Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:56, 17 June 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eurabia conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European Union Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Europe Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eurabia conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

It is requested that an image or photograph of Eurabia thesis or its proponents be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

2011-12 Christmas in Eurabia

(for the record) After We Con the World, Caroline Glick and Latma have published "Christmas in Eurabia". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate Map

In the map, Turkey colored as green. Turkey is neither an Arabic nor an EU member country (although being official candidate of EU). Therefore Turkey should be coloured as gray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.65.202.42 (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The map looks like original research. Have any of the proponents of the Eurabia theory specified which countries they feel will be a part of "Eurabia"? Instead, it may be better to use the map at Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, which is linked to Euro-Arab Dialogue, which is specifically cited by Yeor as part of the conspiracy theory.VR _talk 14:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"The map looks like original research." (VR) Yes it does. And it also looks like the cover of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, ISBN 9780838640777, http://books.google.com/books?id=hfK9SqHSaccC . A map which has never been used elswere as I know; and which is not endorsed by Bat Ye'or if I remind correctly. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"Have any of the proponents of the Eurabia theory specified which countries they feel will be a part of "Eurabia"?" (VR) Yes, but only a few. Among those, some include Russia in the (future) Eurabia, some exlude Russia. Bat Ye'or always use the broad "Europe" word. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"it may be better to use the map at Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, which is linked to Euro-Arab Dialogue, which is specifically cited by Yeor as part of the conspiracy theory." (VR) This would be better than nothing. The Template:Islam in Europe by country was used in order to illustrate the article several month ago, then was removed. (personnal ranting) I believe illustration are needed to make a good encylcopedic article, but it's hard for conceptual subject like Eurabia. What about adding picture of Eurabia theorist, like I did in fr:Expansion terrestre? Unfortunatly there are no such pictures in commons... Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait, wait. I never saw this. Thanks for pointing it out. The map actually begins to now look more like an attempt to mimic Yeor's cover than OR. In any case, you think we could use Yeor's book cover under "Fair use"?VR _talk 03:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, adding pics of the theory's proponents (Pipes, Spencer, Steyn etc.) might be a better idea.VR _talk 03:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added Template:Image requested in the talk page. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the map. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

On the right to define a political concept

I suspect that some editors here, most prominently Altetendekrabbe, is trying to force through his view of Eurabia for political reasons.

There are several issues I want to point out with classifying Eurabia as a conspiracy theory.

1. What was wrong with the term "political neologism"? Due to the common understanding of the word "conspiracy" as referring to something epistemologically wrong, I advocate the usage of less normative wording. In general, the merits of conspiratorial claims are often controversial, and the "conspiracy" label has a political use. On the other hand, classifying something as a "political neologism" seemed very fair and neutral. This word does not contain as much political bias and would as such fit better as explanation to controversial concepts such as Eurabia. Excluding political bias should be important in regards to a concept that has become increasingly politicized, and the term "neologism" does not give any cognitive hint in any poltical direction, it merely describes the concept as existing.

There is hardly any political concept without critics rejecting it as a conspiracy theory. There have been, and still is, a large number of individuals rejecting Marxism as a conspiracy theory. Quite frankly, most people seem to reject the notion that the modern bourgeoisie is oppressing the workers of the world. Yet, I do not see Marxism described as a conspiracy theory in the very first paragraphs of its Misplaced Pages page.

I am totally fine with many people seeing Eurabia as a conspiracy theory. However, I am not fine with these people having monopoly of definition over the concept.

2. If a political concept has both proponents and critics, then why are the critics to decide how the concept is to be defined? There is a considerable number of proponents not believing the idea of Eurabia to be a conspiracy. These are as well educated and credible intellectuals as those simply rejecting the concepts as mere conspiracy. Now, why are the individuals belonging to the refuting camp to dominate how the concept is to be defined and understood?

3. Eurabia is a theory about the future. As such, how can the critics possibly provide any reliable data that proves the theory to be a mere conspiracy? It's commonly held that we cannot concluded anything sure about the future. Declaring a theory about the political future of Europe a conspiracy appears dull and silly. Obviously, the critics fail to provide data that proves Eruabia is bound to never happen as much as the proponents fail to provide data that proves it is bound to happen. We are dealing with an Eurabia-debate, and the Eurabia article should be presented as such

4. In the Misplaced Pages article about conspiracy theories, Middle East historian Daniel Pipes is widely cited as reference. There is a whole paragraph about him which says the following:

In an essay on conspiracy theories originating in the Middle East, Daniel Pipes notes that "ive assumptions distinguish the conspiracy theorist from more conventional patterns of thought: appearances deceive; conspiracies drive history; nothing is haphazard; the enemy always gains; power, fame, money, and sex account for all." According to West and Sanders, when talking about conspiracies in the Vietnam era, Pipes includes within the fringe element anyone who entertains the thought that conspiracies played a role in the major political scandals and assassinations that rocked American politics in the Vietnam era. "He sees the paranoid style in almost any critical historical or social-scientific analysis of oppression."

The point in in this regard is that Daniel Pipes is a known proponent of the Eurabia concept. Conclusively, we have that a proponent of what Misplaced Pages describes as a conspiracy theory is widely quoted as an expert on the Misplaced Pages article about conspiracy theories. This fact ought to expose the debate on whether Eurabia is a conspiracy or not as a political debate.

Thanks for reading! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.71.107.152 (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear anonymous contributor.

Accusations of bias are as easily turned against those who posit them as they are posited in the first place. I suggest we give attention to the facts and literature on the topic.

1. The thing that is wrong with the term "political neologism", is that it does not convey the commonly accepted academic judgement of the Eurabia-theories. The "conspiracy" label, in addition to being a loaded term (for which there, however, is no non-judgmental alternative), does convey very significant information that the term "political neologism" does not. It is simply not possible to achieve knowledge in the Social Sciences without conferring some amount of judgement. The question is whether this judgement has a sound base, and the most commonly accepted method of establishing that is through peer-review. I truly hope that I am not coming through as condescending by making this point (in which case I apologise my wording, which is on-the-fly).

