Talk:White demographic decline

Neutrality

From my notification at WP:NPOVN:

I'm not sure what I'm looking at, but an article beginning with the following words doesn't read neutral to me:

"White demographic decline, also known as White decline, is the persistent and pervasive fall and displacement of White people [...]"

Yes, the sentence continues with "as a percentage" et cetera, but this can surely be written differently, so that it doesn't look as weirdly biased as quoted above. The article is from 2021-12-12, just a month old now, and probably needs attention if even the first sentence is written so badly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Correction: 2020-12-12. Details can be found at WP:NPOVN. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any bias in that sentence personally , the article backs up the claim of the decline of white populations ChaseF (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Does it exist?

There’s so much wrong with this article it’s hard to know where to start. I’ve taken out the WP:OR around the “causes” of so-called “white demographic decline” because all the statements were either unsourced or sourced to generalised statements about aging populations - nothing to do with “race” or ethnicity. I’ve also taken out the various statements about the increase in foreign-born residents (which could have been white or non-white). Currently there are sourced statements (quite often by dubious protagonists) about white demographic decline in only 4 countries - US, UK, Ireland and Canada (the remaining countries just have references to current race stats without any statement about whether there has been or will be any change). But the article presents as though it is a global phenomenon. And what is “white” anyway. “race” is a social construct the meaning of which varies depending on the context. The premise of this article seems bogus - except that certian people are talking about it. If this article were to continue to exist it should probably move to something like Theory of white demographic decline or White demographic decline debate and be more about how the subject is being used (politically etc) or discussed rather than trying to present it as an actual thing. DeCausa (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup. The article starts with a dubious premise in the title, and goes downhill from there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"I’ve taken out the WP:OR around the “causes” of so-called “white demographic decline” because all the statements were either unsourced or sourced to generalised statements about aging populations" - Which sources? It is clear that immigration and higher TFR is causing White decline, there are sources which state this.,("Fuelled by immigration at its highest rate since the start of the last century, and higher fertility rates"). If it is a problem with a 'lack' then we can find more which backs this up, but it is pretty obvious to any outside onlookers that high immigration and TFR rates is what is behind this.

"(quite often by dubious protagonists)" - Who? Please elaborate.

"sourced statements (...) white demographic decline in only 4 countries - US, UK, Ireland and Canada" This is because these countries are some of the only one's which actually produce race and ethnic statistics every 5 - 10 years on their countries populaces, which means that for other countries, data only exists in states such as the in 'Origin's of the population (which is, while not explicitly stating that its race or ethnic demography, it essentially is.) and in rare reports for example in Germany's case. Now in hindsight, if the issue is lack of sources connecting a demographic decline of say ethnic Germans, or even European Whites in Germany to the overarching theme or phrase of 'White decline', material could have been found which explicitly has the phrasing 'White demographic decline' or 'White decline' in it, but this does not mean that White decline is not occurring in these places.

"And what is “white” anyway. “race” is a social construct" - Irrelevant to the question really, whether race is a social construct or not doesn't matter as there is a clear decline in people who self-identify as 'White' as well, for example in every single US census the number of 'White' American's have been in proportional decline also. Whether that will change or not is fair game for you to right a section if you want to.

"The premise of this article seems bogus - except that certain people are talking about it" - I am not sure what you are getting at, various media outlets have all have discussed this, as well as senior demographers. This phenomena deserves an article.

I have gone ahead and reverted the nuking of the page for the sake of upholding the demography tables of what was originally there, as demographic figures for countries which you said was fine has been removed as well, I will also get rid of the phrasing at the start and foreign born statistics as well. Thanks, Tweedledumb2 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Notably absent is any sort of criticism or skepticism, even though multiple sources [1][2][3] have cited changes in the way people self-identify as a likely contributor the apparent demographic shift. –dlthewave ☎ 04:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You are free to add that section if you want to, there was already material which talked about self-identfication changes (albeit not alot and I was going to add more to the section on 'Increased mixed race population') in some countries respective 'Majority-minority' scenario sections which mentioned to some extent changes in the self-identification of their citizens. See the United Kingdom's section and different racial categorisations as well, for example data for Non-Hispanic Whites is provided as well as tables for 'White Americans' (which includes Latino's etc.). Thanks, Tweedledumb2 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If you really think that adding a section on 'Increased mixed race population' is a solution to the many problems with this article, the most charitable explanation I can come up with for that particular nonsensical argument is that you are totally out of your depth here, and don't have that faintest idea what you are writing about. Frankly though, I'm not in a charitable mood, so I'll ask instead why you, clearly an experienced Wikipedia editor, have created a new account just to promote this ill-informed POV-pushing essay. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

