Acroterion (talk | contribs) Reverted 1 edit by 138.88.248.199 (talk): Still not a forum |
138.88.248.199 (talk) Undid revision 1190426046 by Acroterion (talk) it's not your personal page. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Tags: Undo Reverted |
||
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
::Demographics change all the time. It is normal. There is no need for a conspiracy to achieve it. Of course, there are xenohobic elements who try to prevent it by closing borders. |
::Demographics change all the time. It is normal. There is no need for a conspiracy to achieve it. Of course, there are xenohobic elements who try to prevent it by closing borders. |
||
::{{tq|they haven't claimed the conspiracy portion}} Except in the parts you chose to ignore, like you ignored the bold part above. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 16:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC) |
::{{tq|they haven't claimed the conspiracy portion}} Except in the parts you chose to ignore, like you ignored the bold part above. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 16:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::In fact, I didn't ignore that part - I said "'''''the first paragraph mentions that briefly'''''". But the problem is that the emphasis in the first paragraph, and indeed, the entire article, makes it sound like the demographic change itself is the conspiracy theory. I thought I would discuss that here before making changes. On another note, it's ludicrous to claim Vivek Ramaswamy and Tucker Carlson are pushing a conspiracy theory because they say Democrats allow more immigration. Democrats are a not a fictitious cabal, but an actual political party currently in control of the US border, and our enforcing the immigration laws. Conversely, that would mean it would be a conspiracy theory to say that Republicans are trying to restrict immigration. BTW I also don't appreciate the attempt to end discussion about this article by reverting the talk page.[[Special:Contributions/138.88.248.199|138.88.248.199]] ([[User talk:138.88.248.199|talk]]) 20:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:57, 18 December 2023
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
General approach to the subject
Extended content
|
---|
I am not, personally, comfortable with the general approach to the subject here. It leans heavily into an emotional characterization of the idea as a "racist conspiracy theory" and does not engage the real argument of its proponents, which means the article will be of little value in public discourse. The main flaw in my view is that it conflates a real demographic trend, on the one hand, with the distortion and misuse of that trend, and the real conspiracy theory which is that the demographics are being intentionally engineered by shadowy elites, on the other. This unfortunate sentence appears: "Mainstream scholars have dismissed these claims as rooted in a misunderstanding of demographic statistics and premised upon an unscientific, racist worldview." With three references, none of which in fact supports the proposition that the demographic change at the heart of the Great Replacement Theory is not happening. This approach to the subject contributes to polarization, as it denies an actual fact and simply smears the people who are concerned about it without engaging the actual fact or the arguments of the people who are concerned about it. The deeper truth here is that race itself is an unscientific concept, and ethnic and cultural change of populations over time is natural and inevitable. Birth rates decline in developed countries, and faster among the better educated and wealthier contingents in their populations, and to less than replacement levels in most developed countries -- that's an uncontroversial fact. It is natural that countries in demographic decline NEED immigrants to keep their economies going, and these immigrants generally enrich and enhance the cultures of the countries they immigrate to -- that's the whole American idea, isn't it? It's harder to persuade people that this is nothing to be worried about, but that is the only honest approach. The article is disappointing -- not up to usual Wiki standards of logic and tone. And the whole article is a serious violation of the Neutral Point of View policy -- it does not at all represent the point of view of the proponents of the theory, much less fairly. In my view it should be scrapped and done over. Csawyer99 (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
|
Islamophobia
Isn't pinning this as being primarily about Islamophobia a bit of a failure to internationalize the issue? It seems a little more like, "Any brown person from wherever the brown people are coming from." ... "Oh yeah, also black people." ... "Oh yeah, and Jews sometimes." ... "Really just anyone who isn't light skinned...but also Jews." It seems like the Islamophobia sidebar is really underselling the boundless creativity of racists and conspiracy theorists. GMGtalk 10:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- The sidebar does not say that this is "primarily about Islamophobia", but only that it's "part of a series" of articles that deal with Islamophobia. And certainly Islamophobia is a large part of the story. If you want, you could add other related issues in the sidebar under "issues". NightHeron (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- It...very strongly implies that this is primarily an issue of Islamophobia. And no, I don't want to add more sidebars, because sidebars tend to be disruptive to formatting. GMGtalk 12:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- In some countries it does seem to be primarily Islamophobia, and in other countries it's not. The former cases provide justification for the article being listed in a series of articles that deal with Islamophobia. NightHeron (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the single, coherent subject standard means "not a complex multifaceted subject." GMGtalk 13:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I read "
All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject
" to be saying in this case that all articles having the Islamophobia template must relate to the topic of Islamophobia, and that Islamophobia must be a single, coherent subject, which it is. I do not think it says that the Great Replacement topic can't have several other aspects in addition to Islamophobia. NightHeron (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)- I could also go with
The placement of a sidebar in the lead is generally discouraged
