Talk:Great Replacement conspiracy theory

Article should be slightly more neutral

To add opinions such as "debunked" breaks with Wikipedia neutrality.

One could reference secondary sources and write "X experts claim to have debunked this theory because of A arguments". That would be neutral and still portray the argument. But to simply add "debunked" is simply not neutral.

In fact the addition of "white supremacy" is not neutral neither, since G.R.T. has a lot o defenders from people of non-European background (as the own article highlights). Again, one could write "Y experts claim the theory is white supremacist because of B" and that would be totally fine.

There are a lot of theories in Wikipedia I don't agree with and not because of that I add "debunked". I may add some points and reference the authors of such points but that is it. Wikipedia is about compiling information and their sources not ideological journalism. Pol revision (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not referred to as debunked and white supremacist because we don't agree with it and this article is not ideological journalism, or journalism at all. It is referred to as debunked and white supremacist because it is a racist conspiracy theory that has been thoroughly debunked. The citations are in the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

"Thorougly debunked" by whom? By experts payed by elites? You're just picking a political side that aligns with your beliefs and saying it's the absolute truth. 187.188.11.49 (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

As stated, the cites are in the article. By experts payed by elites -- That's a conspiracy theory in itself and not constructive here. As for my beliefs, they are not relevant and I don't believe in "absolute truth". O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely not debunked. For example, what would you say if I told you that considerable research and proposals had been put forward on “ethnic replacement in European countries? CRM11Four (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

What does this have to do with a conspiracy theory about a shadowy cabal deliberately replacing the white population? 11:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC) O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

That report isn't about a shadowy elite replacing the local population with immigrants, it's about immigration making up the short fall in population caused by low birth rates. Immigration as a replacement for falling birth rates. Reading past the title makes this quite clear. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

You do realise that you’ve just made my argument for me right? 😀😀 As far as I understand it, the “great replacement theory“ is the replacement of the indigenous people with immigrants from other countries which is (taken from the policy document ) exactly what you have just described above. As for your “reading past the title makes this quite clear“ it comes across as impolite to say the very least.CRM11Four (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

No it's a conspiracy by a shadowy elite to illicitly replaced the local population, as the this article makes very clear. The UN openly publishing data that shows population changes do occur is not a conspiracy by a shadowy elite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources call it debunked, an no reliable sources state that a shadowy cabal are deliberately replacing the white population. Not stating that fact would be WP:FALSEBALANCE.
To be clear this article is specifically about the conspiracy theory that a shadowy cabal are deliberately replacing the white population, not general demographic changes that have their own articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I do agree that the article should be more neutral. The article dedicates a lot of space to detailing what the conspiracy theory entails and comparatively very little to systemically dismantling the claims and explaining why they are false. There are multiple assertions that the conspiracy theory is debunked and that experts dismiss it. A good portion of the article is also dedicated to the association with white supremacists and neonazis. But hardly any paragraphs focus on the actual debunking, and explaining why this theory does not hold up to scrutiny. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is an exceptional claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Absent those sources, after so many years and attempts at a proof, reliable sources say that the claim is false. Reading the external links will provide far more info. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The original comment about making a change is spot on. This article moves from educational to political or even propaganda simply by using the terms “debunked” and “conspiracy”. Remove those terms and the page is very educational about the theory. Continued inclusion of those terms dilutes the integrity of the page. 2600:1700:42D7:5010:1462:917E:9787:1578 (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Read the responses above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I read the responses and see nothing wrong with the arguments that "debunked" and "conspiracy" are grossly misused, and should be deleted. No sources given for "debunked" on the first paragraph either. Driving Political agenda is not for Wikipedia. in other words [CITATION NEEDED], but not given. To try to pass this off as some kind of neutrality is, in fact, a horrible and deliberate undersestimation of the readers' intellect. 80.222.155.168 (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs are summaries of the referenced body of the article. They are therefore not cited. Please read the entire article and the references. See WP:LEADCITE. Acroterion (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

upvote on removing "debunked" & "conspiracy theory" for a neutral balance. Even the Flat Earth or Birds Aren't Real page doesn't have conspiracy theory in title which is bonkers. 98.178.240.169 (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

IP with one edit (that one above) is unlikely to move consensus on this.Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Flat Earth isn't a conspiracy theory, Birds Aren't Real is just a joke, no need to label it as a conspiracy theory Doug Weller talk 15:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• If I could just say a word for my client, it's not totally clear where the "debunked" phrasing is coming from. I don't have access to the full article cited in the lead by Feola. The abstract doesn't exactly mince words. "Destructive pathology" is pretty straightforward. The phrasing from the lead doesn't appear to be duplicated in the body, and so it's really resting on the one citation in the lead. For those who are enthusiastic about the phrasing, it's probably less time consuming to include a source that directly supports the content, rather than hashing out the same issue on the talk page in perpetuity. GMG^talk 12:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  The Feola article is available on Anna's Archive. It's 26 pages long, so I don't have time or energy to read through it at the moment, but I'll take a look later to see whether it actually supports the "debunked" phrasing. Unless someone else beats me to it. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  Interesting review at [1] The Great Replacement narrative, which imagines that historic white majorities are being intentionally replaced through immigration policies, has mobilized racist, nationalist, and nativist movements in the United States and Europe. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  For those interested, I've finally read the source in full. While it doesn't use the word "debunked" outright, it clearly supports describing the concept in those terms. It frames it as rooted in "lurid fantasies" driven by anxieties over the decline of white hegemony, especially in Europe, and situates these fears within a broader narrative of "white genocide" which reflects racial panic rather than any material reality.

