just easier to err on the side of caution and less disruption. The thing about it is, though, is we rarely get complaints about marginal cases, but repeated challenges of, for example, the "myth" description for which there are literally more than a dozen high quality secondary sources cited in the existing references which call it a myth in their headline titles. EllenCT (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Any sources on what exactly Jews are supposed to be doing?Edit

Since conspiracists blaming Jews is considered central to the theory's accusations, are there any sources which go into any detail at all as to what exactly Jews are accused of doing, rather than merely saying they're behind it all and leaving it at that? Accounts of Orban on Soros are as much detail as I can find, but even he doesn't say much about what exactly Soros is supposed to be doing. EllenCT (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

These theories are unfalsifiable and internally inconsistent, so it's difficult to find sources addressing specific details. Academics often view attempts to debunk these theories as giving them unwarranted legitimacy. I don't have it on-hand, but if I remember correctly, Angela Saini's latest book discussed this point.
This page from a book about Don Black's son (who later left the movement), includes some perspective on this worldview. Simplistically put, the assumption is that Jews work to undermine "white" identity so that Jewish identity will be comparatively stronger. Many white supremacists, such as those in Black's circle, spend astonishing amounts of time and effort in cataloging Jewish people in positions of power. (The triple parentheses meme is a recent visible example.)
I could point to more examples, but for obvious reasons primary sources are no good. I can provide some background, though. "Look up the Kalergi plan" is common comment posted by conspiracists. This supposed plan is that by "diluting" people's identity, they would then be easily ruled by a Jewish elite.
The pseudoscience of Kevin MacDonald is also often cited in support of a Jewish element to this conspiracy theory. His claim is that Jews are somehow innately ethnocentric, and that Jews have, as a monolithic group, manipulated immigration policies to their own benefit and everyone else's detriment. The Culture of Critique series#Criticism may include some relevant sources.
Hopefully that is useful. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
By following those leads I came to Kofta and Sedek (2005) "Conspiracy Stereotypes of Jews during Systemic Transformation in Poland," International Journal of Sociology, 35(1):40-64, which on p. 54 describes a study of "anything in the shared collective representation of Jews that would account for some specificity of this stereotype," which turned out to be that they, "(a) share an involving, permanent goal (dominating the world) and develop tightly coordinated actions (mostly subversive) in order to achieve this goal, [and] (b) are highly supportive of each other." But it doesn't say what those mostly subversive actions are thought to be. The work of Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) is far more instructive, e.g. his SPLC profile, his interview here, and The Culture of Critique series#Academic response including this paper have a lot in them, but it's hard for me to see it, so far, as boiling down to much more than something like "Jews want to loosen immigration constraints because they are safer in a more diverse society." I.e., MacDonald is not a white genocide conspiracist at all, and his thesis doesn't really support any kind of racial genocide, because white non-Jews are an element of the diversity which he says Jews seek in their "ethnic interest." But at least he talks about means instead of just ends. EllenCT (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Here we go: Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory is the mother-lode of this. And here in the 1996 Aryan Nations' "Declaration of Independence" is the laundry list, from the bottom of page 1 through bottom of page 3. EllenCT (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Added. I feel like its much easier to counter an argument when its concrete substance is clear. What this also shows is of the last five white genocide conspiracist mass murderers, only the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter was an adherent of these accusations. So as much success as the conspiracy theory has had, the specific accusations against Jews are escaping most of those who feel compelled to act. On reflection, I suppose this is due to the very loud and strongly pro-Israel white genocide Conspiracist In Chief. EllenCT (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as many sources can attest, the concrete substance of these theories will never be clear, and we should be cautious not to imply that they will. This lack of clarity is by design. The theory is intentionally vague, because it stokes and exploits anxiety, not reason. Whatever we think we have countered can always be tweaked, or we can be dismissed as shills, or our better sources dismissed as disinformation.
I notice you link to Cofnas's article, which is a satisfying read, but it should be mentioned that Cofnas himself has a serious credibility problem. He is part of Richard Lynn's white supremacist Ulster Institute, among other things. This article from Undark briefly explains Cofnas's history, and also goes into some detail about why these conspiracy theories are so difficult to challenge. Per that source, MacDonald himself was very pleased with these papers discussing his work: “It’s great that, after 20 years, the book is finally getting some attention”.
Anyway, I am baffled that you would add an Aryan Nation manifesto as the sole source for a paragraph. We are not a platform for sharing neo-Nazi drivel. Please find a reliable, independent source for this, and rewrite as a summary of that reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Well first of all, I didn't add Cofnas or anything else about McDonald to the article, because as I said, he is just not a white genocide conspiracist, as much as the conspiracists love him because he lends a false veneer of academic credence to their xenophobic hatred of immigration. I found some secondary sources on the Aryan Nation's Declaration, which is the only set of specific accusations against Jews I could find at all, and I looked for hours. I would love to add any of the many sources attesting that the concrete substance of them will never be clear -- which ones are those? EllenCT (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I know you didn't add Cofnas. You linked to his paper, so I wanted to make sure you were aware of some of the issues with this source.
As for the concrete substance issue, as I said, Saini's book discusses this point. Part of the problem is that this is a conspiracy theory, and any source for handling antisemitic conspiracy theories in general will apply here. How broad do we go with sources? The psychology of conspiracy theories, and antisemitism, are both well-studied.
The Undark article links this to "legitimizing" a larger antisemitic narrative: '...To debate a theory like MacDonald’s is both to legitimize it and to tacitly accept some of its premises — namely, that there’s such a thing as a distinct, subtle “Jewish agenda” or “Jewish psychology” that exists in tension with white European society.' This source repeatedly establishes that the underlying theory has no scientific legitimacy. It must be "legitimized" because it is not already legitimate.
Specific to this topic, MacDonald's theories are being widely used to prop-up this conspiracy theory, so whether or not MacDonald personally believes in the theory is not the issue. We shouldn't attribute this to him, but we shouldn't ignore this aspect, either. MacDonald is positively cited by David Duke, David Irving, and many other strong advocates for the "white genocide" theory. MacDonald also cites Irving's work in at least one of his own books, which further demonstrates how closely intertwined these personalities are.
Both of Cofnas's "rebuttals" (the first one and the response you linked to) also discuss this perspective, even if Cofnas disagrees with it. Cofnas quotes Pinker for this point: "The suggestion that scholars "can't ignore bad ideas" is a nonstarter. In science there are a thousand bad ideas for every good one. "Doing battle" against all of them is not an option for mere mortals, and doing battle against some of them is a tacit acknowledgment that those have enough merit to exceed the onerous threshold of attention-worthiness. MacDonald's ideas, as presented in summaries that would serve as a basis for further examination, do not pass that threshold, for many reasons"[11]
The burden is on the conspiracy theorists to "legitimize" their claims enough for reliable sources to discuss them. Wikipedia is not a platform for "tacit acknowledgement". We are not here to help conspiracy theorists compile reasons their WP:FRINGE theories might be true, just so we can attempt to debunk them. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
What if we applied that onus to other conspiracy theories? The 9/11 articles would say nothing about how a jet fuel fire could melt steel beams, and that would play into the hands of the conspiracists. I, for one, am happy to have one sentence enumerating the litany from the only example of specific accusations I can find, from the organizations everyone was so eager to attribute as the originators of the modern theory, followed by another sentence explaining that those accusations are substantiated only with the Fed, UN, and their buddy Nazis having gotten arrested. If we took that back out it would be like taking the sightings of likely weather balloons and swamp gas fires out of the UFO articles. EllenCT (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

