Talk:Great Replacement

please review this before i add it in. if something needs to be added or removed please tell me

Labour politician and former Cabinet minister Peter Mandelson said that Labour 'sent out search parties' to bring migrants to Britain at the Blairite think-tank Progress stating "in 2004, when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country." Journalist Richard Littlejohn alleges that this was done to compensate after losing the votes of the working class while journalist Alex Hern argues that Mandelson "sounded like he was talking about the sort of programmes which were aimed at getting high-skilled immigrants to come to Britain" and that "the argument that Mandelson’s search parties “made it hard for Britons to get work” isn’t based in fact". Mandelson stated ‘we were almost... a full employment economy’ but, he admitted: ‘The situation is different obviously now... we have to just realise... entry to the labour market of many people of non-British origin [makes it] hard for people who are finding it very difficult to find jobs, who find it hard to keep jobs.'

Lord Mandelson’s remarks came three years after Labour officials denied claims by former Labour adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain saying that the policy was designed to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’. After Labour came to power, more people moved to Britain than in the entire previous millennium. Labour politician Ed Miliband said that the Labour government was not “sufficiently alive to people's concerns” over immigration and his party got “the numbers wrong”. Tory chairman Grant Shapps said that the admission that Labour had let immigration “spiral out of control” was “yet another damning indictment on their record on immigration.” NotQualified (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

References

before anyone says, yes this is obviously relevant. sources that say the blair government intentionally broke down migration barriers and actively searched and brought in migrants to replace the indigenous working class vote, citing quotation from a high ranking labour cabinet member "potentially" confessing to it as well as another labour official literally admitting it, is relevant and if i need to get wikipedia mods in to review this i will. that is quite literally the whole conspiracy theory in detail from start to finish, and even "potentially" confessed to. what i wrote was fair and balanced and tried to take both sides into account as i know this has been contentious. NotQualified (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

What sources mention “Great Replacement “? Doug Weller talk 20:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

this conversation was had before and im not doing it again. i went on a one week long goose chase to debunk this. is this your only concern? NotQualified (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

ive just reviewed, you were IN that conversation. you know full well this is debunked and this has now become clear-cut WP:POV railroad, particularly "Policy Misuse". you have been wrong about the rules and stated, prior to me even providing the edit, that "... if this continues don't be surprised if you get blocked - or topic banned." this is a debunked requirement. genuinely stop. off-topic but i just reviewed your profile, sorry about your parkinsons i genuinely hope youre doing well.NotQualified (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@NotQualified: Doug is one of the most trusted and respected members of this community. You will get nowhere by dismissing his concerns. And you have most certainly not "debunked" anything he's said. If you are not satisfied with the response here, you are welcome to take this to a noticeboard such as WP:NORN or WP:NPOVN. Generalrelative (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#for_WP:SYNTH,_is_semantic_change_relevant? there was a discussion on this a month ago, the title of an article does not need to appear in a source for that source to be relevant. if i have interpreted the discussion incorrectly, please inform me. NotQualified (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I saw that discussion and have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion. There are instances where the subject of the article does not need to be mentioned in a source for that source to be relevant to the article, but this clearly isn't one. Again, the proper place for this, if you're not satisfied with the answers you've received so far, would be a noticeboard. (Wikipedia talk:No original research, where the conversation you linked above took place, is for discussing possible revisions to the policy; for questions about the application of the policy, go to WP:NORN.) Generalrelative (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

> is for discussing possible revisions to the policy;

yes it was discussed if we should add "semantic change is not relevant to WP:SYNTH" and the general response was that it was so obvious it didnt need to be added. i wasted a week of my life on that.

> I saw that discussion and have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion.

because the responses i got told me as such, in a non-ambiguous cut and dry manner: the title of an article does NOT have to appear in a source for it to be sourced.

however im not sure if you actually mean by "... this clearly isn't [an example in which the source doesnt need to contain a title]" as my 'conclusion', that you believe what i wrote wasnt relevant. in which case, ive already provided my reasoning for coming to the 'conclusion'.

here it is again:

"yes this is obviously relevant. sources that say the blair government intentionally broke down migration barriers and actively searched and brought in migrants to replace the indigenous working class vote, citing quotation from a high ranking labour cabinet member "potentially" confessing to it as well as another labour official literally admitting it, is relevant"

even if those sources are blatantly wrong, this is a conspiracy theory. if conspiracies had to be true the flat earth wiki would be completely empty. the above is discourse in multiple well known publications about something that is obviously about Great Replacement Theory.

i will go to the WP:NORN notice board to see what is thought there. NotQualified (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be an WP:IDONTHEARTHAT violation.