That being said, I will add some references to strengthen the use of this label.

Your reference to Marxism is a digression, but the most common criticism against marxism is that Marx's theories are either impossible to falsify (it is commonly accepted that a scientific theory should be stated in a manner that makes falsification possible), tautologic (i.e. self-confirming, and thus illogic) or actually falsified. In addition, marxism is a term that also covers several political directions and movements. There is no doubt whatsoever that numerous marxist conspiracy theories exist, but marxism as a term does not denote these specifically, but a set of philosophical or allegedly scientific claims about the structure of capitalism.

2. This is the same issue as is seen when it comes to climate science and intelligent design. The definitions of science are formed by consensus in the scientific community. Absolute consensus is rare, except when it comes to basic facts of physics. In other cases, the existence of a overwhelming majority holding a position is usually considered sufficient. When covering a topic where there a vocal minority opinion exists, this should obviously be covered in the article. In my opinion the coverage of that position is more than adequate (i.e. referring to all of Bat Ye'or's works), quoting proponent's speeches and texts extensively etc.

My points 1 and 2, unless challenged, and the fact that the proponents of the theory do not have any peer-reviewed material to show for themselves (all the references are to self-published books and speeches), is, in my opinion, a sufficient basis to state clearly in the lede that the Eurabia theory is a conspiracy theory. The peer-reviewed literature on the topic clearly labels it as such.

3. No. That simply isn't true. The Eurabia theory, as laid out by almost all the people defending it in this article contains a very significant component that has to do with past and present events. For example, Bat Ye'or claims that the EU signed extensive agreements with governments in Arabic countries to allow immigration and other allegedly arabicizing influences, and even refers to the summits where this allegedly took place. Other claims regarding the organisation and effectiveness of radical salafi groups, demographics and other issues, and their role in the Eurabia scenarios are also related to contemporary issues and facts which have been falsified.

4. The fact that Daniel Pipes is cited in the Misplaced Pages article on conspiracy theories does not in any manner mean that he can't himself be a conspiracy theorist. I'm straying a little bit off the topic here now, but the human mind's defences against self-contradictions are rather weak. Examples of people holding several contradictory views at once are too numerous to be counted, and it is quite possible that we all do.

In addition, although it is a goal one should strive to achieve, very few Misplaced Pages articles achieve a scholarly standard, where the sources for the article are a representative selection of all the relevant sources on a subject. Thus, although Pipes is cited, he may not be an authoritative source, much less the most authoritative.

To conclude, I will revert the alterations made to the lede, as they are not based on the best knowledge available. To reach this decision, I have consulted the literature by performing a search on Thomson Reuter's The Web of Knowledge and read each of the articles that show up in the search. Admittedly, there are rather few, but they all dismiss Eurabia as "a myth" or "a conspiracy". For the purposes of this discussion I'm going to consider that a representative selection. I will cite the articles, and to the best of my ability provide links that allow verification, although much of this content is behind pay-walls, where most of the scientific literature sadly remains.

--benjamil (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

i fully agree with benjamil.-- altetendekrabbe  09:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Me too.

About point 3, I can add that the Eurabia theory is near 10 years old now, so there are some of its forecast (claim about future) which can now be confirmed or falsified. By example, in 2005 Mark Stein claimed that the 2005 civil unrest in France confirmed a previous forecast of him, and that such event will happen again an again (something like one every 2 years, if I remember correctly) in Western european countries. 6 years later, it can be compared with what actually happened.

About point 4, I can add that Melanie Phillips is sometimes an Eurabia theory proponent, and is sometimes a conspiracy theories oponent.

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You will "revert the alterations made to the lede"? That would mean you would revert the alterations to the lead made by Altetendekrabbe yesterday, back to the way it looked since last December, when it was agreed that the concept of Eurabia encompassed two different things, and that the lede must comply with WP:NPOV. Please review that discussion. Jayjg 11:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Reviewed. As it stands, that discussion basically ends with an acknowledgment that the term has several denotations. One cannot, however, infer from WP:NPOV that this necessarily means that all the denotations should be given equal weight. Judging by the literature, the main use of the term is conspiratorical (conspiracy theory) or nonsensical (myth). I have seen absolutely no peer-reviewed material or other neutral sources that claim anything else. The fact that as far as the literature on the subject is concerned, the non-conspiratorical, non-nonsensical uses of the term is a fringe phenomenon, should weigh in heavily when WP:NPOV is applied.

Best regards

--benjamil (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The "Eurabia" name encompass several variants. Among them, the two main are:

• Since several decades, "EU bureaucrats have struck a secret deal to hand over Europe to Islam", which is obviously a conspiracy theory.
• By a few years the majority of european population will be Muslim, which is a conspiracy theory too because every demographic institute, every governement, Pew Research Center, Newsweek, is silent about this, is lying about this.

So this version and this version of the lead section looks good to me, otherwise not. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

the first version is the better. suggest you revert to that one.-- altetendekrabbe  21:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

To repeat what was already discussed last December (see the archives)

1. Eurabia encompasses two separate theories, only one of which (held by a minority) might be described as a "conspiracy theory".
2. Whether or not the theory of Muslim demographic domination is accurate or not, it is not a "conspiracy theory", but rather a demographic prediction.
3. The article already gives significant prominence to the "conspiracy theory" issue in the very brief lede.
4. WP:NPOV is quite clear that Misplaced Pages article do not make assertions in Misplaced Pages's voice.

What has changed since December? Jayjg 22:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not how I read WP:NPOV. All mentions of Eurabia in reputable, peer-reviewed sources that I have consulted (i.e. all the 7 hits on isiknowledge.com) flatly deny Eurabia as a myth or conspiracy. Giving significant weight to other views might, as I see it, be considered WP:UNDUE. Also, I think that your understanding of the phenomenon differs significantly from mine, as I believe that the applicable guideline isn't "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.", but "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion.". I know of no academic literature that considers claims referred to using the term "Eurabia" to be serious.