What? "clearly an experienced Wikipedia editor" I started editing 5 month's ago? I am not by any means 'clearly experienced' and I have never claimed to be.

"you are totally out of your depth here" How am I out of my depth? I added demographic material related to 'White decline' as is in the title, all the material I added is related to this topic based on reliable sources.

"'Increased mixed race population' is a solution to the many problems with this article" I never said that was 'the solution'? I said that was what was clearly present in the article before all of it was reverted and I was going to expand on it with any relevant material I could find. Why are you so hostile?

"have created a new account just to promote this ill-informed POV-pushing essay." How am I POV-pushing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweedledumb2 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

As just one example, you made several mentions of anti-discrimination legislation, without actually explaining their connection beyond simply occurring at a particular point in time. At best this is WP:SYNTH, as it implies a causal connection that the sources do not actually state is there. Theknightwho (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: @Dlthewave: - Before the many edits done on the page, the censuses provided of many countries as "proof" did not appear to collect any stats regarding "race". Rather, the censuses provide stats on ethnic or national origin. I.E - Look at the ethnic group section for countries like Norway or Sweden. Even a country like New Zealand only collected demographic stats based on ethnic origin. But the census numbers exceed 100% because people can identify with more than one ethnic group (and there doesn't appear to be a specific option to identify as "multi-ethnic"). Looking at the page itself, it looks like the article and sources deal primarily with Anglophone countries.

Honestly, the usefulness of this page seems dubious to me. As "race" is a social construct it doesn't seem beneficial to dedicate a whole page to a "race" demographic decline. Especially when racial definitions can change at a whim or people can start identifying as something else. Look at the United States' one drop rule.

To further add on how arbitrary and silly all these "racial demographics" are, look at the census of the United States. They consider "Asian" to be a singular "pan-ethnic/racial group" (referring only to East/Southeast/South Asians and for arbitrary reasons, exclude West Asians from the "Asian race" label), but this contrasts with countries like Brazil or Uruguay who do not have the idea of a "pan-Asian racial category". Instead, they describe East Asians descendants as being part of a "yellow race" (or "amarela" or "amarilla" in their languages) - a term that is now "problematic" in countries like the United States. And the other Asian ethnic groups are not mentioned. But I don't see a specific page dedicated to a "Yellow Demographic Decline", considering how many of the countries in East Asia are experiencing low birth rates and presumably more immigration from other countries. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

As I said before, if there’s a topic here it should be about the “debate”, “controversy” or “theory” of “White demographic decline”. In other words, if there is a notability it’s not the notability of the thing itself (it’s not a thing) but what various protagonists say about it or how they use or exploit it. DeCausa (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced “causes” claims

@Tweedledumb2: I’m answering your above response here on why I removed the “causes” because it’s going to get convoluted dealing with it in the above thread. I removed the “causes” in three edits:

1. In this edit I took out the text in the Causes section that lacked any citation. That’s a straight forward WP:V issue. You need rock solid WP:RS citations to make these claims which I believe are dubious anyway. So identification of these 3 “causes” is pure WP:OR and is unacceptable. You’ll note that I explain my reason in the edit summary.
2. In this edit I remove the remainder of the Causes section. In this case while there are three citations they don’t support the text. There is no reference to “race”, ethnicity in any of them. They just discuss aging population - there is no linkage whatsoever to “white demographic decline” it’s you who make that linkage. Just so you get it, the opening sentence of what was that section says “General population ageing, which is one of the main factors behind White demographic decline, is a phenomenon which is being seen in Europe”. The citation you included backs up a sentence that could say “ “General population ageing is a phenomenon which is being seen in Europe”. But you’ve added, here, in your own little twist of “ which is one of the main factors behind White demographic decline”. There’s nothing in the citation that supports thyat. And all the sentences in that former section were like that. That means there is no citation which supports any of this being a cause of “white demographic decline’ - WP:OR
3. Then this edit I took the causes out of the lead because, per WP:LEAD, there is no sourced content in the article supporting it. 1 + 2 above means there isn’t anything in the body of the article any longer which purports to say what the “causes” are supposed to be.
   