As the editor who made perhaps the strongest statement in thr NORN discussion that the title of the article need not be mentioned in a source for it to be relevant, I also said the following:

my statement about SYNTH at NORN

I'm not sure what precisely you're referring to, but a constantly recurring problem with articles like Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Great Replacement is that editors arrive and try to impose their BOTHSIDES interpretation of NPOV, where one of the "sides" has no significant support among WP:RS. What typicallly happens is that either those editors will seek the inclusion (for "facts") of what are at best WP:RSOPINION sources, or they will do their own "research" into a topic the conspiracy theory is interpreting and seek inclusion of related statements in the article, as if to say, "here is the actual phenomenon that the conspiracy theory is interpreting". The problem with the latter is the inevitable WP:SYNTH violation - unless reliable sources actually tie the conspiracy theory back to real world phenomena (usually by contrasting one with the other), editors are forbidden from doing so in articles. What is more, even if one source does this, it may be WP:UNDUE to mention in article space if the vast majority of sources do not see a clear connection between thr conspiracy theory's claims and actual phenomena. And WP:FRINGE tells us to be very careful about allowing wikipedia articles to become amplifiers for fringe claims, including those by conspiracy theorists. So while the key question is not actually, "does the source name the article topic?", there are lots of sourced statements that would be completely inappropriate to include in articles - especially articles on FRINGE topics - because of SYNTH concerns.

In other words, just because sources that don't mention the article title can be relevant doesn't mean they always are. And when it comes to "facts" presented in support of what RS describe as a conspiracy theory, we have to be especially careful not to lend our article text to a BOTHSIDES interpretation in violation of WP:NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

i made the discussion there when i was informed by Generalrelative. that isnt a violation. "...just because sources that don't mention the article title can be relevant doesn't mean they always are." yes, i concur. i have agreed with this stance since the very beginning. the difference i presume is we disagree if what i wrote is relevant. "And when it comes to "facts"..." just to be clear, claims inside a conspiracy dont have to be true, what is true is the claims have been made. i have written "alleged". "And when it comes to "facts" presented in support of what RS describe as a conspiracy theory, we have to be especially careful not to lend our article text to a BOTHSIDES interpretation." i do not believe i have violated this protocol. what i have written largely sources direct quotes of official Labour and Tory candidates and makes clear what the media response was around those. my sources also are handpicked as they reference one another, and the writing is careful to prevent a "hit piece" violation by offering the media counter-argument. do you have any more concerns? NotQualified (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question (in a way): you haven't at all addressed my main concern, which is that the sources you have assembled have nothing to do with the topic of this article. Your assertion that they do seems to me to go beyond WP:SYNTH and amount to some kind of leap of faith. Newimpartial (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

'the difference i presume is we disagree if what i wrote is relevant.' okay so this is the concern. right, well ive already established my reasoning to how it is relevant. 'Your assertion that they do seems to me to go beyond WP:SYNTH and amount to some kind of leap of faith.' i have sourced discourse in media journals that quote labour politicians saying they intentionally looked for migrants and how that discussion was argued and counter-argued to be an effort to replace the working class indingenous vote they lost. again, how is that not relevant. how is this a 'leap of faith'. NotQualified (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, I know of no reliable sources stating that the Great Replacement conspiracy theory involves Labour politicians recruiting migrants to shore up their vote share. This alleged connection therefore looks to be a leap of faith. Newimpartial (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This is OR of course. Also, the sourcing is poor. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

why is sourcing poor. NotQualified (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

the sources were handpicked as they largely reference one another NotQualified (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

why is this OR? NotQualified (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if the sources discuss the Great Replacement theory (they don't) the majority of the sources cited are unusable for this topic, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Additionally, the article should focus on longer-run analyses of the type covered in scholarly sources, rather than short term news items that you are likely to find in a newspaper. (t · c) buidhe 01:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Neither the text nor any of the (poor) sources mention the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. I searched each one for "replac" and found nothing. To add the proposed text would be WP:SYNTH because the editor, not the sources, are connecting the politicians' actions with the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This misses the same point as the last thread about this, the content has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory. Multiple references to poor sources that don't have any mention of the conspiracy theory in no way changes that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Actions by users NewImpartial and Dumuzid