South Africa - Suidlanders stance misrepresentedEdit

The section about South Africa seems to imply that the organization Suidlanders has promoted the idea that a "white genocide" is taking place in South Africa. As far as I know this is incorrect- I have listened to several interviews with Simon Roche in which he talked about a potential/looming/impending civil war in South Africa, but as far as I know Simon Roche or any other representative of Suidlanders has never claimed that a genocide is taking place on in South Africa:

"Far-right and alt-right figures, such as singer Steve Hofmeyr, have claimed that a "white genocide" is taking place in South Africa.[148] [...] "The survivalist group the Suidlanders has claimed credit for publicizing the issue internationally.[154]"

The citation given is a link to an article entitled SA conservative group takes credit for increased 'white genocide' awareness, which states:

"A conservative group preparing for what its members say is an impending civil war in South Africa believes its continuous messaging and awareness campaigns have influenced an increase in conservative media coverage of the "plight" of white South Africans."

Saying that a genocide is taking place and saying that it's possible (or even likely) for one to occur in the future are two different things. And of course, genocide and civil war are not the same thing. The actual article doesn't even contain the word genocide.

This seems to be a misleading (sensationalist) headline which by itself is not a legitimate source. Unless someone can provide a proper citation for this, I think this entry should be changed because it misrepresents the view of this organization.

Here is a link to an interview with Simon Roche where he explains his position (from 6:06):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEJlh6LyGRQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.164.2.113 (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

6:48-7:21 of that video suggests otherwise. Also we have at the end of the South Africa section a citation to [12] which says,
I tried to make the language more clear in both of those paragraphs. I am inclined to include the video if you think that would be more fair. EllenCT (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, 6:48-7:21 in the video supports Unsigned User's view that Simon Roche states that Suidlanders does not believe that there is currently a white genocide, but that there is a risk for white genocide some time in the future, and that South Africa is on the brink of civil war. I also agree with him that one should not equate civil war with genocide. --leuce (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Right, just like Ian Smith in Rhodesia: "there will be white genocide if drastic measures aren't taken." It would be a more credible position if it wasn't so much safer to be white than black in South Africa. EllenCT (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Leuce: please see [13], [14] and 1:10-2:00 of [15]. EllenCT (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Today's Observer newspaper has something on this in the context of Generation Identity in the UKEdit

It's summarised in The Guardian: Infiltrator exposes Generation Identity UK’s march towards extreme far right[16] --Doug Weller talk 12:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed: [17] and [18]; added. EllenCT (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to "White genocide conspiracy theory" page.