The above is an illustration of how this article is a pile of WP:OR garbage constructed to support a POV. DeCausa (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Hi there! Apologises for such a long response, I thought it best to just walk away from this article to avoid potential trouble and hassle as I do not wish to edit on this article anymore, however it is best to clear up some mistakes so I apologise once again for a extremely late response to this post.

1. In point one, you are wrong, before the revert to a previous edition month's back, the section title was named 'Causes and factors', I did not claim that 'ageing' was a 'cause' as was clearly evident before that, I said it was a 'factor'. The two main causes of White decline are clearly immigration from non-white countries, and fertility differentials between different ethnic and racial groups. A 'factor' which plays into this is population ageing in the specifically White population as they have had a below replacement fertility rate worldwide in most if not all White majority countries since the 1970's (This can be correlated anyway by the overall TFR in White majority countries dropping below replacement during that decade). What this does is increase the median age of the White population and decreases in the long term the amount of White people in the lower age bands such as 20 - 30 who are able to give birth etc. if you understand. This has a effect on the fertility rate of said group, the racial make up of the older generations (who of course will have a higher mortality rate then the younger populations) and then turns into what is evident today where there are more deaths in the White population then births, which then again shapes America's racial demography, for example.
2. In point two, you are correct in removing the population ages chart, that is fine and I have no issue with. However there is no 'little twist' (?) in saying it is a main factor, let me provide some sources (which I admit should have been in there beforehand, but regardless);

William H Frey - "Frey is widely acknowledged as America’s leading demographer"

'America’s shrinking white population needs to value youthful diversity', William H. Frey, Thursday, September 9, 2021. 'Most of the overall white population decline between 2010 and 2020 occurred among those under age 18 (-5.1 million)—the result, in large part, of fewer births to an aging population. In fact, there was already a loss of white youth in the previous decade such that, over the first 20 years of this century, the white young population declined by over 9 million while the white baby boomer generation continued to age.'

'Census shows white decline, nonwhite majority among youngest', The Star, Mike Schneider, Thu., June 25, 2020. '“It’s aging. Of course, we didn’t have a lot of immigration, that has gone down,“ Frey said. “White fertility has gone down.”'

'America's Getting Less White, and That Will Save It', Newsweek, William H Frey, 12/6/14. 'Due to white low immigration, reduced fertility and aging, the white population grew a tepid 1.2 percent in 2000–10. In roughly 10 years, the white population will begin a decline that will continue into the future. This decline will be most prominent among the younger populations. At the same time, the existing white population will age rapidly, as the large baby boom generation advances into seniorhood.' (The excerpt here has been copied basically from his book called Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America')

'White Deaths Exceed Births in a Majority of U.S. States', Rogelio Sáenz and Kenneth M. Johnson. 'Low Fertility, Fewer Mothers And An Aging Population Drive White Natural Decrease (...) 'The white population is aging rapidly, as reflected in a rise in the median age for whites from 39 in 2000 to 43 in 2016. During the same period, the percentage of persons 65 and older increased from 15 percent of the white population in 2000 to 19 percent in 2016. Because older populations face higher mortality risks, population aging increases the number of white deaths (...) The growing natural decline among whites in U.S. states contributes to the larger racial/ethnic shifts occurring in the U.S. population. As white natural increase has diminished, the share of the U.S. population that is white has declined from 79.6 percent in 1980 to 61.3 percent in 2016'

'The US white majority will soon disappear forever', AP News, Dudley Poston, August 15, 2019. 'Behind the trends; Why are the numbers of white people declining, and why are nonwhite numbers increasing? The answer is basic demography: births, deaths and immigration. (...) There are also big differences in age structure. Sixty-two percent of Latinas 15 years of age or older are of childbearing age. Only 42% of white women fall into this group. Latinos also have lower mortality rates than whites. Demographers call this the “epidemiological paradox.”'