Wrong page for this discussion O3000, Ret. (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since I am unsure of where else to take this (I am not very familiar with how to deal with such strange situations) I will post this here, but feel free to inform me of where else to take this: I want to take fault with users NewImpartial's and Dumuzid's false and (in the former case's) repeated reverts of a comment of mine on someone's false interpretation of policy that I posted with the intent to further the improvement of the article. I am seeking both comment and explanation by the two users and other users' input on this matter. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC) There was nothing wrong with their reverts as your edit was not correct, not related to this article, and not constructive. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC) How so? Reliable sources are what Wikipedia relies on and what are required for edits that are worthy of remaining on a Wikipedia article and the discussions I mentioned are easily accessible and viewable by any person interested in checking out the perennial sources page. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC) The policies at WP:V WP:RS are rigorously followed. If you have a problem with a source, you can take it to WP:RSN. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC) That neither answered my questions nor addressed the reverts made by users NewImpartial and Dumuzid. Please explain your reasoning in detail. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC) You can take general questions to the teahouse O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC) The page you recommended is explicitly made for beginner-questions related to basic Wikipedia editing and therefore unrelated to the questions I repeatedly asked you now and the reverts being talked about. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC) This comment [1] is actively and obviously wrong. Content is not decided by vote. Whether it needed to be removed is perhaps debatable, but not worth the bytes that are being expended here. You are wandering into WP:SEALION territory. If you have a case to make for a referenced constructive edit, please do so. This is not a forum for general conversation about Wikipedia policy (which was Dumuzid's point). There's a big red notice at the top of the page concerning sources. Comment on content, not other editors. Acroterion (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC) The comment I made is actively in line with Wikipedia policy, as a response to which you cited an essay, which is not the same as policy and simply opinions by an editor. I also feel like it comes across as dangerously close to a personal attack, since it makes bad faith assumptions about my motivation for editing Wikipedia, which also goes directly against Wikipedia policy. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Here's another essay, which documents general practices and expectations on Wikipedia: WP:SATISFY. And a policy: WP:NOTBURO, meaning that editors who demand that a specific legalistic process be strictly adhered to are unlikely to find satisfaction. And the two fundamental policies WP:RS and WP:V, from which everything else derives, and which should answer what appears to have been your original question. Acroterion (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) The policy you linked specifically mentions consensus, which I am trying to achieve here and which neither you and I yet have? Also, if anything, this policy provides more rationale for the very basis of my argument, funnily enough, that the reliability of sources is dependent on consensus, not some supposedly strict, clear outline? - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC) So, first of all, you really should have notified NewImpartial and myself--but aside from that, were we to engage with your comment and general conversational tack there, it would be extremely 'forum-y.' It seemed clearly to be headed in the direction of "is Wikipedia's reliable source policy actually good?" There are places to discuss that, but individual article talk pages are not it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Sorry about not notifying you. I assumed that happens automatically. I don't really know how to notify other editors, but if I did, I would have. I see another editor making a false statement that actively contradicts Wikipedia policy to the detriment of editors wanting to improve the article, and I corrected that comment. My, correct (given the obvious and easily accessible discussions on the perennial sources page) comment was reverted, while the false comment that contradicts Wikipedia policy and discourages other editors from making proper edits and changes remains up. I have yet to get a comment that explains this. At this point, I'm honestly just confused by how that can be. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC) The comment I removed was this one, which (to paraphrase closely) asserts that discussions to be found at WP:RSN and WP:RSP are based on vote by editors who are considered to be "random people on the internet" whose decisions about sources are not judged by policy and guidelines and that the resulting evaluation in no way suggests they are indeed reliable (all words from the one exchange). If any of this is true, the places to discuss it would be the village pump or a policy page such as WP:V. If it isn't true, it doesn't need to be discussed at all. But regardless of the validity of these allegations, they have no place at this, or any, article Talk page where they can do nothing except waste editor time (mine writing this reply, for example). Newimpartial (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC) The reliability is judged, as I wrote, by the editors' feelings on the reliability of the sources. In fact, WP:RS in particular goes into detail about how much this depends on the judgement by editors, explicitly pointing towards the responsibility of editors in the judgement of such a source. So the policy explains in detail how my comment is in line with what I outlined in my comment. So I don't see how I'm wrong? Nor how the anti-policy statement remains in place? - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC) You appear to be confusing judgement with feelings and unanimity with consensus. If other editors to this article don't share your concerns about the way this article uses sources (and I don't believe they do), then you will need to take your concerns somewhere else - preferably to one of wikipedia's many "competitors". Newimpartial (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC) (Just a note: I gotta go to bed now, unfortunately, so I won't be able to reply for a little while, but I will when I can again! Just letting everybody know! - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)) Whether your statement is correct or not (I would disagree with it) is beside the point. Things can be true and inappropriate for a talk page discussion. Again, there are places to go into such broad inquiries into Wikipedia workings, but it is not here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Should Elon Musk be under ‘proponents’?