  Feola also notes that even a basic understanding of the history of whiteness reveals how flawed it is to compare the supposed "replacement" of white populations to the trauma experienced by colonized peoples. That analogy is described as not only historically false but morally grotesque, as it erases the violence of settler colonialism. Taken together, the source dismantles the theory's core assumptions and shows it to be a tool of white nationalist rhetoric, not something grounded in fact. So, in short, I think it's an appropriate source. Paprikaiser (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

References

Criteria

Does wiki have any hard line on what it would look like it? What's the criteria to call something replaced? 2600:1017:B14B:5D75:4CB5:914E:38E6:4019 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

We use reliable sources for this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Debunked?

Seems like an odd choice of words. How do you debunk racism? Jaybainshetland (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

You don't debunk racism. You debunk a conspiracy theory. Read the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Article read. Gives no sources for debunking, no neutrality, nothing. Can this one person keep the whole article captive?? 80.222.155.168 (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Past the lead paragraphs? Apparently not. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Theory debunked?

If this theory has been debunked, would it then make sense to add a quantitative analysis showing that? I have looked at data from statistics offices from various European countries, and the data seems to confirm the theory in some countries. 82.147.226.185 (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is not about natural changes in demographics. It is about a specific conspiracy theory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a supposed conspiracy by a shadowy group of elites who want to replace the french population with immigrants, nonsense later taken up by conspiracy theorists in other countries. So unless those statistics are about how many supposed shadowy groups of elites exist they won't be relevant. If you're looking for articles about demographic changes there are many on Wikipedia, for instance Demographics of France has a whole section on changes to ethnicity overtime. You'll find articles for most countries with similar information. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The data shows that Europeans will become a minority in their own countries by 2070, and then by 2200 will disappear. Not only it's not a "debunked racist theory", it's literally the reality. And the reason aren't "natural changes" either, the only reason are the current politics. 187.188.11.49 (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the conspiracy theory that shadowy elites are deliberately causing population change to wipe out the white population, not that any change is happening. If you have proof that shadowy elites are deliberately trying to wipe out white Europeans I suggest going to the press. Otherwise I suggest you read any of the many articles Wikipedia has on demographic changes, none of those changes are hidden or denied. The only thing that is called debunked or a conspiracy theory is that there is a malicious group forcing that change, because noone has ever provided proof of that here or anywhere else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Extrapolation arguments do not work for longer than a small epsilon if a function is not linear but subject to all sorts of influences. Only innumerates believe that extrapolations are "reality". So, even if we discount the fact that this article is talking about something else than you, you are wrong. This is one of the reasons Wikipedia is not based on the conclusions its editors draw. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2025

There is no reason to use the term “conspiracy theory” throughout the document, rather than simply using “theory”. By saying “conspiracy theory” you inject your opinion into the article rather than just using factual information about the topic.

The entire purpose of Wikipedia’s articles on controversial issues is to provide information of all kinds to readers, so those readers can then determine the truth after seeing many sides of topics.  By dismissing someone’s idea as a “conspiracy”, you undermine the ability of others to complete research.  

Also my prohibiting edits, you act as the arbiter of knowledge and show yourself to be cowardly and unable to back up your thoughts to scrutiny from others. 2600:1700:42D7:5010:1462:917E:9787:1578 (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

No we are not injecting our opinions. We are including the determination of reliable sources. We do not allow edits from brand new accounts to some articles because they are less experienced in dealing with contentious topics in a civil manner following our guidelines, using words like "cowardly", which is not constructive and waste editor time. This does not make us "arbiters of knowledge" as the restriction only has to do with editor experience, not the positions taken by the editors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Recent addition to lead

I'm unsure about the framing of this recent addition ntkntbe lead, "even if more recent data has shown White demographic decline to be a real trend in Western nations". That there has been demographic changes resulting in a smaller percentage of the population being white in no way proves that those changes have been deliberately caused by a shadow elite. So although true is juxaposes something entirely unrelated. Something similar about demographic changes could be due inclusion in the lead, but the current wording is a bit imprecise.
Seperately the supplied reference only deals with the UK not all western nations. So something covered the whole scope would be necessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like it should be cut.Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree. I also note that “ rooted in a misunderstanding of demographic statistics and” was removed in the same edit, not sure why. Doug Weller talk 17:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Trying to interpret the intention behind the edit, I'm guessing that the point was that the white percentage of the population has declined in certain western countries and that appears to be somewhat at odds with the statement about misunderstood demographic statistics (even if it isn't). I don't support the current changes (or oppose them being reverted), but I wonder that if there was a sentence in the lead that demographic change isn't proof of a conspiracy then maybe the same discussion wouldn't happen on the talk page over and over. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've removed it as obvious WP:SYNTH. We can't use a source that doesn't mention a conspiracy theory to implicitly argue for the conspiracy theory like that. --Aquillion (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Theory or Reality

Based on the scale of migration — much of it irregular — the notion of native population replacement in Europe appears to many as more than just a theory. There is little that seems natural about the current migration dynamics on the continent.