These are only a handful of sources which can be used, William Frey has produced a number of other articles which can also be found and used here as well but in short, 'ageing' is a definitive factor behind the decline of the White population in America, and in Europe (which you can find sources on but I don't have time to do) Tweedledumb2 (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

United States

The 'Demography by regions' section for the US refers to data on 'Non-Hispanic White Americans'. Given that 'Hispanic' in the US demographic context is a linguistic/cultural classification, and has no direct relationship to 'race', self-reported or otherwise, this content is simply off-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Demographers and, more so, political scientists do often distinguish between non-Hispanic Whites and just "White" as the former reflects the traditional "White" used in American political and social contexts (e.g., segregation). EvergreenFir (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of that. Which is why I wrote what I wrote. The title of this article isn't 'Non-Hispanic White American demographic decline' though. 'Hispanic' is not a 'racial' categorisation, and content implying the contrary is off-topic at best, if not intentionally misleading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

In the 2020 U.S. Census, only 20% of Hispanic people identified as “White, alone.” 73% of Hispanic people identified as “Some other race, alone or in combination.” For the next census, the Census Bureau is preparing to list “Hispanic” as a racial category alongside White, Black, Asian, Native American, etc. Read about it here. They also going to direct people who identify as Latin American native groups like Maya or Aztec to select “Native American.” This will effectively make “Hispanic” equivalent to “Mestizo” in Latin American demography. 2601:C2:87F:1FD0:94B1:9659:FFF0:EA95 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Re-addition of removed material

@AndyTheGrump, @DeCausa, @Dlthewave - I have noticed that @Tweedledumb2 has re-added much of the deleted material to the following articles:

• Demographics of Austria
• Demographics of Belgium
• Demographics of Denmark
• Demographics of Iceland
• Demographics of Italy
• Demographics of the Republic of Ireland
• Demographics of Norway
• Demographics of Spain
• Demographics of Sweden

I don't have the time to review it all, but I thought it worth flagging. One thing that stands out to me are the graphics, which seem to equate ethnicity and nationality. Theknightwho (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup. Someone who doesn't understand the difference shouldn't be editing such articles at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Anti-abortion movement

Greeting to all. GeneralRelative has reverted my recent edits citing WP:DUE, but I actually had this policy on my mind as I made those edits.

WP:DUE says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

GeneralRelative has reverted to the version of the article that only gives Katha Pollitt's opinion that the anti-abortion movement is at least partially motivated by racial anxiety, along with a positive book review.

Clearly, this version lacks neutrality. My edits introduced several reliable sources covering differing opinions on this subject:

• Work by Anderson and DeSanctis, both anti-abortion authors, who offer an opposing viewpoint: that an anti-abortion stance is incongruent with white supremacist pro-natalism on the basis of higher nonwhite abortion rates, and that people motivated by a fear of white demographic decline have generally done more to support abortion than oppose it.

• The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Bioethics, which notes that some on the alt-right support abortion for non-white females as a way of limiting their reproduction; indicating complex views on this topic among racists.

• Another viewpoint from Biftu Mengesha, a gynecologist who says that the right supports abortion bans to limit access to this procedure which has saved a lot of non-white women's lives; rather than to keep white women from having abortions.

Note that despite being having diametrically opposing stances on abortion, Anderson & DeSanctis and Mengesha all relate that women of color are several times more likely to have abortions than white women; something Katha Pollitt apparently never cared to realize. For this reason I also added abortion demographic data, including a study that documents a 40 year trend of black women having around 4 times as many abortions as white women. It is easy to see how people other than Pollitt could hold the opposing view that white supremacists are not particularly anti-abortion, given that white women are obviously becoming pregnant and having abortions far less often than non-white women are -- something just about everybody should be aware of by now.

