Talk:Great Replacement conspiracy theory

Proposal to include sourced statement on demographic change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to propose adding the following material to the lead, which was disputed:

(("While immigration and a demographic shift away from a white majority are well documented,)) a consensus of academic scholars have dismissed the claims of a conspiracy of "replacist" elites as premised upon an unscientific, racist worldview.[16][17][18]

References: "U.S. population projections: 2020 to 2060". U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 2026-04-02.Frey, William H. (March 14, 2018). "The US will become 'minority white' in 2045, Census projects". Brookings Institution. Brookings Institution. Retrieved 2026-04-02."

(these references were mentioned and acknowledged in citations supporting the dismissal of the conspiracy theory)

Rationale

This addition is supported by high-quality, reliable sources, including the U.S. Census Bureau and the Brookings Institution. These sources document long-term demographic projections and trends in the United States, including shifts in racial composition driven by factors such as immigration and birth rates. The purpose of this sentence is not to endorse any ideological interpretation, but to accurately reflect well-documented demographic data. In fact, including this context strengthens compliance with WP:NPOV by distinguishing between: Empirically supported demographic trends (as reported by mainstream institutions), and Unsupported claims of coordinated or intentional "replacement," which are central to the conspiracy theory. Without acknowledging the underlying demographic data, the article risks presenting an incomplete picture that may confuse readers about why the theory resonates with some groups. Per WP:NPOV, significant, well-sourced background information should be included where it improves reader understanding, as the Great Replacement Conspiracy theory was a response to fears to these very statistics.

Addressing neutrality concerns

Some editors have expressed concerns that this wording may violate neutrality. However, neutrality does not require omission of verifiable facts. Rather, it requires that facts be presented without endorsement of fringe interpretations. This sentence does exactly that: It attributes demographic trends to reliable sources. It avoids causal or conspiratorial framing. It does not validate the "Great Replacement" claim, only the existence of demographic change. In this sense, the addition improves neutrality by clearly separating mainstream demographic research from fringe ideological narratives. Anticommunist 6 (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - muddles the lead; this is too region-specific for the first paragraph of the lead. If it's not in the body of the article, it doesn't belong in the lead. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I would concur with ButlerBlog's comment in the prior section. Adding US specific content to the lead of an international article isn't due, and the lead is meant to summarise the body of the article not be a place for new additions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:47, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV does not permit the inclusion of a “verifiable fact” that is irrelevant to the topic of the article, especially not if it’s included in such a way as to appear to support a fringe POV. In the part of the proposed edit in double parentheses the “While” in the meaning of “even though” seems to cast doubt on the scholarly consensus that’s mentioned in the second part of the sentence.

That edit is problematic for several reasons. Demographic changes cannot be described by a simplistic statement about proportion of whites. Who counts as “white”? Races are socially constructed, not defined scientifically. How are people whose parents are socially regarded as of different races (much more common in the U.S. now than in earlier generations) categorized? Are all Latin American immigrants categorized as non-white, even if they’re entirely or mainly of European ancestry? What if the fact that their first language is Spanish means that U.S. racists, such as the I.C.E. thugs, perceive them as being non-white and part of the “replacement” conspiracy?

Also, your sources are both about the U.S., whereas the Great Replacement conspiracy theory is fueled as much by racism in Europe as in the U.S. However, the problems with this edit cannot be solved by adding sources about demographics in Europe. NightHeron (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not neutral to be using US census data for this conspiracy theory, or really any raw, primary census data. I'd also mention it's generally frowned upon to compose talk page commentary in LLM software. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• I believe that (1) the U.S. census determines racial classification entirely according to self-identification; (2) over the years the U.S. census has added new choices for self-identification, such as mixed-race categories; and (3) in the U.S. there is no longer the strong stigma that in earlier times was attached to mixed-race membership. If I’m right about this, then the proportion of whites according to the U.S. census would have dropped even if there were no demographic change. This is an example of the pitfalls in using primary sources. NightHeron (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  +1 Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I've been thinking how to easily explain why demographic changes aren't relevant here. Imagine that there was a conspiracy theory that 'Dave' (whoever that might be) was going to make the sun come up tomorrow. When the sun comes up tomorrow that has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory about 'Dave' being the cause of it rise.
This page isn't about demographic changes, Wikipedia has extensive articles about those changes, this article is about a conspiracy theory that a select group is doing that deliberately to wipe out white people (or originally white French people). It's not about any demographic changes that have happened, which again are extensively covered by other articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputed content (graph)

