Talk:Remigration: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

I think she should be added as examples of people who have argued and used Remigration to deport non Europeans. We might as well add Afonso Gonçalves from Portugal. 85.241.253.192 (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current article appears to present remigration chiefly through the lens of its critics, repeatedly associating it with “far-right” movements and “ethnic cleansing,” while offering little or no account of the arguments advanced by its proponents—such as cultural preservation, demographic stability, or national self-determination. This selection of sources and diction may contravene Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy by giving undue weight to one interpretation. A balanced revision should summarise both supportive and critical perspectives with proportionate citations.

220.244.57.91 (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giving “equal validity” can create a false balance. The article already appears to offer proportionate citations. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the reminder regarding undue weight, yet I would suggest that the present case differs materially from fringe pseudoscience. The concept of remigration is neither a conspiracy theory nor an unverified claim of fact, but a political idea held and advocated by identifiable movements, parties, and commentators across several European countries. It therefore constitutes a verifiable topic of political discourse, not a “belief” to be suppressed.

Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy requires that significant viewpoints be represented in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. While critical perspectives certainly dominate academic and media discussion, there are also policy documents, public statements, and interviews by proponents that meet the threshold of verifiability. Their inclusion—accurately described and properly sourced—would not confer “equal validity,” but would prevent the article from presenting only a condemnatory framing.

220.244.57.91 (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn’t publish original research. This article appears to be an accurate summary of the topic, as supported by reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the No Original Research policy. I entirely agree that Wikipedia must not advance unpublished analysis or personal interpretation. My concern, however, does not involve adding unsourced material. The issue is that the article presently cites almost exclusively critical or hostile sources, leaving out verifiable, published statements by the idea’s advocates—party manifestos, interviews, policy documents, and similar material that clearly exist and meet the standard of reliable, published sources.

Including such sources would not constitute “original research,” since it would not require novel synthesis or inference, merely accurate quotation and summary of what already exists in print. Omitting them, on the other hand, risks breaching Neutral Point of View by failing to represent significant published perspectives.

The three content policies—NOR, NPOV, and Verifiability—operate together; adherence to one should not nullify the others. My suggestion is thus not to introduce interpretation, but to restore proportional representation through verifiable citations.

220.244.57.91 (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wording like that makes it seem like you’re using ChatGPT to waste other people’s time.

Regardless, those are unlikely to be reliable sources. Further, they are not independent sources, making them very poor for demonstrating due weight. Wikipedia isn’t a platform for political propaganda, so a ‘party manifesto’ is unlikely to be useful. Any interpretation of unreliable primary sources qualifies as original research in Wikipedia’s view. Again, treating poor-quality partisan sources as equivalent to reliable and independent sources would be false balance, at best. Grayfell (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you I am not “using ChatGPT,” merely writing carefully.

As to sources: WP:PSTS specifically allows the use of primary material to document a subject’s own statements or positions, provided these are presented with attribution and without editorial synthesis. Party manifestos or official declarations are therefore appropriate to show what proponents of a political concept actually claim. Independent and secondary sources are rightly needed for analysis and evaluation, but not for the existence or content of the primary view itself.

My suggestion is not to equate partisan and academic sources, but to let the article summarise both according to their proper weight: critical scholarship for analysis, primary statements for definition and motivation. That would accord with WP:NPOV and WP:PSTS alike.

220.244.57.91 (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article already proportionately and neutrally summarizes the topic. The article should not use unreliable primary sources to define any topic, but especially not a WP:FRINGE one. Primary sources can be used for non-controversial details, but neither the definition nor the purported motives are details. Grayfell (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the article simply is not neutral. The lede states, as flat fact, that “Remigration is a far-right concept … of ethnic cleansing via the mass deportation of non-white immigrants…” and then structures almost the entire piece around variations of “ethnic cleansing” language. That is not a neutral definition; it is one side’s moral and analytical judgement elevated into the opening sentence.

The talk here keeps appealing to WP:FRINGE and NOR as though they allowed us to dispense with NPOV. They do not. Even if one grants that the contemporary far-right usage is fringe, WP:FRINGE requires accurate description of the fringe view and clear attribution of criticism, not the folding of the criticism into the definition itself.

Likewise, it is simply wrong to say that primary or partisan sources may not be used to define a topic. WP:PSTS and WP:ABOUTSELF expressly envisage using primary material to state how a movement or organisation describes its own aims, so long as this is done with attribution and without editorial endorsement. Secondary, independent sources then provide analysis and evaluation.