I can think of no reason not to include this information in the article. I actually chuckled when I found out I was reverted, because it was WP:DUE that motivated me to add this content to this section, which fails to tell us what the actual research says, relying on one poet's book as a source. Perhaps it should be expected, given the rate at which white supremacists and anti-abortion activists try to change the narrative, but it is by no means a fringe or undue position that the anti-abortion movement is not motivated by white natalist fears. And an anti-abortion stance is by no means typical among such fearful people. 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:80FA:2B1E:F11F:D0DD (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP, thanks for bringing your concerns to the talk page. I've looked over your suggested additions one more time and I see a lot of WP:SYNTH, even leaving aside the OR that was removed by Avatar317 –– e.g. where you connect Biftu Mengesha to the topic of white demographic decline. If the original source makes this connection, it isn't clear from what you've written, and it would be WP:PRIMARY in any case. The opinions of "anti-abortion advocates Ryan Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis" are also WP:PRIMARY, with the exception of the website you've cited (eppc.org), and even less clearly DUE. It is likewise unclear to me that the glancing mention of pro-abortion white supremacists in the Routledge Handbook of Feminist Bioethics constitutes a notable mention, especially given how tenuous the language is. Which white supremacists are we even talking about here? How do they imagine that legal abortion could be applied "only to women of color and non-Aryan women"? Seems pretty far-fetched to me. Unless we have significant coverage, this doesn't seem at all DUE. I will say that your addition of ref quotes to the Pollitt and Fried references is helpful, so I'd be fine restoring that bit of the edit. Generalrelative (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, one of the tenets of Wikipedia that seems hardest for editors to understand are the no Original Research WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH policies. It is not allowed to say or imply anything not explicitly stated in sources. From WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."

I didn't look at any of your sources, but the quotes and titles from the ones I removed looked like they spoke only to abortion rates, not to "White demographic decline". ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

DeSanctis and Anderson

@Generalrelative: You say that DeSanctis and Anderson are WP:PRIMARY; yet why do you favor the inclusion of Katha Pollitt's book when it is also WP:PRIMARY? WP:PRIMARY doesn't say we can't use primary sources and this content is no less due than Pollitt. 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:F83C:B4CB:9B82:32D8 (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The content on Pollitt is supported by a secondary source, and Pollitt explicitly talks about white demographic decline. Are both those things true about D&A? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Yes, they do talk about white demographic decline. Anderson & DeSanctis wrote:

"This reality is why racists embrace abortion: whether or not Planned Parenthood and its supporters notice or admit it, abortion has led to a disproportionate reduction of non-white populations in the United States. Perhaps in an effort to distract from this reality. abortion rights supporters have begun to argue that the modern pro-life movement is nothing more than a smokescreen for racism." pp. 62-63: "But the link between abortion and white supremacists' concern about "non-white replacement" works in precisely the opposite way. The connection between abortion and "replacement" is why white supremacists have long supported abortion, applauding the sad reality that minority women tend to abort their children at disproportionate rates."

The answer to the former question is, maybe, but it doesn't really matter if it is or isn't. Not every citation requires a complimentary secondary citation. 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:A9AA:8D85:C83A:F61E (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Mengeshe in Scientific American

@Generalrelative: Mengeshe says clearly:

Throughout our country’s history, people of color’s fertility and reproduction have always been unjustly manipulated to benefit a white, misogynistic, xenophobic, homophobic nationalist system. From forced reproduction that maintained slavery as an industry to forced sterilization and contraceptive abuses that limited mobility and growth and now to sweeping abortion restrictions that will disproportionately impact people of color, we continue to directly experience how white supremacy expertly sustains itself.