--benjamil (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you please respond specifically to the points I've made above? Stating that a theory is wrong is not the same as stating it is a "conspiracy theory". Jayjg 02:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've sort of already done that, but I might not have been clear enough. I'll make a point list:

1. It doesn't, in my opinion, matter if there exists a minority opinion that Eurabia refers to theories of a non-conspiratorical nature, as long as the term is used to describe conspiracy theories in the overwhelming majority of the cases where it is used. This is also part of WP:NPOV, as detailed below.
2. Such alleged demographical shifts, as far as I have seen, are never referred to using the term unless in a conspiratorical context. The point that all scholarly sources that mention or review Eurabia call it a conspiracy theory or a myth still holds.
3. Yes, but it isn't significant enough. The literature says this isn't just a significant view, it's the one and only view in the academic community.
4. WP:NPOV is, as I've mentioned also quite clear that uncontested assertions should not be presented as mere opinions.

With regards to what has changed since December, that doesn't need to be anything else than some new editor finding interest in improving the article, or some previous editor now having got the time to continue improving it. This is not, in my opinion, a question about falsifying the theory or not, it is a question of relaying the unanimous judgement conferred upon it by the academic community. Please look at the sources for the different positions in the source list. Race & Class, for instance, is a peer-reviewed journal with a mid-range to lower mid-range ranking in its field. Books published at the Johns Hopkins University press have to conform to a high academic standard. The people writing are in these cases researchers accepted by the academic community in their field, i.e. this is, as far as I can see, WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The proponents of the Eurabia theories are cited by sources that seem to be exclusively self-published (WP:SPS). As a highly experienced editor, administrator and previous member of the arbitration board, boasting an awe-inspiring number of edits, Jayjg's opinion on the dialogue between such types of sources is clearly welcome. But to me, this appears to be the a clear case of academics versus highly politicized fringe pundits. Now how should Misplaced Pages portray that?

Best regards

--benjamil (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with altendekrabbe. Although an alternative lede could be:

Eurabia is a political neologism. Its main use is to describe various conspiracy theories,(REFERENCES) alleging that European leaders have conspired to allow or willfully refused to react to a demographic and judicial takeover of Europe by Muslims.(REFERENCES) It is also infrequently used to describe other concepts.(REFERENCES)

In my opinion, the article should receive a thorough overhaul. For one, the subchapter on the origin of the term doesn't cover the term's origin, but Bat Ye'or's position in the last two paragraphs. In the debate section, the backgrounds of the proponents should be adequately described and contrasted with the backgrounds of the opponents. I'll be happy to do that, if we can agree on it.

Best regards

--benjamil (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I also fully agree with benjamil. The opening sentence needs to identify Eurabia as a conspiracy theory, as this is the view held by all scholarly sources. A scholarly source describing it as a valid theory doesn't exist to my knowledge. Eurabia being a conspiracy theory isn't just some random opinion on this theory, it is the sole accepted position in the scholarly literature. The theory is exclusively rejected by politically extreme and non-scholarly fringe sources. JonFlaune (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"All scholarly sources" view it as a "conspiracy theory"? "It is the sole accepted position in the scholarly literature"? What is your source for that claim? Jayjg 05:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I realise that my long posts might be tedious, so I'll try to be short. @Jayjg, since part of this discussion spilled over on the Talk:Counterjihad page, you wrote a summary of your position there:

There are two meanings of Eurabia, and Bat Yeor subscribes to what it appears to me is a minority view on the topic. The general use of the term is a demographic prediction that Muslims will become a majority in Europe through a combination of higher birth rates and immigration, and a related sociological prediction that this will be accompanied by an imposition of sharia law. This, as has been discussed several times on Talk:Eurabia, is not a conspiracy theory, but rather a socio-demographic prediction - those using the term state that these events are happening in a completely open and obvious way, and not as a result of any "conspiracy". Those seeking to discredit the notion of Eurabia (and those who subscribe to it) focus primarily on the minority "conspiracy theory" view of Yeor, as it is easier to debunk, and, in general, looks more "crazy". Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Do you have a source that is not WP:SPS that asserts that there are two meanings of Eurabia?
2. Has the less "crazy" notions of Eurabia ever been reviewed or discussed in a source that qualifies as WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
3. If so, can you name the source?
4. If not, how should we, in your opinion, represent the weight of the sources in order to achieve WP:NPOV?

Best regards

--benjamil (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

the so-called "socio-demographic prediction" is *always* accompanied by a nonsensical conspiratorial context. the peer-reviewed literature on this subject has grown recently, and by reviewing we find a clear consensus: eurabia is conspiracy theory. you find the same consensus in the media. as per wp:scholarship and wp:npov, precedence should be given to this view. the so-called "eurabia-is-not-a-conspiracy-theory-but-a-socio-demographic prediction"-view should be elaborated in the main text (not in the lead as this constitutes wp:undue) if its supported by several reliable secondary sources. controversial claims require several sources in order to establish verifiability, wp:v.-- altetendekrabbe  09:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Has the less "crazy" notions of Eurabia ever been reviewed or discussed in a source that qualifies as WP:SCHOLARSHIP?" (benjamil) See

Eurabian prophets of doom not only tend to present their population estimates as more inevitable than they actually are but their demographic prognoses sometimes border on the hallucinatory. The worst-case Eurabian scenarios predict that the Muslim population of Europe will have reached 40 per cent by 2025. Given that the current European population is approximately 450 million, with a total Muslim population of approximately 15 million, such expansion from 3 per cent to 40 per cent within twenty years would be nothing short of miraculous. it is difficult to see how the Eurabian demographic nightmare can occur even by the end of the century.

(which confound European population and European Union population) in Carr 2006. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"The original and main sense of Eurabia is a European-Arab opposition to Israel" (Jason from nyc) Source? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"There are two meanings of Eurabia, and Bat Yeor subscribes to a minority view on the topic." (Jayjg) Source? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"a demographic prediction that Muslims will become a majority in Europe through a combination of higher birth rates and immigration is not a conspiracy theory" (Jayjg) Source? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Came to broad media

I've moved this insertion in the lede to here for discussion:

The theory came to broad media prominence in 2011, when it was cited by terrorist Anders Behring Breivik as a motive for carrying out the 2011 Norway attacks.