Nahleghini is invited to discuss the graph they seek to add rather than edit warring. By my count, four experienced editors have reverted this content. If this user's rationale for inclusion is sound, they should be able to persuade others here. Generalrelative (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Generalrelative This recent edit differs from those prior, addressing a previous concern best I could, with the exception of the mentionned graph. I will republish the edit without the graph for now, tough I indeed believe that its relevancy to the section seems hard to dispute, I suppose you could say it "draws attention" or gives undue WP:WEIGHT in an unfitting way since this is for an admittedly minor section, although it could then simply be made visibly smaller. In any case I did not intend to "edit war" with this. nahle.ghini (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It still adds the type of content that is disputed, and the onus is on your to find consensus for it's inclusion. See my comment here on why I don't think this is due inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested (talk · contribs)«I've been thinking how to easily explain why demographic changes aren't relevant here. Imagine that there was a conspiracy theory that 'Dave' (whoever that might be) was going to make the sun come up tomorrow. When the sun comes up tomorrow that has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory about 'Dave' being the cause of it rise. This page isn't about demographic changes, Wikipedia has extensive articles about those changes, this article is about a conspiracy theory that a select group is doing that deliberately to wipe out white people (or originally white French people). It's not about any demographic changes that have happened, which again are extensively covered by other articles.» I see your point here, how on a page about "the dave phenomenon", including a random table about the sun having risen for the past week might seem thoughtless. Howver I encourage you to read the revision you reverted, and note that the section dedicated to demographic statistics was not created as part of my edit, despite being very brief prior, motivating me to add onto what I saw as a placeholder(note:Do you oppose my edit specifically or the section?).

I would also like to respectfully disagree that an article on a conspiracy about demographic changes should avoid any acknowledgment of demographic changes even when they offers a methodical debunking of its wilder claims. Here is the paragraph (without the graph as I now see it may give undue weight), please inform me whether this appears disputable in your view (or others who see this):

"While the ethnic demography of France has shifted as a result of post-WWII immigration, scholars have generally dismissed the claims of a "great replacement" as being rooted in an exaggeration of immigration statistics and unscientific, racially prejudiced views. Geographer Landis MacKellar criticized Camus's thesis for assuming "that third- and fourth- generation 'immigrants' are somehow not French." Muslim immigration to France has caused disproportionate spread of "great replacement" rhetoric throughout the political right, with researchers estimating the Muslim population of France at between 8.8% and 12.5% in 2017. In 2025, a CNews commentator claimed that "Muslims will be the majority in 2050", an affirmation similar to those of far-right politician Eric Zemmour. Despite these claims, a Pew Research Center estimated 5.7 million Muslims in France as of 2016, up from approximately 7.5% in 2010, with the center's estimates for the muslim population of 2050 only reaching up to 18%, far from a majority." nahle.ghini (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Strong agree with ActivelyDisinterested. This just doesn't belong here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The whole thing? nahle.ghini (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Also wish to point out the even tough this conspiracy has "outgrown" France, the analysis section is still centered on France and so is much of the article, hence the focus here also. nahle.ghini (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think French demographics are any more relevant to this article than American demographics are. Simonm223 (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I would agree. Demographic changes happen, they are a normal part of existence. Unless a source links that demographic change directly to this conspiracy theory it's not due inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, with how often we have to discuss this it might be wise for us to consider an FAQ to note that this page is about the conspiracy theory and should not engage with natural demographic change, except in reliable sources that explicitly make the comparison, as that is irrelevant to a bunch of paranoid racist ideation about demographic change. Simonm223 (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The FAQ should explain not only that the notion of a conspiracy is unfounded racist paranoia, but also that the implicit assumption that an ethnically and racially diverse community (where whites are not necessarily more than 50% of the population) is bad for whites is also racist nonsense. In the U.S., for example, immigrants typically come in order to find work that will support them and also enable them to send money to family in Mexico, Cuba, or wherever. They take jobs in sectors of the economy, such as agriculture and construction, that otherwise would suffer from a labor shortage. They are willing to work outdoors even in the blistering heat of summer days in the American southwest. Immigration is also the main reason why the U.S. does not have the problem of demographic inversion (increasing proportion of old people and diminishing numbers of young workers) that Japan, China, and some countries of Europe are facing. NightHeron (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we need to at least rename the Great Replacement conspiracy theory#Demographic statistics section, or move the two sentences in it somewhere else and delete that header. Having a section called "Demographic statistics" kind of invites editor to add general demographic statistics. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I renamed it "Demographic Refutation" to start so that, at least, the element of refutation is included in the header. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I support this change and I would propose the material currently there be a subsection for France/Europe since from a few searches it does seem "great replacement" is now often mentionned in terms of american demographics. I would still maintain there should be an overall focus towards France, most sources I could find on the "american variant" of the conspiracy comes from newspapers, while scholarly sources still mainly discuss it in the context of its relationship with European demographic changes. nahle.ghini (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Source already linked do make that link (for EU/France), otherwise I would not have included it.