2603:8080:2C00:1E00:F83C:B4CB:9B82:32D8 (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Routledge

Generalrelative said: "It is likewise unclear to me that the glancing mention of pro-abortion white supremacists in the Routledge Handbook of Feminist Bioethics constitutes a notable mention, especially given how tenuous the language is. Which white supremacists are we even talking about here? How do they imagine that legal abortion could be applied "only to women of color and non-Aryan women"? Seems pretty far-fetched to me." It is no more far-fetched than Pollitt who doesn't mention any specific "racists" or really offer much substance at all about a "white demographic decline" motivating anti-abortion activists. 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:F83C:B4CB:9B82:32D8 (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Abortion rate statistics

@Avatar317: The article is white demographic decline, but the section we are talking about is the anti-abortion movement. SYNTH means adding sources together to reach a conclusion; yet all I did was list the abortion rates of various ethnic groups without drawing any conclusions at all. DeSanctis, Anderson and Mengeshe all say that white women have lower rates of abortion than non-white women so I don't see how it's not relevant to the topic of racially motivated abortion activism. We can add relevant info to a section even if it doesn't explicitly mention the article's broader subject, and the abortion rate IS relevant to the white demographic decline. 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:F83C:B4CB:9B82:32D8 (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It helps to have info about exactly how much lower the rate of abortion is among white women when we necessarily HAVE to mention it when it is at the crux of Anderson and DeSanctis and Mengeshe. 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:F83C:B4CB:9B82:32D8 (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. My problem with this info is that whereas some authors (DeSanctis, Anderson and Mengeshe) or white supremacists may be (in my opinion) stupid by not taking into account greater factors than just abortion doesn't mean that we should support or validate their (possibly nonsensical) arguments. Nor should we do our own research to invalidate them either.

If Black women have 4x the unplanned pregnancies that White women do, and 4x the abortions, than the actual live-birth reproduction rate of Black women may be no different than White women, and/or other factors like choosing to have larger families may matter more. It is a known fact that poorer women have less access to (good) birth control, and so poorer women have more unplanned pregnancies. To not take these factors into account when discussing "White demographic decline" is to LEAD THE READER into believing that maybe the arguments of the above authors have some validity, (by showing these rates), when that might be telling half (or a third) of the whole story. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Avatar317: Thanks for actually reading and responding to my message. The stupid authors here would be Pollitt and Friedman who want to hamfistedly paint the anti-abortion movement as white supremacist, when in fact the white supremacists are generally pro-abortion for non-white women because they are aware that non-white women have a higher rate of abortion than white women, and that the white demographic decline has happened much more slowly than it really would have if abortion had remained illegal in the Western world. I cannot imagine a more convenient circumstance for white nationalists who want to weaponize the abortion debate, which is something they seek to do as pointed out by Ophir, et al (2022). The earlier, WP:UNDUE version of the article that Generalrelative keeps restoring is what is actually misleading the reader. 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:D979:BE7F:9E98:26F8 (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Ophir et al.

Generalrelative has again reverted me entirely, this time accusing me of original research.

Actually, I am reasonably confident there is no original research in this edit. I don't see how anyone can have any doubt about it this time around. Every source I added can be easily verified.

Ophir et al say:

"However, while WN (White Nationalists) resist abortion by white women, they would ‘not generally stand in the way of abortions for women of color’ (Perry, 2003), as what they perceive to be excessive birthrates among nonwhite communities, in parallel with the reduction in birthrates among whites, pose a threat to whites. Since the reproduction of Others is seen by WN as a threat to the nation and Western civilization, abortion is viewed as a way to strategically maintain power over nonwhites by limiting childbearing among nonwhites to maintain a white demographic advantage in the West (Baird, 2006; Berlant, 1997;Davis, 2019; Millar, 2017)."

5:

"WN racial motivations have complicated the movement’s relationship with abortion. While abortion by white women is strongly resisted among WN, the fact that abortion rates remain more common among women of color than whites (Denbow, 2016) leads to an acceptance or even encouragement of the practice for nonwhites among some WN."

5-6:

"In that light, abortion can be seen as a neo-eugenic practice discouraging and preventing the procreation of women of color in Western countries (Denbow, 2016). This strategic practice is not unlike the use of abortion, birth control and forced sterilization policies as part of eugenicist efforts against minorities and the disabled in Nazi Germany (Cromer, 2019; David et al., 1988) or in the United States and elsewhere during the same time period and, unfortunately, continued into much more recent times (Stern, 2020)"

It is indisputable from this source that:

• Many authors believe abortion is viewed by racists as a hedge against white demographic decline, not merely as a cause of it
• Many authors also say that racists are not opposed to abortion; they also believe it should be used to reduce non-white birth rates
• There is historical precedent for the deliberate use of abortion to suppress non-white fertility

So what's the problem here? This is completely relevant to the topic of white demographic decline and is not original research.