A neutral lede would therefore:

• First, state that “remigration” is a term used by certain far-right/identitarian actors for large-scale return or removal of immigrants and their descendants, as they themselves frame it; and • Secondly, immediately note—with citations—that academic and journalistic sources characterise such programmes as a form of ethnic cleansing or forced deportation.

That structure would still give overwhelming prominence to the critical secondary literature, but it would stop presenting that criticism as though it were the bare meaning of the word. At present, the article reads more like an editorial than an encyclopaedia entry, and that is the problem I am trying to flag. 220.244.57.91 (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your intention is obviously to downplay the explicit racism of this term, and to reduce the prominence of ‘ethnic cleansing’ in the lead. The lead already indicates how proponents frame this topic, and rearranging this for PR purposes is out of the question. Wikipedia is not platform for PR. Your arguments here are legalistic, but they are not supported by actual policy or by consensus. Further, this is not a single organization, so there is no ‘aboutself’ exception for reliable source requirements, and certainly not in the lead of the article. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you are imputing motives instead of addressing the substance. I am not here to “do PR”, nor to erase the term “ethnic cleansing”. I am pointing out that the first sentence of the lede currently defines remigration as

“a far-right concept … of ethnic cleansing via the mass deportation of non-white immigrants…”

rather than saying that reliable sources characterise it as a form of ethnic cleansing. That is a question of attribution and neutrality, not of public relations.

NPOV does not cease to apply because a topic is odious. Even if contemporary “remigration” is treated as WP:FRINGE, WP:FRINGE still requires that the fringe view be described as it is actually held, and that criticism be clearly attributed, not silently built into the definition. The present lede folds the verdict (“ethnic cleansing”) into what purports to be a neutral definition, and the rest of the article overwhelmingly repeats that one framing.

On sources: nobody is proposing that party material “demonstrate due weight” in the scholarly sense, nor that it replace independent sources in the lede. WP:PRIMARY explicitly allows non-independent primary sources to establish what a subject advocates, provided we do not infer beyond what they say. That applies just as well where there are several organisations using a term; nothing in policy says that only a single body may be cited for its own stated aims.

A neutral structure would be to state, in the lede, that remigration is a term used by certain far-right/identitarian actors for large-scale return or removal of immigrants and their descendants (as they describe it), and immediately to add that academic and journalistic sources characterise such programmes as a form of ethnic cleansing or forced deportation. That neither sanitises the idea nor turns the first sentence into an editorial.

You may disagree with that balance, but it is plainly grounded in NPOV and WP:PRIMARY, not in any desire to launder racism. 220.244.57.91 (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle and Ivanvector, who have added and reverted new content about the UKIP’s approach to remigration, as sourced to the party’s manifesto. I agree with Ivanvector that the content should be left out. Since there are many high-quality secondary sources available on this topic, we should almost never be pulling from primary, non-independent sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topic at hand is what policy a party supports, and I’m citing their own website which says what they support. This is a textbook example of when to use [[WP:SELFSOURCE]].

I think the UK section needs more information on what policies are parties are proposing. Especially now LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. The parties (all parties, but those with extreme views especially) soften and outright misrepresent their positions in order to appeal to a broader audience. That was what the whole “promoted voluntary return” discussion was about, and really why this article is a notable topic at all (because those parties misappropriated apocryphal social science terminology). You masked your link to WP:SELFSOURCE for some reason, but the very first bullet in that list on when not to use a self-published source is when the material is unduly self-serving, and there is plenty of reason to believe that it is in this case. As Firefangledfeathers notes, there is ample third-party analysis of the parties’ positions that we should use, rather than their own self-promotion.

The UK section may need to be expanded on which entities are promoting remigration, but it should be sourced to independent third parties. And this section is not free advertising for the parties: we absolutely do not need to be adding laundry lists of everything these parties are up to, they have their own articles for that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems incredibly promotional by a political party to describe their position as such. Every reliable source says this is a policy to forcibly expel ethnic minorities and UKIP is clearly sanitizing the language.Arguably, unless other reliable secondary sourcing takes UKIPs self description seriously, we dont need to devote so much to this characterization User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The selfsource link has that carveout about not using unduly self serving info. This language clearly falls into that category User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to this edit because it causes this article to stigmatize all uses of the term “remigration” as racist and/or xenophobic. While the term “remigration” can indeed be racist and/or xenophobic, it often is not, especially before the 2020s. This is explained in our article section on “wider usage.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]