"Yet, demography is conspicuously absent from the policy debate on immigration in Germany.

We would not expect the political left to emphasize demographic projections, given its broadly

supportive stance on immigration. But the silence on the political right is puzzling. Parties and

commentators who are outspokenly critical of mass immigration rarely invoke demographic

arguments, which would arguably be their strongest case. The only people talking about

demography are those on the extreme right, who often use bizarre exaggerations evoking an

imminent Muslim takeover (‘Great Replacement’) (The New York Times 2019). On the

moderate right, which is generally not shy to criticize both immigration and Islam, there is

silence. This conspicuous absence of demography from the political discourse suggests that the

mechanics of population dynamics may simply not be well understood, even among those with

the strongest incentive to engage with them

Similarly, questions about demographic projections are hardly part of national or international surveys.

One of few examples is the Perils of Perception 2016 survey of the British research institute Ipsos MORI which elicits how respondents perceive key issues about their countries, including the number of Muslims that live there.

However, respondents are asked to provide estimations that mainly refer to current population shares and not to predictions of long-term demographic trends

The only study we are aware of that addresses the growing Muslim population as result of the

2015/2016 refugee influx is the report by the Pew Research Center (Pew Research Center

2017). The study models three scenarios on the growth of the Muslim population which differ

on future levels of migration from Muslim countries. Already with zero or medium migration

in the future, the Muslim population will reach shares between 8.7% to 10.8% of the German

population in 2050. In the high migration scenario this share increases even to roughly 20%.

According to our calculations these figures should be regarded as lower bound. First, family

reunification is not considered, even though in 2003 the Council of the European Union (EU)

adopted Directive 2003/86/EC that determines the right to family reunification by third-country

nationals residing lawfully in EU member states. Secondly, the crucial assumption in the Pew

study is that the migrants immediately adopt the fertility rates of the existing Muslim

population. In our view, this assumption is highly questionable, in particular when looking at

the empirical evidence of past immigration to Europe. Milewski (2007)"

"Michèle Tribalat of the Institut National d'Études Démographiques (INED) has argued that the restriction forces policymakers to proceed with eyes wide shut, but Hervé Le Bras of the École d'Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) counters that such statistics simply objectify and dignify racist prejudices. Both views have some validity. Whichever way you feel, a consequence of our ignorance is that the specter of Le Grand Remplacement haunts French politics"

"The conspiratorial aspect is demonstrated by a Pew Research Center’s statistic which

estimates that there will be between 7,4% and 14% Muslims living in Europe in 2050 compared

to 4,9% in 2017 (Pew Research Center, 2017). Moreover, in 2024, Eurostat estimates that there

is 9,9% of non-European immigrants living in Europe. Thus, these statistics point to the blatant

inexistence of a population “replacement”, cementing the fact that the Great Replacement is a

conspiracy theory as its content is refuted by demographic statistics (Eurostat, 2025)."

Is the relevancy truly not shown? Omitting any mention demographics at all would seem sincerely detrimental to the article, as far as I can tell.

nahle.ghini (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

This is misleading

"except in the substitution of antisemitic tropes with Islamophobia" While this seems to be true, it is misleading as most people who promote the theory also are antisemitic. ~2026-31718-21 (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hatnote to White demographic decline article

I believe that there should be a "hatnote" at the top of this article saying "for the factual phenomenon regarding White demographic decline, see White demographic decline", but my edits have been reverted by User:Objective3000, who said that it "appears [I am] changing the subject of this article" and User:ActivelyDisinterested, who said that "many lengthy talk page discussion have concluded that the actual demographic decline has no relevance to this article". First, I do not understand why having a such a note changes the subject of this article. Second, I do not know exactly what discussion ActivelyDisinterested is referring to, though I thought you may be referring to User:NightHeron's comment on 2 April 2026.