Generalrelative's blanket reversions of my additions are consistent with actions #1 and #2 described at WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR. Rather than completely reverting my every addition, they should simply make adjustments where they see fit, and explain here at the talk page or in a more detailed edit summary. Clearly this content CAN be admitted to this article which is supposed to be hosted on a free encyclopedia, not the one that only shows what certain editors want it to display. 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:D979:BE7F:9E98:26F8 (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Re: This is completely relevant to the topic of white demographic decline and is not original research - this seems to me to be a handwave and the material in question seems to be a WP:COATRACK. How are the proposed additions related to the topic of the article?

If the argument is that "white nationalists propose to encourage abortion access in non-white and racialized communities as a way of mitigating white demographic decline", where is the source that makes this whole argument in toto? Otherwise the juxtaposition, and its inclusion in this article, appears to be WP:SYNTH.

Also, WP:ONUS states clearly that The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The content in question has faced policy-based objections from multiple editors, so it should not be included in the article unless affirmative consensus is reached for its inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

+1 to this. Generalrelative (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"If the argument is that "white nationalists propose to encourage abortion access in non-white and racialized communities as a way of mitigating white demographic decline", where is the source that makes this whole argument in toto?

Where is the policy, guideline or essay that says this is required? It's a secondary source that clearly describes research on the views of white supremacists on abortion. It's reliable, peer reviewed and consistent with the other sources I added, which also described white supremacist views on abortion and even historical examples, such as the approval of unsafe abortion for black women in South Africa.

Also, nice double standard. Neither Pollitt nor Friedman make the argument in toto that the anti-abortion movement is rooted in white supremacy, yet I doubt you'd remove them from the article. Would you?

It's just sad to see people censoring information on Wikipedia because it doesn't fit their factually bankrupt narrative that the anti-abortion movement is significantly motivated by white supremacist fears. I am pro abortion and I have no qualms with acknowledging that white supremacists have mixed views on abortion and have historically exploited it to reduce non-white population growth, just as numerous pro-abortion authors including Mary Ziegler, Susanne Klauson and Meredith Pruden have. I am confident that those academic heavyweights would be disgusted at how you have blatantly colluded to keep explicitly relevant historical information off of this article. 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:4578:F0AA:A357:41B8 (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Where is the policy, guideline or essay that says this is required? WP:SYNTH. Read it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I don't see anything in WP:SYNTH that says a source has to base it's entire argument in toto on a subject in order for it to be admitted on wikipedia. I accurately paraphrased the reference, would you prefer direct quotes for the article? 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:4578:F0AA:A357:41B8 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

By the way, IP, Marlene Fried makes the equivalent argument about white racial anxiety and anti-abortion sentiment and ties that directly to perceptions of white demographic decline (the topic of this article). Therefore no SYNTH is required concerning that content. Newimpartial (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: how are you failing to understand that several of my sources explicitly say that fear of demographic decline has also been linked to support for abortion? 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:4578:F0AA:A357:41B8 (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seen any evidence provided for that assertion in the form of quotations, which is the usual way to demonstrate such a claim. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: here is one quotation; there are others below.