Aside from the fact that the material violates WP:TERRORIST, which source has said the theory "came to broad media prominence in 2011" as a result of Breivik's citing it? Please quote the sources that state that. Jayjg 04:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

How about Google trends? I'm also at a loss when it comes to understanding how the terrorist label on Breivik is not "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject".

User:Benjamil (Timestamp not valid, I came to notice that I'd forgot to sign later on).

Google trends does not qualify as a reliable secondary source. Also, please review WP:TERRORIST; we do not even describe Osama bin Laden as a terrorist. Jayjg 23:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to explain what parts of WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY exclude the use of Google Trends data, and why these data should be treated differently than, for instance, information from national statistics bureaus?

When it comes to WP:TERRORIST, the policy, in my view is more open to interpretation than you seem to argue. What it says is that "contentious labels - such as calling (...) an individual a (...) terrorist (...) - (...) are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." The lone wolf article has an entire section that violates an interpretation of WP:TERRORIST that would make the use of the terrorist label innapropriate. That being said, after thinking about it, I agree that using the label in Misplaced Pages's voice is probably best avoided. How about:

There was a significant increase in the term's usage by news media in 2011,<ref name=Google>{{cite web |url=http://www.google.com/trends/?q=eurabia |title=Google Trends: Eurabia (News Reference Volume) |publisher=Google inc. |accessdate=April 24, 2012}}</ref> when it was cited by the perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks, Anders Behring Breivik, as a motive for carrying out the attacks.<ref name=Fekete>{{cite journal |last=Fekete |first=Liz |year=2012 |title=The Muslim Conspiracy Theory and the Oslo Massacre |journal=Race & Class |volume=53 |issue=3 |pages=30-47 |doi=10.1177/0306396811425984 |url=http://rac.sagepub.com/content/53/3/30.refs |accessdate=April 24, 2012}}</ref>

"

Best regards

--benjamil (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please quote the specific source that states that; I can't read it anywhere. Jayjg 23:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

At your service. However, to avoid further misunderstandings, I'm going to pose a rather basic question: Is this discussion we're having a result of an interpretation of the conjunction "when" that implies causality? As a relational conjunction it does not, it answers the question "at what time?". It would be perfectly okay with me to split that sentence into two, with the second senctence beginning with "At that time..." Although that does seem like splitting hairs to me. For the first part (note the arrows):

(there used to be a screenshot here, but I've reviewed the policies about use of non-free material and removed it)--benjamil (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It can, however just as easily be found by using this link. Please note 1) the existence of the news reference volume panel, 2) the highest peak, 3) the reference (F) at the highest peak in the search volume index panel and 4) its exact coincidence with the highest peak in the news reference volume panel and 4) the date of the item that reference (F) points to: July 25, 2011.

Citing from Fekete's article abstract:

"Anders Behring Breivik, perpetrator of the Norwegian massacre, was motivated by a belief in a Muslim conspiracy to take over Europe. (...) elements of this conspiracy theory are held and circulated in Europe today across a broad political spectrum (...) Although the conspiracy draws on older forms of racism, it also incorporates new frameworks: the clash of civilisations, Islamofascism, the new anti-Semitism and Eurabia."

The quote above, from a reference already in use in the article

1. Is from a peer-reviewed article
2. Constitutes a secondary analysis of Breivik's motives
3. Identifies Breivik as the perpetrator
4. Accurately places his statements in time
5. Specifically includes Eurabia as a framework in Breivik's conspiracy theories (the article mentions it as one of several in a list, the sentence I proposed uses the indeterminate article "a")
6. Explicitly refers to his own actions and statements relevant to the contents of the proposed sentence:

"In a closed court hearing on 25 July 2011, 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik admitted killing seventy-seven people (...) But he denied criminal responsibility on the basis that the shooting spree (...) was necessary (...) in order to stop the further disintegration of Nordic culture from the mass immigration of Muslims and kick-start a revolution to halt the spread of Islam.(...)Even before his court appearance, political analysts and anti-fascist monitors had been investigating Breivik’s motives, sifting through numerous online postings and, crucially, analysing his 1,500-page manifesto written in English under the pseudonym Andrew Berwick."

Best regards

--benjamil (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

But the quote nowhere supports the claim that "There was a significant increase in the term's usage by news media in 2011", much less that this alleged "significant increase" had anything to do with Breivik. Jayjg 23:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have already covered these issues. Please read and respond to the entire posts. There are several issues that you have not responded to.--benjamil (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You haven't "covered it". What's required here is quoting a source, not presenting your own WP:OR. You can "cover it" by quoting a source that makes the same claim that you do. Jayjg 21:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. What you call OR, as I see it, refers to the semantics question I posed at the beginning of the post, or possibly to the interpretation of a source. I don't intend to imply causation, rather I intend to let the reader judge the facts. I believe that the interpretation of the source is straightforward, and you haven't addressed my views on its reliability. If you think there's any other OR in the proposed sentence, I encourage you to point it out explicitly. Other than that, it would probably be easier to put the matter to rest if you addressed the arguments. --benjamil (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not swap for:

The theory was cited in 2011 by Anders Behring Breivik as a motive for carrying out the 2011 Norway attacks.