It is a fact that White people, or more specifically, people whose ancestry is principally European, are in significant demographic decline, in particular in Europe and in countries that were previously predominantly inhabited by such people, including the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and, at the same time, that in most countries in Europe, and the four other countries I mentioned, primarily due to intercontinental migration (in combination with other factors), the demographic trends are such that the population of people whose ancestry is not principally European is increasing in size both in relateive and absolute terms, while the population of people whose ancestry is principally European is decreasing in size both in relative and absolute terms. Anyone who denies this is simply incorrect. The subject of this is the article White demographic decline.

The subject of this article is the conspiracy theory that this phenomenon is being intentionally brought about by a conspiracy of elites who seek to achieve the total or near-total replacement of White people with other populations. This conspiracy theory is unsubstantiated and debunked (as this article says) and anyone who believes it is incorrect.

The factual phenomenon of White demographic decline is very relavant to this article, in the sense that the Great Replacement conspiracy theory offers an (incorrect) explaination of why it is occuring. I therefore believe that this article should have a hatnote to that article, as these two subjects can be conflated. I want to have a discussion and I invite those who disagree to explain why.

Cyrobyte (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a conspiracy theory not demographic changes. Whether there has been any demographic changes doesn't matter to this article, only that some people believe there is a 'shadowy cabal' doing bad things. Changes in demographics are not relevant to this article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:21, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Why are they not relevant? As I said they are very relevant because this conspiracy theory is fundamentally a conspiracy theory about why they are occurring. Cyrobyte (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

No this is a conspiracy theory first and foremost about a secret group controlling the world, doing things that aren't actually real. Any real demographic changes are unrelated to that conspiracy theory, and so are unrelated to the subject of this article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:27, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

This conspiracy theory is fundamentally about White populations "being replaced by non-white peoples" "through mass migration, demographic growth, and a drop in the birth rate of white Europeans", as the article says. The conspiracy theory is that these occurrences are being intentionally brought about by a conspiracy. However, it is a fact that these demographic phenomena are occurring: mass intercontinental migration of people who are not of principally European ancestry to most countries in Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; in these countries, substantial demographic decline of the White population, not just in relative but also absolute terms (primarily due to sub-replacement fertility rates); and, therefore, in these countries, which previously had a predominantly White population, the non-White population replacing the demographically declining White population, often resulting in the sustainment or increase of the total population, despite the White population being in decline, both in relative and absolute terms. These topics are obviously related, as the conspiracy theory, fundamentally, is a theory on why these demographic phenomena are occurring, and these topics can often be conflated. Therefore, there should be a hatnote. Please explain why you believe that "any real demographic changes are unrelated to that conspiracy theory". Cyrobyte (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

The demographic changes have no connection to any shadowy conspiracy, so they have no relation to this article. Things that are real are not related to things that are not real, muddling that distinction isn't an improvement to the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:30, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

You are correct on "The demographic changes have no connection to any shadowy conspiracy", which is why the demographic article shouldn't link to the replacment one. However the inverse simply isn't true. The conspiracy is connected to a few demographic changes in the occident, such as the one linked in this hatnote. Establishing the distinction to the average reader is quite important as these are already "muddled". Also, "Things that are real are not related to things that are not real" sounds like a thought terminating cliché. nahle ghini (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Making things easy to understand may result in cliches. "The conspiracy is connected to a few demographic changes in the occident" how, what part of this conspiracy connects to those changes? Other than they both mention demographic changes. That two articles mention something isn't a good reason for a hatnote, especially a link to an article that details the opposite of the subject of this article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:02, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed this dispute and I concur the hatnote is not appropriate. There are very good reasons to put something of a fence between articles about actual demographic change and this conspiracy theory. The first of those is the frequency with which proponents of the conspiracy attempt to argue the bare existence of demographic change is evidence of the conspiracy. It protects WP:FRINGE to make it very clear that this conspiracy theory ultimately has nothing to do with real world demography. The hatnote would (marginally) weaken that divide and so it should be left out. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't the same argument apply to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article, with its hatnote leading to Marxist cultural analysis?  Tewdar  11:00, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested is making a really weird argument here, especially in the view of the "White demographic decline" article itself quoting the right-wing conspiracies in the header. If ActivelyDisinterested really thinks "Things that are real are not related to things that are not real, muddling that distinction isn't an improvement to the article." then the "White demographic decline" should be cleared up in this respect. ~2026-50770-31 (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Whether you agree or disagree with my argument doesn't make it weird. I don't agree that adding this to the hat note would be useful, you do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:51, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

