This page is biased and cannot be seen as objective.

The use of the term "conspiracy theory" is confusing. Is the theory itself a conspiracy or physical replacement of native white Europeans the conspiracy.

Attempts to criticize the article seem to be shut down with "this is not a page about demographics" however that is the core issue and little discussion is given to debating demographics.

Taking the UK as an example. Census data in from the 1960s / 1970s indicates in London a c.1% Islamic population and a c.1/8th non white population. Currently London is probably majority non white and around 10% Islamic. Also a majority of Londoners were not born in the UK. The UK London Census data states around 20% of the school age population is now Islamic. These are huge changes with evidently most of Londoners not born in the UK, and millions of British of a new religion previously not really present in great numbers and of a different phenotype. This is the "theory" of the original book i.e. People are coming to the West from other continents with different cultures and the percentage "native" is being reduced rapidly.

As far as the term "conspiracy theory" this appears to be a deliberately misleading term and is not really a key part of the theory. My understanding is the original book uses the term loosely to mean government policy/high level officials promoting (or not preventing) mass immigration presumably for economic reasons. The article promotes the idea that the overall theory is that some malign force is doing this for some nefarious reason, rather than that it is statistical fact viewed post event (i.e. Consider London Demographics noted in UK census data) and has happened due to Government policy. The fact that half the people in London are now not white skinned and were not born in the UK etc has happened and is supported by census data. Presumably the same has happened in many European places.

I would suggest the core article provides a robust and review of bona fide statistical analysis and uses a number of sources regarding demographic changes in the West and compares with countries where demography (specifically racial) is not changing. Its not acceptable to say its a conspiracy theory and them claim the article should not consider statistics/demographic change.

Generally a shoddy article with a lot of gate keeping and refusal to engage with demographic change with is evidently the core issue at hand. ~2025-41850-96 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before wasting everyone's time by making a thoroughly uninformed comment that the article is shoddy, perhaps take time to read the actual article, understand that it's about the conspiracy theory not the demographic change, and read the well-covered discussions that already answer EVERY item you mentioned.<SMH> (any editor considering deletion for WP:NOTFORUM, feel free.) ButlerBlog (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is uninformed about my comment. I read the article and it is biased and selective in its use of sources. Hiding behind a a straw man "Conspiracy Theory" is dishonest. No one reasonable is arguing that a cabal of bad actors are doing a "bad thing". That was not the thesis of the original book. The core theory is that rapid demographic and cultural change is happening, but for some reason this is off the menu for discussion. Pathetic really. This is why people vote for Donald Trump, Reform, AFD, etc. ~2025-41850-96 (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to expand an answer beyond that because it is already covered above. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very dishonest argument mate. Why are the majority of European and American politicians so focused on immigration then? Meloni, Trump, Starmer, etc etc, ad finitum.

You have made up a "conspiracy theory" which does not and never did. Do you know what a conspiracy is? Its a group action in secret it means to "breathe together" and implies dishonest secret actors.

The original book is simply making an argument against observable demographic change and you have turned it into a cloak and dagger Guy Fawkes story.

Why are you so against renaming the article "The great replacement theory"? The Term conspiracy theory is being used to devalue and denigrate a theory which clearly a majority or significant minority of voters and politicians now believe in.

~2025-41850-96 (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saying I am uninformed just because I criticise the article is unreasonable.

I feel the article as is says something like "bad racists and crackpots think evil people are doing bad things in secret".

The current debate concerns a "weak theory" would suggesting massive demographic change is happening, has happened and many many people believe this and doing like it.

The last line in paragraph one of the main article is especially infantile. Also noting the sources are from 2017 and 2022!

Mainstream scholars have dismissed these claims of a conspiracy of "replacist" elites as rooted in a misunderstanding of demographic statistics and premised upon an unscientific, racist worldview.

Got these of an AI search

Recent Major Peer-Reviewed Articles (2024–2025)

"The neoliberal Great Replacement theory: on the racialization of markets and the libertarian fascist temptation" (Journal of Political Ideologies, May 2025): This article documents a "neoliberal iteration" of the theory, tracing its logic through thinkers like Hans-Hermann Hoppe who argue that globalist elites use migration to undermine cultural homogeneity necessary for free markets.

"Public Belief in the 'Great Replacement Theory'" (International Migration Review, June 2025): Provides a nationally representative empirical investigation of belief in the theory, distinguishing between a "weak version" focused on demographic change and a "strong version" invoking elite conspiracies.

"Who Believes in the 'Great Replacement'? Political Attitudes and the Ideological Positioning of its Supporters in Europe" (Social Science Quarterly, February 2025): A cross-national study of 10 European democracies finding that belief in the theory is associated with declining trust in democracy and greater acceptance of political violence.

"The great replacement narrative: fear, anxiety and loathing across the West" (Journal of Contemporary European Studies, November 2024): This article examines the structure of the narrative and challenges the categorization of the theory as a simple conspiracy, arguing it functions more as an "imagined community" construct. ~2025-41850-96 (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you have access to these sources can you provide some relevant quotes from the text that illustrate your point? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:02, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saying I am uninformed just because I criticise the article is unreasonable. I didn't say you were uninformed because you criticized the article. I said you were uninformed because it's clear you did not bother to see that your objections have already been raised and discussed ad nauseum in various threads above. You're covering ground that has already been covered. In other words, you're WP:BLUDGEONING, which we take a dim view of here. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A significant minority of voters also believe that immigrants are garbage, the worst of the worst criminals, eat people’s pets, rapists, come from prisons, from mental institutions, insane asylums, are poisoning the blood of our country, etc. We won’t give credence to that racism here ether. As for dishonest secret actors, one US party has been claiming for years that the other party has been flooding the country with immigrants so they will vote for them. That implies dishonest secret actors. As for you comment that an editor here made up a conspiracy theory, I suggest you strike that as well as your characterization of dishonesty. WP:CIV O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like it that my post is read and considered as I spent my time to read this article. I would like to suggest a clarification to improve neutrality and attribution in this article, in line with WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

Mainstream academic and governmental sources acknowledge that demographic change resulting from immigration, differential birth rates, and globalization is a measurable phenomenon. However, these sources generally reject claims of intentionality, conspiracy, or coordinated design, which form the ideological core of The Great Replacement narrative.