from WP:LEAD. GMGtalk 14:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)- But that policy also says that this can be decided on a case by case basis. Where would you want to move the sidebar to? NightHeron (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- To an article that is primarily about Islamophobia? To...an article that doesn't include like...the president of Tunisia saying that his country was becoming too black? Kais Saied is a Muslim. Template:Discrimination sidebar...like...exists. GMGtalk 12:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Your previous comment said you didn't think the sidebar should go in the lead. So I was asking where in the article other than in the lead would you prefer. We were not talking about other articles where the sidebar should go, which wouldn't be an appropriate topic for this talk-page anyway. NightHeron (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- It was a rhetorical device. Like if...I dunno...some drunk frat kid leaves their car on your lawn, and says "Well where do you want me to put it?" And you reply "Some other lawn." GMGtalk 12:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Your previous comment said you didn't think the sidebar should go in the lead. So I was asking where in the article other than in the lead would you prefer. We were not talking about other articles where the sidebar should go, which wouldn't be an appropriate topic for this talk-page anyway. NightHeron (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- To an article that is primarily about Islamophobia? To...an article that doesn't include like...the president of Tunisia saying that his country was becoming too black? Kais Saied is a Muslim. Template:Discrimination sidebar...like...exists. GMGtalk 12:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- But that policy also says that this can be decided on a case by case basis. Where would you want to move the sidebar to? NightHeron (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I could also go with
- I read "
- I'm pretty sure the single, coherent subject standard means "not a complex multifaceted subject." GMGtalk 13:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- In some countries it does seem to be primarily Islamophobia, and in other countries it's not. The former cases provide justification for the article being listed in a series of articles that deal with Islamophobia. NightHeron (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- It...very strongly implies that this is primarily an issue of Islamophobia. And no, I don't want to add more sidebars, because sidebars tend to be disruptive to formatting. GMGtalk 12:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have boldly shifted it to Template:Discrimination sidebar -- because the bold word "Islamaphobia" does make an argument consistent with what GMG is highlighting, and we should be careful about how much we make implied arguments about a topic like this -- its a really vile theory already, we don't need to give it other attributes that are not universal to the theory, Sadads (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Incorrect source
Some Republican politicians have endorsed the theory in order to appeal to far-right members of the Republican Party and as a way of signalling their loyalty to Donald Trump
The linked source says nothing in the subject and cannot be verified. Proposal to remove or add a source for such a charged political statement. 24.191.98.196 (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Did you read the entire source? It clearly makes that statement. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Britannica?
How did a locked article end up using references like Encyclopedia Britannica? 194.102.58.6 (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Far right conspiracy
Not sure how this has been designated as a far right conspiracy theory if many of those enacting it have plainly stated their aims. Are these not the droids we are looking for? 159.196.13.167 (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Globalization isn't a conspiracy, but a product of international trade relationships which happens by itself. And the protections for political refugees have been adopted long ago by Western countries, and this cannot be construed as a conspiracy. In fact, writing this from the Netherlands, most Dutch politicians see refugees as less and less welcome. And most immigration to the Netherlands aren't refugees, but EU workers, who enjoy freedom to relocate and seek jobs in other EU countries than their own. Refugees cost money, EU workers keep this country running. Are the US a conspiracy just because people can freely relocate from one US state to another US state? tgeorgescu (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- you aren't addressing his question at all138.88.248.199 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- I have a similar question. How can the first paragraph state that "ethnic French and white European populations at large are being demographically and culturally replaced by non-white peoples" is "premised upon an unscientific, racist worldview" while at the same time, every major news source and scientific study on the subject confirms that self-identified white people are in a sharp demographic decline? In fact, this very article contains a link to another page called White Demographic Decline, which is considered a fact, not fantasy. At a minimum, the first paragraph should be clear that the actual conspiracy is the contention that some specific group is making it happen. As it is, the first paragraph mentions that briefly, but a reader really would get the impression that the demographic change itself is a conspiracy theory. BTW, the article should also be more clear that public figures like Vivek Ramaswamy or Tucker Carlson are often simply talking about demographic replacement, they haven't claimed the conspiracy portion, that some Jewish cabal or similar group is behind it. 138.88.248.199 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Vivek Ramaswamy and Tucker Carlson have both claimed that the Democratic Party is the
specific group
behind changing US demographics. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) - That's easy! When I read your question, I suspected that you took the quotes out of context. And indeed you did. You omitted the bold part from this:
with the complicity or cooperation of "replacist" elites, the ethnic French and white European populations at large are being demographically and culturally replaced by non-white peoples
- Demographics change all the time. It is normal. There is no need for a conspiracy to achieve it. Of course, there are xenohobic elements who try to prevent it by closing borders.
they haven't claimed the conspiracy portion
Except in the parts you chose to ignore, like you ignored the bold part above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)- In fact, I didn't ignore that part - I said "the first paragraph mentions that briefly". But the problem is that the emphasis in the first paragraph, and indeed, the entire article, makes it sound like the demographic change itself is the conspiracy theory. I thought I would discuss that here before making changes. On another note, it's ludicrous to claim Vivek Ramaswamy and Tucker Carlson are pushing a conspiracy theory because they say Democrats allow more immigration. Democrats are a not a fictitious cabal, but an actual political party currently in control of the US border, and our enforcing the immigration laws. Conversely, that would mean it would be a conspiracy theory to say that Republicans are trying to restrict immigration. BTW I also don't appreciate the attempt to end discussion about this article by reverting the talk page.138.88.248.199 (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Vivek Ramaswamy and Tucker Carlson have both claimed that the Democratic Party is the