wikistalinskia

So the psycho left at Wikipedia finally caved after literally HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of people fought like HELL to stop their lefty psychosis.

We documented it HERE! But while they changed the title, they made sure the very first thing they said about it wa that it WAS a conspiracy theory.

The Great Replacement (Frenchgrand remplacement) is a nationalist right-wing conspiracy theory which states that the white Catholic French population, as well as white Christian European population at large, is being progressively replaced with non-European people, specifically ArabBerber Middle EasternNorth African and Sub-Saharan African populations, through mass migration and demographic growth

Of course, people are rebelling against that. Here is the discussion. Read it for a good look into the minds of psycho lefty loonies:

What is hilarious is they INSIST on requiring articles that SPECIFICALLY denounce it as a conspiracy theory AND do not come from “the far right” meaning anyone who politically would have denounced it.  INSANE!

However, the news cycle on the New Zealand shooter has passed, so they DID THEIR DAMAGE to everyone who did a google search on the manifesto declaring it a conspiracy.

The page is NOW LOCKED and revision is NOT POSSIBLE unless you are the top admin at Wikipedia. For Shame.

We already beat this to death in the RM. conspiracy is a secret plan or agreement between persons (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason, especially with political motivation. So, lots of sloppy sources call this a conspiracy without bothering to identify either the secret plan or the conspirators. We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid news source. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard. If we cannot find one single reliable source that specifically identifies the conspirators and their secret plan, then we simply cannot call it a conspiracy.

==============

Even if you don’t speak French, you can use a machine translation on the French article and see how much more extensive, informative, neutral, and nuanced that it is. I trust that, as a primarily French topic, they have had a lot of these discussions and debates already. I am fairly new to this topic (finding just based on the Christchurch news items), and was kind of shocked to see the disparity in article quality between the English and French. I am absolutely sure there are conspiracy theories that have arisen out of this topic, but that is not the same thing as saying the topic is entirely a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory requires some named conspirators though, and Camus and others, based on the sources used here and others from the French article that will likely be incorporated someday, say that the “great replacement” is largely Camus’ subjective opinion. Camus theorizes that immigration will endanger or replace French culture – not because there an intentional plot to do so, but a consequence. Unfortunately, in this English article, the term “conspiracy theory” has been used here for a long time as a dog-whistle term, its certainly set the dogs a-barkin’ here. I would ask that you at least take a machine-translated read of the French article and consider that your passions with regards to this topic may be overblown. The former name of this article was a barrier to its improvement, and so to is the plastering of the term “conspiracy theory” across the lead. — Netoholic @ 17:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source, and the current lead of the French article also describes it as a conspiracy theory and describes Camus calling it “more or less deliberate” elite policy. We have multiple reliable sources that call it a conspiracy theory without reservation, and you have provided no sources at all to support your contention that there is some distinctive non-conspiratorial version of the theory. If you can’t provide sources, then what is there to discuss? Nblund talk 01:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: OK, now this is the second time you’ve said “Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source” and I’m close to losing my assumption of good faith about it. Its a childish statement and shows utter disrespect to fellow editors to make it. No one is saying we cite the French Wikipedia. Clearly. The French Wikipedia article on this topic though is far more developed and we should seek to emulate its basic structure, and incorporate its sources and nuanced handling into our version. There are plenty of sources, pointed out above in the RM discussion and in the article itself, and among the sources used in the French article which discuss aspects of this topic without using the term “conspiracy theory”. Of course, its easy to cherry-pick by plugging “conspiracy theory + Great Replacement” into a search engine and pretend you’re doing fair research about it, so demanding that we hold your hand and point out sources which don’t is unfairly asking to prove a negative – but OK I’m up for the challenge. Using Google Scholar, the number of mentions of “Great Replacement” and “Renaud Camus” which do mention “conspiracy” is ~11 but the number that do NOT mention “conspiracy” is ~15. As should be obvious, this is simply not the monolithic topic topic you think it is, and NPOV coverage of it demands that we not make over-reaching statements from the outset. If you can’t get that, and if you continue to make stupid statements like above, then I anticipate you are not here to actually improve this topic at all, and prefer our version of this article to stay stunted. I’d say its pretty clear where you stand in opposition to this concept, and consider that it may be tainting your chance at a neutral approach to it. — Netoholic @ 04:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

You’re saying we should add information to the Wikipedia entry on the basis of another Wikipedia entry. If you’re not suggesting that we should cite Wikipedia then you’re suggesting we should plagiarize it. In either case, you’re still using Wikipedia as a source, and that won’t work. I’m asking you to prove a positive by providing a source that explicitly supports the claim that that Camus’s version is a distinct non-conspiratorial version of this theory. If the French Wikipedia has sources for this claim, find them and cite those. Assume whatever you want, but this fairly basic stuff. Nblund talk 14:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m going to take the advice at the top of this page and deny further recognition of someone who dares to make an accusation of plagiarism against another editor of good standing as a personal attack. — Netoholic @ 02:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but you still need to seek consensus for your proposed changes. I went ahead and posted an additional request for outside input at WP:OR/N. Please refrain from edit warring in the meantime. Nblund talk 12:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Your options are to file an RFC or drop the stick, not edit war because others disagree with your preferred version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Since its been requested that we cite sources which do not describe the Great Replacement as a “conspiracy theory”, here are four[1][2][3][4]. These also happen to be the same sources recently added by Nblund, so I’ll anticipate he has no problem with the lead being a little less monolithic in its description. Thanks Nblund. — Netoholic @ 19:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

That isn’t sufficient, since we have numerous sources describing it as a conspiracy theory and none of those contradict it. More importantly, your “have developed” version implies there’s a clear distinction between the two topics (a conspiracy theory, and an expression), which doesn’t reflect the huge amount of sourcing that covers the entire topic as a conspiracy theory. You must find sources unambiguously making that distinction if you want to state it as fact in the lead. —Aquillion (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Another set of requirements that is simply moving the goalposts. We have numerous sources which are very critical of the concept, but do not describe it as a conspiracy theory. Also, I’ve shown above that most academic sources do not describe it that way. This all demands that we not state it unequivocally as such. If you really want sources that “contradict it” as a conspiracy theory, then those will come from far-right publications which specifically endorse his views… which I for one don’t look forward to delving into and of course you’ll likely reject anyway, and move the goalposts again. The “conspiracy theory” dog-whistle has you all dancing, and I can’t help but notice its the same people that voted “oppose” to the recent RM. Pinging other participants to get their views – Wei4GreenWumbolowbm1058AaronfrankeGrayfell. — Netoholic @ 20:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I asked for sources that explicitly supported the claim – this is part of WP:STICKTOSOURCE. You may have misunderstood what I was asking for, but no one’s moving the goal posts. A google scholar search is not a systematic method of determining weight. Nblund talk 02:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • We already beat this to death in the RM. conspiracy is a secret plan or agreement between persons (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason, especially with political motivation. So, lots of sloppy sources call this a conspiracy without bothering to identify either the secret plan or the conspirators. We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid news source. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard. If we cannot find one single reliable source that specifically identifies the conspirators and their secret plan, then we simply cannot call it a conspiracy. It’s as simple as that. And it doesn’t matter whether you find ten or a hundred sources that call it a conspiracy without identifying the specific conspirators and their plan. At minimum, you must find one source that does identify the conspirators and their plan. wbm1058 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)