I followed the citation, which led me to an article that mentions an interview. I found the interview and when questioned about it, Elon Musk says ‘I don’t subscribe to any ‘great displacement theory’’

is there any other times where Musk talks about this? Antonymich47 (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Other sources supporting the clasification:

• https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/another-day-another-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory-elon-musk-x
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/technology/elon-musk-endorses-antisemitic-post-ibm.html
• https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/elon-musk-great-replacement-conspiracy-theory-1234941337/
• https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/19/media/elon-musk-don-lemon-interview-analysis-hnk-intl/index.html
• https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/25/24111405/elon-musk-great-replacement-conspiracy-immigration-don-lemon

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If musk directly says that he doesn't support the theory when asked about it, can he be classified as a 'proponent'?

Proponent: A person who speaks publicly in support of a particular idea or plan of action

The articles you linked all talk about the great replacement theory, but nothing musk says in the tweets linked is really about the theory. It's about illegal immigration, which is linked, but I wouldn't say that what he is saying is specifically supporting that particular theory. 2A01:4B00:BC1D:8B00:EC04:6B4:30F3:E215 (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If Elon Musk explicitly says that he doesn't support the great displacement theory then i fail to see how this refute reliable sources saying that Elon Musk support the Great Replacement theory (bold by me). Also from the Verge: «Musk is trying to have it both ways: he wants to send obvious great replacement dogwhistles, but, lest it scare advertisers away, he doesn’t want anyone to accuse him of wholeheartedly believing in what he’s saying.» Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Replacement and displacement was a typo from me, did you watch the interview? 2A01:4B00:BC1D:8B00:4CD0:5514:EA56:AA44 (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, what can be a more reliable source for whether or not someone supports something than asking that person directly if they support something. If he was a proponent, he would be openly supporting it 2A01:4B00:BC1D:8B00:4CD0:5514:EA56:AA44 (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Re: Also, what can be a more reliable source for whether or not someone supports something than asking that person directly if they support something - this is clearly false. Lots of public figures try to maintain plausible deniability about things they demonstrably day and do; the alt-right, for example, was largely founded on this "principle". Newimpartial (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

«Replacement and displacement was a typo from me» => Got it. Please notice that you were not logged in for your last coments so your IP adress is displayed instead an username. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

«did you watch the interview?» => No. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

«If musk directly says that he doesn't support the theory when asked about it, can he be classified as a 'proponent'?» => Yes if several reliable sources say that Elon Musk support the theory (see my last edit of the article Special:Diff/1231302409) and if no reliable sources deny that Elon Musk support the theory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course, Elon Musk should not be added as a proponent. Unfortunately Wikipedia was captured by the left about ten years ago, so this kind of misinformation will not go away. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, here is a tweet in which Elon Musk pokes a hole in the logic of the great replacement theory, explaining why he does not think it is true: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1784388834538762425

However, when he makes arguments that democrats have an incentive to bring immigrants into the city to win long-term voting power, even the left recognizes he has a valid point. Thus, rather than grapple with such an inconvenient truth, they huddle together and throw "racist" and "conspiracy theory" meaningless words at him, and anyone else who holds such a belief. Such is the way of the left, and, since about ten years ago, such is the way of Wikipedia. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The article https://www.axios.com/2024/03/19/elon-musk-trump-endorsement-don-lemon does not support the statement so i removed it. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content