?Formerip (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Breivik wrote a huge manifesto about dozens of different things. What indication is there that this is particularly notable? When the Breivik story broke, there were a rash of Misplaced Pages edits attempting to identify people/concepts Misplaced Pages editors disliked with Breivik, because Breivik's actions were so extreme and universally condemned. It's a fairly obvious ad hominem fallacy, though not made explicitly. Jayjg 00:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked at Breivik's manifesto, though? I'm not suggesting you do, because I have and there are much better ways to waste your time. But it's fairly clear that this particular theory was basically the whole of his motivation, at least if his manifesto tells the whole story. Formerip (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read it. In any event, we're still awaiting reliable secondary sources that make these claims; WP:OR won't do. Jayjg 11:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"I haven't read it." (Jayjg) So your claim that "Breivik wrote a huge manifesto about dozens of different things" came from where? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

How is that relevant to the discussion here? Please find reliable sources for the claims listed above, and found in the article. Jayjg 23:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"How is that relevant to the discussion here?" (Jayjg) It is relevant to this talk page because of your adding, in this talk page, of the sentence "Well, Breivik wrote a huge manifesto about dozens of different things." Feel free to hide this sentence. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What does your comment have to do with article content? Jayjg 23:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"Breivik wrote a huge manifesto about dozens of different things." (Jayjg) This manifesto is mostly about Eurabia, quoting several hundred of pages of Eurabia thesis proponents. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What does your comment have to do with article content? Jayjg 23:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"It's a fairly obvious ad hominem fallacy" (Jayjg) It's a backfire in my opinion. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What does your comment have to do with article content? Jayjg 23:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Saunders was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

2012-05 cretinism

(for the record) Andrew Bostom wrote today that "Such independently confirmatory U.S. evidence underscores the intellectual and moral cretinism of those who spray charges of “conspiracism ” at Bat Ye’or" Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Eurabia as a theory by Muslims

Should the article also cover the topic of Eurabia as a goal by some Muslim clergys or scholars? Of course not a mainstream view, but there are clergys in Britain for example who advocate turning the country into more Islamic (the Queen is now the head of the Church of England - they wouldn't live there otherwise). The goal is pretty much the same as with Christian missionaries: to spread your religion. So, should this article also cover the Eurabia as a goal by some Muslim clergies or does that belong to Islamization article? I don't think it's that rare a view in Medina by scholars that Islam should be more widespread in Europe. But is the term Eurabia only about a right-wing conspirary theory? --Pudeo' 20:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It should, but all depends on the degree of reliability of the sources.Xrsye (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, should be careful with sources. Google results bring too many blogs with quoestionable motivies. Atleast Qatar TV interviewed Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi who believes that Islamic Europe (Eurabia then) will save Europeans from "subjugation to materialism and promiscuity" (July 28, 2007). He is a well-known controversial theologist, but indeed some support Islamic Europe. They do not, hoewever speaking in Arabic of course, use the word "Eurabia". --Pudeo' 19:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay - I added that piece of information under the article section Debate/Other. It would be highly interesting to get more views by radical scholars but unfortunately I can't read Arabic and most sources that reference them are those conspiracy blogs. --Pudeo' 20:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry for taking so long writing this, I should have had it ready when I did the first revert.

Second, to the question asked: No, in my opinion, it shouldn't, unless it is framed within the notion of "Eurabia", and if the phenomenon is notable in its own right. This is a primary source, and the quote should be framed within the context of secondary sources. When you look at the results you get when you google "muslim cleric calls for islamizing Europe", you will probably notice that several of the secondary sources interested in such a framing are already heavily referenced in the article (refs 8-13). More importantly, in my opinion, they are 'the carriers' of the Eurabia myth and conspiracy theory.

I also have problems with the use of the source. What this al-Qaradawi guy says isn't very different from what any proselytizing cleric would say, if you look at the entire quote. The video in the reference doesn't load where I'm sitting, but the transcript is probably a better source, anyway. From what I can read, there's no mention of the term "Eurabia", nor any claims at conquering Europe in any other manner than a zealous wish for the faith to spread (with which I, as an atheist, don't have much sympathy, but that's quite irrelevant). This, obviously, is a matter of interpretation, which again points at the need for secondary sources.

I really can't see how this quote is relevant to this article, unless it is incorporated into a new section on how eurabists construct their theories as an example of quoting extremists or quoting out of context (I don't know what's the better match in this case). Since that would require significant work, not the least in order to reestablish the balance of that viewpoint according to its prominence and to its judgement by other viewpoints, among them scholarly, I see no other editing choice available than removing it. --benjamil (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the term Eurabia does not exist there simply because it's not used in Arabic or by clergies in English. I can understand your point that it does not fit in this article in a way, but it does fit in the context of Islamization of Europe (redirects to Islam in Europe, which in turn does not cover Islamization itself), but I have no interests creating such an article. On the other hand, perhaps it's good that this article along some others stay quite short to prevent certain problems. I'm sorry to comment on the contributors instead of content, but a lot of people seem to be obsessed on the Eurabia/Islamphobia contexts on both sides. (This was my first edit on anything Islam-related in 6 years by the way, I believe). The article histories are somewhat worrisome, but it's now better when the articles are shorter. As for the dispute in question, I will not revert the article again because it would better fit in a different article I meantioned before. I don't think a section about "eurabists construct their theories" based on those extreme Islamist views should be made. But I'm glad I brought this up for someone else with more interest and time, who might stumble upon reading this section of the talk page. Good night. --Pudeo' 23:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Benjamil, are you implying that there are no Muslim scholars at all who seek an Islamic Europe? al-Qaradawi is a well-known quite radical scholar. Is there any reason why his view on Islamic Europe should not be included? --Pudeo' 22:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If we appear to disagree, I would believe that is because we disagree on what constitutes WP:SCHOLARSHIP. In my opinion, Al-Qaradawi certainly doesn't qualify when it comes to matters of "social-political which to alleged Arabization and Islamization of Europe, and the European leaders' alleged capitulation to Islamic influences" (from the lead). Has he written "an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community" (from the policy) in this field? I would be very surprised. --benjamil (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