"However, while WN (White Nationalists) resist abortion by white women, they would ‘not generally stand in the way of abortions for women of color’ (Perry, 2003), as what they perceive to be excessive birthrates among nonwhite communities, in parallel with the reduction in birthrates among whites, pose a threat to whites. Since the reproduction of Others is seen by WN as a threat to the nation and Western civilization, abortion is viewed as a way to strategically maintain power over nonwhites by limiting childbearing among nonwhites to maintain a white demographic advantage in the West (Baird, 2006; Berlant, 1997;Davis, 2019; Millar, 2017). 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:4578:F0AA:A357:41B8 (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you interpreting to maintain a white demographic advantage as "directly related to perceptions of white demographic decline" (my words above)? That looks to me like WP:OR, at least for purposes of potential article content. Newimpartial (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Blanket removal of Klauson and Ziegler

Mary Ziegler, an expert on abortion history, wrote the following:

"Indeed, Afrikaner nationalists presumably approved of the flourishing clandestine abortion industry in Black communities because it complemented the government's population control policy: unsafe abortion supposedly helped to curb black "overpopulation," and Black women were terminating pregnancies on a large scale at relatively little financial cost to the state."

She cites chapter 7 from Susanne Klauson: “The Actual Matter Is with Us Whites”: Abortion and the “Black Peril”:

"This chapter explains why the National Party knowingly allowed the social epidemic of unsafe abortion in black communities to continue unabated. The reasons discussed include: racist perceptions of black women as inherently “promiscuous”; unwillingness to pay for medical abortions for black subjects; a desire to offload medical care for “surplus” black women on to newly created Bantustans; fear of antagonizing African nationalists who were also patriarchal and played “the numbers game”; and whites’ fear of the “black peril”—that is, being numerically swamped by the black population. Afrikaner nationalists presumably approved of the clandestine abortion industry flourishing in urban centers because it complemented the government’s official Population Control policy. Clandestine abortion was helping to curb black “overpopulation.” Ultimately, black women were terminating pregnancies on a large scale at little financial cost to the state, and at no cost at all to the regime’s delusional self-image as Africa’s standard bearer of Christian morality."

How is it controversial or inappropriate to describe this explicit historical example of white supremacists favoring abortion for non-white women, primarily to stave off their demographic "swamping"?

This has been removed from the article by two users, Newimpartial and Generalrelative 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:4578:F0AA:A357:41B8 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Is the topic of this article white demographic "swamping", and responses thereto? Perhaps I have misunderstood the article's intended scope. Newimpartial (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Martin Durham

Yet another expert published in Routledge, Martin Durham, says that racist views on abortion are multifaceted; uses examples of leading white supremacist organizations advocating for abortion for black women:

"Nor has racist opposition to abortion been necessarily against all abortion. The Church of the Creator and the NSRP both published a cartoon contrasting the provision of abortion clinics for whites and maternity clinics for blacks, and some extreme rightists drew the conclusion that they should only oppose white abortions. In 1978 the Thunderbolt attacked a leading anti-abortion campaigner for arguing that black people should be particularly opposed to abortion because it would destroy their race. The paper argued that abortion should instead be seen as a threat to the white race. It should be used, however, to 'eliminate the hundreds of thousands of illegitimate blacks'. In the 1980s', the National Alliance attacked Christian conservatives for being equally opposed to abortion for 'Black welfare mothers as for healthy, productive White women', while more recently WAR has argued that while abortion should be opposed among whites, it supported abortion among non-whites. Seeking to stop abortion, at least among white women, was not the only initiative that American racists have taken to raise the white birth rate."

...yet this is not allowed in this article, says who? It's not even inconsistent with the previously established position that white racists want to restrict abortion for white women. Yet so many researchers also say they have endorsed it for women of color, for the obvious reason of reducing their population growth. 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:4578:F0AA:A357:41B8 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything in this quotation that seems relevant to the topic of this article in particular - its topic is not "white attitudes to abortion access among racialized groups", at least not that I am aware. It therefore seems like a WP:COATRACK to me. Newimpartial (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Separate social / political and scientific / statistical articles

Perhaps we could have one article on the demographic trends and factors leading to them, and a separate, unfortunately larger one on social and political reactions and controversies? 2001:14BA:A018:3B00:1D00:F3FD:A71E:756E (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Anti abortion movement

It doesn’t make any sense to correlate the anti-abortion movement with the rise in White racial awareness. This is because the overwhelming majority of abortions are carried out by minority women. Urmom311 (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't correlated the anti-abortion movement with "White racial awareness". The connection to "concerns about white demographic decline" should potentially be removed. It's a lot of weight on one writer's view. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)