For context, two editors reverted my additions.
The removal: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Replacement&diff=prev&oldid=1235608874
For them I have two questions.
Is white demographic decline/falling white population a real phenomenon? Many references say it is real and there is even a Wikipedia article on it. Does white demographic decline/falling white population relate to the "Great Replacement theory"? If yes, then it deserves to me mentioned.
I welcome any feedback or additional perspectives on this matter. If no response is received within a reasonable time frame then I will assume that everyone is fine with my additions.
Regards, Alexysun (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not aware of any quality sources that specify a relationship between the Great Replacement conspiracy theory and White demographic decline. Any proposed additions to this article must be based on relevant, reliable sources rather than the opinions of editors. Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Can you please re-iterate your argument. I’m not sure I understand and I don’t want to assume what you meant. The Great Replacement theory concerns the falling of the white population and a theory on why it is falling. Is that in contention? “White demographic decline” is the name of an article of Wikipedia concerning the falling of white population. I can rewrite what I wrote and not use the article title if y’all want? Alexysun (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question: unless you have reliable sources that divide the GRCT into an empirical phenomenon and an explanation, it is WP:OR to divide the CT into an empirical phenomenon (which can then be described as "actually happening" or not) and an explanation. Providing a Wikipedia article to explain the phenomenon does not make it self-evidently relevant in the context of this article.

Without sources providing this analysis, it is WP:OR for editors to do so. Newimpartial (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. GRCT is clearly about white demographic decline. NamelessLameless (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Editors' opinions are one thing, but to include any statement about a relationship between the conspiracy and actual demographic phenomena in this article, we need reliable, independent sources that specify what the relationship actually is. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, GRCT is clearly about white demographic decline. NamelessLameless (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Without indepentent, reliable sources we can use in article space, yours is not an actionable statement. Newimpartial (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, GRCT is inherently about white demographic decline. Just any type of fish is a fish. You don't need a source for that. I will implement the edits. NamelessLameless (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I hope the participation of other, experienced editors has convinced you not to insert your own interptetation of a topic without providing direct support for the interpretation in the form of citations from reliable sources.

(Also, I learned years ago not to participate in edit warring, as my account history confirms - there is no need to bring this up again. We try to focus on content on Talk pages, rather than being distracted by our opinions of other contributors.) Newimpartial (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Newimpartial Hi. Just based on your profile I noticed that probably have a history of edit warring. So much so that it's been brought to the administrators. Twice. I have realized it is futile to engage in this argument with you and you can't even respond more than two times in one day due to your restrictions. I want to request an admin to this page as a 3rd voice. NamelessLameless (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ad hominem will not help you. Your opinion about what GR means does not matter. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on your opinion. End of story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

(ec) That's not how this works. It's on you to explain how the cited sources explicitly connect to "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, per WP:PROVEIT. From a quick glance, the edit looked like WP:SYNTH. Generalrelative (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi. See my reply to user above. Alexysun (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Please don't restore these changes without reliable sources. GRCT is inherently and clearly about a number of things, and we rely on reliable sources to guide as about which explanations/details/views to include. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not this again. Great replacement is a conspiracy theory that shadowy groups are deliberately causing population change. That there is population change is already handled in other articles, and has nothing to do with this article unless there are reliable sources directly stating that it's being caused by a shadowy group working in the background. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Added deliberate

Hi to all who may concern, If you read the original theory. It states that the population changes are “deliberate” actions. Therefore I have added this. I have also added a rebuttal. Reference already on page. Alexysun (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Alexysun, the appearance given by your edits is that the GMCT should be presented as a conspiracy theory explanation for a "real" empirical phenomenon. To my knowlege, neither the reliable sources used in this article, nor the corpus of other RS out in the wider world, treat the topic in this way. Therefore it would be WP:SYNTH to do so in this article. Newimpartial (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I have the same concern. I think the current language makes it clear that deliberate action is involved in the conspiracy theory. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2024

This article should be edited. The Great Replacement is not a conspiracy theory of white nationalists or anything of the sort. It is readily apparent and objective. This verbiage should be removed. 168.150.108.136 (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: We have reliable sources for how it is described. We're not going to change it based on an IP's opinion. And please don't raise the same issue twice. Meters (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)