Hi I've tried to restructure the article in line with some of the discussions we have had on the page. I haven't managed to do all that I hoped, so there are significant parts that are unrevised, have less than optimal references etc. The main idea has been to try to make a framework that allows the sources to be more easily distinguished by their quality. Best regards. --benjamil (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

wow, wonderful work! keep digging up academic sources and continue to re-write!-- altetendekrabbe  09:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad you think it's an improvement. --benjamil (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to bring it back into line with WP:NPOV, per WP:BRD. Eurabia denotes a number of different things, not just the "conspiracy theory" of Bat Yeor, and Misplaced Pages still must conform with NPOV. Jayjg 00:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg edit no consensus for such big changes.Please discuss them in talk first.--Shrike (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No, per WP:BRD there's no need to discuss them first, but I'll have to expect to see them reverted. Jayjg, you've been asked to provide some sources that are WP:SCHOLARSHIP to confirm that Eurabia is more than a conspiracy theory, and I still haven't seen any. Also, I'm sure there were a couple of NPOV issues, but BRD doesn't mean you can just revert changes and let it be with that. There might not be consensus for my version, but there was support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamil (talk • contribs) 05:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll expand on that. First, I believe the structure in my version was better, because it allowed sources to be framed in context. Second, I added substantial amounts of new text with perfectly good sources, and it would be nice to know which specific parts you consider to be POV. In hindsight I can probably think of a few. For further work: How about trying to agree on structure first? --benjamil (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition to my previous quote of Carr 2006, I can show scholars, quoted in WP:NEWSORG, dismissing the demographic-prediction-only eurabian thesis variant, but whitout calling it a conspiracy theory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for pointing that out. However, I still have to ask: While they do not explicitly use that label, do they comment on the nature of the claims? --benjamil (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sometime: "exaggeration", "absurd", "foolishness", "unlikely", "nightmare"... See below. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please point out which part of Benjamil's change that you disagree with. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"Eurabia denotes a number of different things, not just the "conspiracy theory" of Bat Yeor" (Jayjg) You do not anymore claim that Eurabia denotes two things and only two things? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

About demographic prediction

Several sources about the demographic-prediction-only eurabian thesis variant (I tried to sort them from less reliable to more reliable):

• Mark Steyn, U.S. can sit back and watch Europe implode, Chicago Sun-Times (and other syndicated newspapers?), 2005-02-27

  By some projections, the EU's population will be 40 percent Muslim by 2025.

• Adrian Michaels, Muslim Europe: the demographic time bomb transforming our continent, The Daily Telegraph, 2009-08-08

  Another forecast holds that Muslims could outnumber non-Muslims in France and perhaps in all of western Europe by mid-century.

• The power of private prayer, The Economist, 2007-11-01

  the imminent arrival of Eurabia can be dismissed as poor mathematics. Muslim minorities in Europe are indeed growing fast and causing political friction, but they account for less than 5% of the total population, a tiny proportion by American standards of immigration. Even if that proportion trebles in the next 20 years, Eurabia will still be a long way off.

• John Esposito, Sheila Lalwani, Debunking the myth of a 'Eurabia', San Francisco Chronicle, 2011-02-07

  Such scaremongers claim that Islam is a demographic threat, warning of an impending "Eurabia" within a few decades. This paranoia - based more on fear and misperception - fuels anti-Islam and anti-Muslim hysteria across Europe and North America and undermines our multicultural society. Muslims will remain a relatively small minority, but they will make up a growing share of the total population. According to the study, Europe's Muslim population is projected to grow from 44.1 million in 2010 to 58.2 million in 2030.

• Brian Grim in Maren Olsen, Anders Bisgaard, Eurabiske vers, Morgenbladet, 2011-08-19

  I løpet av de neste 20 årene ser vi bare to prosent økning i andelen muslimer i Europa. Vi kalkulerer med at vekstraten flater ut. Så denne økningen er veldig, veldig beskjeden. Det er en relativt liten andel av den samlede befolkningen i Europa. Vi har ikke sett på noe reelt scenario hvor Eurabia kan bli en realitet, sa senior researcher Brian Grim i Pew Research Center til Reuters da studien ble lansert.

• Brian Grim in Richard Greene, World Muslim population doubling, report projects, CNN, 2011-01-27

  "There has been a lot of speculation about the growth of the Muslim population around the world, and many of those who speculate don't have good data," said Brian Grim, a senior researcher at the Pew Forum. For example, the report undermines the notion that Europe is heading toward having any country with a Muslim majority. The continent will be about 8 percent Muslim in 2030, it projects. "The data that we have isn't pointing in the direction of 'Eurabia' at all," Grim said. "The Muslim population is growing and slowing. Instead of a runaway train, it's trending with the general global population," he said.

• Bernard Lewis in Europa wird am Ende des Jahrhunderts islamisch sein, Die Welt, 2004-07-28

  Nach den aktuellen Trends wird Europa spätestens Ende des 21. Jahrhunderts muslimische Mehrheiten in der Bevölkerung haben.

• Bernard Lewis & Jytte Klausen & Jocelyn Cesari & Jonathan Laurence & Justin Vaisse in Simon Kuper, Head count belies vision of ‘Eurabia’, Financial Times, 2009-10-02

  Bernard Lewis, a scholar of Islam, cited the immigration from Muslim countries and relatively high birth-rates of immigrants as trends that mean “Europe will have Muslim majorities in the population by the end of the twenty-first century at the latest.” Most academics who have analysed the demographics dismiss such predictions.

• Jytte Klausen & Grace Davie & Carl Haub in William Underhill, Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong, Newsweek, 2009-07-20

  "There is a quite deliberate exaggeration, as has often been pointed out—but the figures are still being cited," says Jytte Klausen, an authority on Islam in Europe at Boston's Brandeis University. given the number of variables, demographers are loath to make predictions about the number of Muslims in Europe in the years to come. "You would almost have to make it up," says Carl Haub, the senior demographer at the Population Reference Bureau in Washington. And the idea of a Muslim majority any time soon? "Absolutely absurd."

• Michèle Tribalat in John Lichfield, Our Man In Paris: France will never be a Muslim state, The Independent, 2004-02-03

  Mme Tribalat described the figures as "une sottise" (a piece of foolishness). "One wonders," she said, "where such figures come from and why."