Some current wording risks implying that demographic change itself is “debunked,” rather than making clear that what scholars reject is the conspiratorial interpretation of those changes.

To improve clarity, I suggest: • Distinguishing documented demographic trends from ideological interpretations • Attributing evaluative terms such as “debunked” to specific sources • Clarifying that scholarly rejection concerns intent and conspiracy, not demographic change itself

These adjustments would improve precision and neutrality without legitimizing extremist claims. Libfaktbase (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is already in the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any mentions of the truths of it are not immediately mentioned, whilst in the first couple sentences of the article it is labeled as "debunked" as if it is entirely false. This needs to be consistent in its neutrality. Libfaktbase (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is false according to reliable sources. Please read the entire article, this entire talk page, and the innumerable discussions in the archives. You have provided no sources. Encyclopedias use reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that and more. If you would argue that it maintains neutrality throughout the article the only changes needed would be to remove any claims of the ideology being false. This article isn't about the demographics, but it is impossible to ignore the demographic change in relevant countries, therefore you can't fully denounce the great replacement as false. Libfaktbase (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've just further demonstrated the problem. The "It" part at the start of your reply. What exactly is the "It" that's debunked, should to be clarified.

If someone says "Donald Trump was involved in a sex ring scandal with Jeffrey Epstein because he was abused as a child". And people say there's no evidence he was abused, to call "It" debunked would be a disservice and mislead readers into thinking he wasn't involved with Jeffrey Epstein at all. LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing that reliable sources describe The Great Replacement as a conspiracy theory. My concern is with clarity and attribution, not re-evaluating sources.

Specifically, when the lead states that “it is debunked,” it is unclear whether “it” refers to:

• the claim of intentional, coordinated replacement, or

• demographic change more broadly

Reliable sources reject the conspiratorial interpretation, not the existence of demographic change itself. Clarifying this distinction in wording would improve precision and reader understanding without altering the article’s overall conclusion or weight.

This is a request for clear attribution and scope, consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Libfaktbase (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is perfectly clear about the subject of the article and what is debunked. This has been discussed to death. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clear is a stretch. It is still far from entirely truthful and neutral. I won't bother this topic much more but my only goal here is for someone to rephrase and/or rewrite some of this article, most importantly the introduction. I will do all I myself can do to help, but your aid is very appreciated. Libfaktbase (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Libfaktbase I see your very first edit was here. What brought you to this article? I’m sure it wasn’t chance. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about demographic changes, it's about a supposed conspiracy theory to bring about demographic changes. Wikipedia has articles covering all the demographic changes that have happened in great detail, this isn't one of them. Noone has ever shown any reliable sources that consider this conspiracy theory as being anything but nonsense, while there are many reliable sources saying it's a load of debunked bullshit. If you want to change anything you'll need to state what changes you want to see, and show reliable sources that support those changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The conspiracy theory is directly tied to the demographic changes. Libfaktbase (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And again... as has already been noted, that's a "concern" that has been addressed multiple times in threads above this. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changes have happened they're well documented in the appropriate articles, this article is about a supposed conspiracy theory of an elite deliberately causing those changes. The details of actual demographic changes are unrelated to this article, as the demographic changes are not the result of the conspiracy theory. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article states: "A consensus of academic scholars have dismissed these claims of a conspiracy of "replacist" elites as rooted in a misunderstanding of demographic statistics and premised upon an unscientific, racist worldview"

So the framing of the article as a conspiracy confuses the whole narrative. How is demography being misunderstood precisely? Clearly London is now majority non white and non British born and this has happened in a lifetime with starting point of say 12.5% (non white). The UK white population is now around 18% based on census data and this century the UK will likely be non white majority. This replacement of ethnic and cultural norms is not happening in the global south, perhaps with the exception of sinofication in various places.

I would suggest the conspiracy is a minor part of a statistical theory and not a core or even very clear part of the Renaud text. I accept the framing of a conspiracy as an antisemitic trope (for example) but it is confusing to have it here.

There should be two articles one focusing on the voices/commentary that drive the conspiracy theory narrative e.g. Anti semitic, Islamic conspiracy, etc. Then there should be a different article focusing on the effects of mass migrations from the global south into wealthy nations, this is the "weak form" of the Global Replacement Theory that does not involve a conspiracy but rather focuses on economic factors. There is a conspiracy in the weak form in its literal definition in that Government Policy is being enacted. e.g. The Boris wave in the UK.

The title "The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory" is unclear. It is unclear if the article is about a conspiracy theory about the great replacement or if it is about the great replacement .

Then the first paragraph states the theory is "debunked" clearly the theory is true in the "weak form" in that it is statistically an objective fact caused by economics / government policies. The characterisation of the theory as "debunked", "white nationalist" and a "far-right conspiracy theory" is problematic. ~2025-41850-96 (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]