Many white native French citizens express concern about the long-term cultural impact of immigration, especially in relation to secularism, language, and national identity. They worry that France's laïcité (strict secularism) is increasingly challenged by the rise of visible religious expression, particularly in urban areas with high levels of immigration.

″Almost two-thirds of French people believe that white European Christian populations are being “threatened with extinction” as a result of immigration from Muslim and African countries, a new poll suggests.″ https://www.arabnews.com/node/1956551/world

Are these poll results to be dismissed as "conspiracy theories"? The article would benefit from a more balanced approach, as there are legitimate concerns among segments of the native European population about demographic change, especially in light of recent levels of migration into Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.83.104 (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a conspiracy theory that elites are actively promoting population change. Please read the article. Acroterion (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

If you had read the article or any of the discussions on this talk page you would have realised that demographic changes in no way proves this conspiracy theory. Unless you have proof that it's being done intentionally by a shadowy elite there is nothing to talk about -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

You're wrong, there's multiple populate statistics to prove that there are a larger amount of immigrants coming in and a large increase of nonwhites in Europe than there is of whites, based off of fertility rates as well as overall young people, this hasn't been "debunked" and won't be ever 'debunked', as it's happening right infront of us with many news outlets talking upon it, the only thing you might try to debunk is that the politicians are trying to do this on purpose, however you can't debunk that yet. The only thing you can try to debunk is that there isn't a quicker increase of nonwhites in europe than there is of whites, but that you can't, as it wouldn't be true, By 2050 at this rate, whites will be less than 20% of europe.

In other words, this has not, nor will ever be 'debunked', if there's no source for a claim, then it has no place on wikipedia, 'debunked' should be deleted instantly. TruthfulSpeech (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that prove that those changes are caused by a conspiracy of a shadowy elites? Because that's the content of this article. If you want details of population statistics there are many, many articles about those changes and they show what you're mentioning. But what you're mentioning isn't the content of this article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@TruthfulSpeech What you're talking about is the changing demographics of Europe, but that is not what the subject of this article is. The subject of this article is that these changing demographics are the result of a secret plan by some group of elites to do it on purpose - in other words, a "conspiracy theory". And that is what is debunked. No one is disagreeing with what you stated about changing demographic statistics. What they are trying to point out to you is that that is not the subject of the article. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Why no mention of Lovecraft ?

H. P. Lovecraft was a great proponent of the Great Replacement theory. He was deeply racist. His fear about the great replacement can be seen in his novel The Shadow over Innsmouth. This book is full of hate against foreigners, immigrants, people of color and miscegenation. It's a lampoon against immigration that is as sharp and violent as Jean Raspail's The Camp of the Saints. But nobody talks about Lovecraft in this article. He has been forgotten, and I can't understand. Why did the writers of this article forget Lovecraft and his racism ? Therefore, I'd like an explanation about this oversight. Please, could you add to this article a few words about H. P. Lovecraft ? And could you put Lovecraft among the list of proponents of the Great Replacement theory ? Thank you very much ! Julius-leclerc (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

This article is specifically about Renaud Camus' conspiracy theory, not general racism. Lovecraft died before Camus was even born so his views are quite irrelevant.RKT7789 (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

While Lovecraft was rather obsessive in his fear of miscegenation, he did not actually like white people either. Per the main article: "he did not hold all white people in uniform high regard, but rather esteemed English people and those of English descent. In his early published essays, private letters, and personal utterances, he argued for a strong color line to preserve race and culture. His arguments were supported using disparagements of various races in his journalism and letters, and allegorically in some of his fictional works that depict miscegenation between humans and non-human creatures." By the way, he made an exception about his own marriage, since his wife was a Jew.Dimadick (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

If that's true, then it is more appropiate to include that information in Lovecraft's Wikipedia article. Mllhnkz (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Missing neutrality

The word "Debunked" at the beggining of the article should be removed. Even if the conspiracy theory is wrong, which it might very well be, the inclusion of this word ruins the entire neutrality of the article. Experts criticizing the hypothesis are already included subsequently. In very few/almost none other similar Wikipedia articles there's a "Debunked" adjective at the beggining like in this one. This feels like violating one of the most fundamental rules of Wikipedia. Mllhnkz (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Don't know why you're putting Wikipedia in boldface, but regardless, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia attempts to provide information and that also means we attempt to address misinformation. This is the fundamental reason for Wikipedia's existence. This conspiracy theory has been debunked, so this belongs in the lead of the article. Grayfell (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

It's debunked as noone has ever shown any proof that a shadowy cabal of elites is trying to do anything. This article isn't about demographic changes, which are well documented in many other articles, it's about a supposed conspiracy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks for your answer. Mllhnkz (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)