• Charles Westoff & Tomas Frejka in Douglas Todd, Do Muslims seek to dominate the West? And could they do it?, Vancouver Sun (and other syndicated newspapers), 2009-08-15

  They go on to say it's possible that the Muslim percentage of Europe's population could rise to six per cent by 2020. If current immigration and birth rates remain the same, Westoff and Frejka say the percentage of Muslims in Europe could rise to 10 per cent -- a century from now. Then again, the demographers say, even these scenarios are unlikely.

• Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1177/0306396806066636, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1177/0306396806066636 instead.

  Eurabian prophets of doom not only tend to present their population estimates as more inevitable than they actually are but their demographic prognoses sometimes border on the hallucinatory. The worst-case Eurabian scenarios predict that the Muslim population of Europe will have reached 40 per cent by 2025. Given that the current European population is approximately 450 million, with a total Muslim population of approximately 15 million, such expansion from 3 per cent to 40 per cent within twenty years would be nothing short of miraculous. it is difficult to see how the Eurabian demographic nightmare can occur even by the end of the century.

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is quite a piece of work. I'd say this gives a good foundation for giving a representation of the views on the demographic scenarios. I'm not up to writing anything right now, and think we should settle the structure dispute first. I believe the current structure makes it difficult to achieve WP:BALANCE, because all the views are portrayed as coming from participants in a debate. There are several discourses that involve Eurabia, and this needs to be reflected in the article. Also, Jayjg, I thought there was consensus on keeping the Islamophobia template, where did that go? Best regards, benjamil (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We should stick to reliable sources, and ones that deal directly with Eurabia. I wouldn't consider Mark Steyn to be very reliable.VR _talk 03:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

He's reliable enough for this article. And without question we should stick to WP:NPOV: Avoid stating opinions as facts, Prefer nonjudgmental language, etc. Jayjg 23:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

2012-05 no refutation

(for the record) Fjordman wrote yesterday that "not a single journalist to knowledge has ever managed to pinpoint any factually incorrect information in what Bat Ye’or writes about relationships between the Western world and the Islamic world." Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Hi. We've had some trouble settling on a lede for this article. I suggest the following:

Eurabia is a portmanteau of Europe and Arabia and a political neologism. It commonly denotes either a set of conspiracy theories, alleging that Europe is being arabised and islamised,(References) or demographic scenarios involving a Muslim majority in Europe.(References) While the conspiracy theories are frequently described as islamophobic(Fekete etc.) and extremist,(Zuquete etc) and have failed to be taken seriously by academics and policy makers,(Economist, Kuper) the demographic scenarios are widely held to be exaggerated and extremely unlikely.(PEW, etc.) The term is commonly used in claims that European leaders collude with or are unwilling to confront a totalitarian Islamic threat.(References).

This should take care of the NPOV-related issues that Jayjg has pointed out. Of course, the pertinent references should be used. I would, however, like to point out that I believe the current reference 1 is quite WP:UNDUE, in that it, in contrast to most other references, quotes the contents of the referenced material quite extensively. In my opinion, the most relevant of the quotes should go into the main body of the text. The reference is also poorly formatted, and as such stands out (although the current references 21, 34, 43, 44 and 47 have some related issues). Best regards --benjamil (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

imho, your first re-write of the lead was the best.-- altetendekrabbe  21:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems like there is an edit war on-going. I don't actually know what kind of an article the other side prefers, but I agree that this article shouldn't be based completely on the idea of just two users (benjamil and Altetendekrabbe). This article has too broad history and scope for that. Especially Altetende has a block history, so I believe it is rather controversial that he rewrites a whole article of this importance without discussing the edits on talk page beforehand. --Pudeo' 18:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with Pudeo. Estlandia (dialogue) 19:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

To call other edits as vandalism when they are not its violation of WP:NPA also there apparent POV push in this edit because it gives opinion of one author in Misplaced Pages voice--Shrike (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

wanna try an administrative venue and fail again, shrike? your stalking is becoming annoying.-- altetendekrabbe  12:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reported Altetendekrabbe's edit warring . Estlandia (dialogue) 12:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The point of opening this section was to have a conversation in stead of the every other day reverts that was the rhythm in May. If more people want to join that conversation, please do. I've written a proposal. You can give input on that, as Altetendekrabbe did, and act on it as he did, or write your own. Plain reverts and no discussion does not become laudable simply because one is marginally more polite than other people engaging in the practice. Cheers, --benjamil (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Kuper's "The end of Eurabia" is an opinion piece that can't be used as a source in the way it is used now (see WP:RSOPINION). Your suggestion, Benjamil, still reads biased. While "Eurabia" surely denotes an Islamophobic conspiracy theory in the belief system of the scholars cited, this belief system is not (yet) largely shared. The concept of Islamophobia and the term in itself are rejected by many (see the "Criticism" section in Islamophobia). The term "Islamophobic" is derogatory. The term "conspiracy theory" is derogatory, too. WP:LABEL applies. A moral judgement made by a scholar still is a moral judgement, not an encyclopedic fact. "Eurabia" is rather "a word that provides a concise shorthand for an array of cultural and ethnic nightmares" (Philip Jenkins, Gods Continent, Oxford University Press 2007, p. 4). Many people use it for all kinds of dystopic views, some of those people may suffer from a phobia and/or promote conspiracy theories, others very probably do not. Cheers, Ankimai (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

ok, fine. this issue has to be dealt with on an administrative noticeboard. suggest benjamil to take this issue to either the npov/n or dr/n or both.-- altetendekrabbe  17:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the persistent reverts and re-reverts are entirely unfruitful. How about we ask an administrator to lock the article for a week or so?