As well as discussions on this page you may want to look at the archives, they're available in this pages header. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:24, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

• This article is about a racist conspiracy theory that government policies are purposely changing racial demographics. So many, many editors have come to this page stating that it is not a conspiracy because stats "prove" it is true. Pointing to an article on demographic changes would likely serve to verify the claims in the minds of those readers amenable to such racist beliefs. Indeed, that article contains:

Demographer Eric Kaufmann argued that "In an era of unprecedented white demographic decline it is absolutely vital for it to have a democratic outlet. Politicians should set immigration levels that respect the cultural comfort zone of the median voter."

That suggests that government policies that purposely affect racial demographics should exist, albeit in the opposite direction. (Something that appears to be occurring in the US at this time.) I think this would confuse the issue. This article is simply about one specific conspiracy theory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you not think that perhaps a hatnote pointing to the article on white demographic decline might reduce the number of (serious or otherwise) temporary accounts coming along every few weeks to argue this is not a conspiracy? At the very least it could go in one of those Q&As at the top that isn't visible on mobile unless the magic button is clicked, no?  Tewdar  15:55, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Exactly like we do on the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article...  Tewdar  15:58, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

The page were there are currently TAs arguing that the "cultural Marxism" espoused by conspiracy theorists and used a political dog whistle is actual a real thing? I don't see that the hat note has ever reduced the problems with that article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:05, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Get rid of it, then.  Tewdar  16:07, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

And I actually think it happens over there a lot more rarely than it does on this talk page.  Tewdar  16:08, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

No I very much doubt that it would. As can be seen form the many NOFORUM posts removed from this page, most are not interested in demographic changes but that this conspiracy is true as proved by those demographic changes. Linking the two will therefore have the exact possite effect. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:00, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

But at least you could say "see the hatnote" (or failing that, the FAQ) , close the topic, and move on? Instead of endlessly telling people that the page isn't about demographic decline, it's about a conspiracy theory with tangential connections to demographic decline... Never mind, I'm sure you guys know what you're doing...  Tewdar  16:06, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I think a hatnote is more for articles that could be 'reasonably' confused with one another. I'm not sure that is true in this case. The article already has a see also link to White demographic decline at the bottom, so that's probably the correct way to deal with this. I'm not sure why there isn't an FAQ at the top of this page to deal with this common problem quickly, though.  Tewdar  17:00, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

While an FAQ can be useful to point to, editors likely to demand it's not a conspiracy rarely seem to look at or care about FAQs. In any case, we can point to the RM. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

In any case, we can point to the RM - no, that does not do the job at all. What's the harm in adding an FAQ?? It's not even any work hardly.  Tewdar  19:12, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

The RM is directly on point and more detailed as well as showing consensus. But I have no problem with an FAQ. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

The RM is directly on point Which part?  Tewdar  22:05, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not responding again after that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

After what? After I ask you to actually quote the non-existent part of the RM that supposedly supports your presumed claim that the RM already covers the questions that might be raised in the non-existent FAQ? I.... see.  Tewdar  23:55, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Should the idea of immigration being a solution to the ageing populations not be included?

By this I mean that there are several documents that support supplementing populations with immigrants (https://rm.coe.int/report-immigration-one-of-the-answers-to-europe-s-demographic-ageing/1680b1cd76 for example). Would this not be part of this topic? ~2026-48806-50 (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Does not appear to be relevant to Renaud Camus' conspiracy theory, the subject of this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

+1 This is not in scope for this page. Simonm223 (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

No because demographic changes isn't the subject of this article. This article is about a conspiracy theory about a nonexistent shadowy cabal. There are many highly detailed articles about demographic changes, this would likely be more relevant to one of those. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:32, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

• Only if sources bring it up in the context of the conspiracy theory (which it is possible they do.) Even if they do we'll want to consider how much weight to give it but it's not unreasonable to think that sources exist that make the connection to at least the point where it could have a brief mention somewhere. Such sources would also be important in terms of how we'd relate it to this topic (eg. is it a refutation? What does it mean?) --Aquillion (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2026 (UTC)