I'll grant one point, the one regarding the use of Kuper. That phrase should go. As for the other points, I believe that WP:SCHOLARSHIP gives academic research a primacy of sorts when it comes to belief systems. Still, I don't have a problem with making the framing clear: I wrote the current structure to make it possible to distinguish between the nature of the sources used. Now, when it comes to Islamophobia the argument is more or less the same: This is the predominant word used to describe anti-muslim sentiments in the most serious texts about that subject. Other connotations are not really very interesting. The same is the case for conspiracy theories. The most commonly used phrase for the concept "a notion of people scheming in secret to achieve a goal" is "conspiracy theory". WP:LABEL is not the end of the line, 9/11 Conspiracy theories is an article that is live and well. If a standard that disqualified academic opinion containing the faintest hint of moral judgment was to be applied, Misplaced Pages would have to use inline citations for most of the content on any topic that has to do with Humanities or the Social Sciences.

Although not specifically pointing at the conspiracy theory - demographic transition theory continuum, as Jenkins writes further down, "Though jeremiads about Christian decline are not necessarily linked to dark visions of Eurabia, the different concepts become linked," making it hard to agree on where one should draw the line. As long as conspiracy theories that are on par with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and ZOG are a significant part of the Eurabia discourse, I feel that it would be quite misleading not to use this term in the lead, not the least because such use has significant academic sources to back it up. The encyclopedic ideal of neutrality does not allow for total relativism. I feel that using the phrase "frequently described as" is almost going too far down that path. But as long as we have a discussion that might be going somewhere, I don't see the need for taking it to a noticeboard yet. So how about we remove the Kuper passage, like so:

Eurabia is a portmanteau of Europe and Arabia and a political neologism. It commonly denotes either a set of conspiracy theories, alleging that Europe is being arabised and islamised,(References) or demographic scenarios involving a Muslim majority in Europe.(References) While the conspiracy theories are frequently described as islamophobic(Fekete etc.) and extremist,(Zuquete etc), the demographic scenarios are widely held to be exaggerated and extremely unlikely.(PEW, etc.) The term is commonly used in claims that European leaders collude with or are unwilling to confront a totalitarian Islamic threat.(References).

Cheers, benjamil (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I strongly prefer that the lede start with "Eurabia is a portmanteau of Europe and Arabia and a political neologism." The next sentence should read like "Proponents of the theory..." Currently the lede kinda reads as if Eurabia was a fact. This isn't neutral.VR _talk 03:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

bat ye'or, the inventor of the term "eurabia", needs to be mentioned as well. suggest to remove weasel words like "frequently", "widely", "commenly", "mostly", "some" and so on and so forth.-- altetendekrabbe  06:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to put Bat Ye'Or in the lead, it follows logically from the amount of space she is given in the rest of the article. However, when it comes to WP:WEASEL, I'd like to point out that the last sentence of that policy reads "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution." (my emphasis). --benjamil (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

no prob bob, if you have attribution that is.-- altetendekrabbe  11:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Appropriateness of lead template

Would someone please explain to me why the lead template for this article is Islamophobia? It would be more appropriate to put Islamophobia as a criticism of the Eurabia theory. A more neutral lead template would be the Islamism template. Comments? Frotz (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that the main issue is for whom the term/concept is most relevant. The term is rarely used in a context where Muslims aren't considered a threat. To me, the Islamism template would lend Eurabia credibility, whether as a conspiracy theory or demographic scenario. --benjamil (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, an Islamism template (namely Template:Islamism sidebar) would be misleading. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Benjamil explained why the Islamism template would be ideal. What's your reason against that? Frotz (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You haven't read much of what I've written on this talk page, have you? To be more precise: Linking Eurabia to the Islamism template would mean to lend the Eurabia conspiracy theories credibility. I should probably have been more precise in pointing that out.

Best regards, --benjamil (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Because Eurabia and Islamism are lightly related. The eurabian theories were not made by islamists, are almost never supported by islamists, and are not focused on Islamism (but on Europe, European people, Arab countries, Muslims). The Eurabia wiki page is NOT "Part of the Politics series on Islamism". On the other hand, you can see Template:Conspiracy theories at the bottom of the page. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have mixed views on the issue. Conspiracy theory definition is "social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public." If someone says that European leaders like Merkel are somehow involved in some Islamization process, it will fall in the conspiracy theory category indeed. But, if Eurabia is only a term coined for high demographic estimates of the propotion of Muslims in Europe in the future, is it a conspiracy theory? Those demographic estimates can be debated, some are overestimated, some are not valid, but I don't see how a demographic estimate, even a rigged one, can be called a conspiracy theory. So, Eurabia can be a conspiracy theory but it is not one necessarily, depends on the use. Also, remember that the term Islamophobia is not a fully scientific name - Islamofascism isn't either. Anti-Islamic sentiment is a more neutral term - I debated this back in 2007 about Russophobia vs. anti-Russian sentiment. Not entirely sure at all that the main template of Eurabia should be Islamophobia, but it should definitely recognise that many or most factions supporting Eurabia are Islamophobic or anti-Islamic. It is not our duty to decide what gives Eurabia credibility and what not, we just try to state the facts and be very neutral. --Pudeo' 20:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"If someone says that European leaders like Merkel are somehow involved in some Islamization process, it will fall in the conspiracy theory category indeed." (Pudeo) I concur! (for your information: "The truth is that for 30 years the Europeans were with the terrorists. They can’t fight the Arabs; they have allowed the Arabs to dictate their policy since 1974."; "Eurabia’s destiny was sealed when it decided, willingly, to become a covert partner with the Arab global jihad against America and Israel."; "Europeans are conditioned by Palestinianism to hate America and Israel"; "For 40 years Eurabia has built its networks, its finance, its hegemonous power, its totalitarian control over the media, the universities, the culture and the mind of people.") Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"I don't see how a demographic estimate, even a rigged one, can be called a conspiracy theory" (Pudeo) See my previous sentence "By a few years the majority of european population will be Muslim, which is a conspiracy theory too because every demographic institute, every governement, Pew Research Center, Newsweek, is silent about this, is lying about this. 20 April 2012" The Pew Research and every state-owned demographic institute claim that Muslim will rise to 10 % of European population by next decades, altough several eurabian articles/books claim that it will certainly rise to 25 or 50%. That's why I think it is somewere a conspiracy theory. But this is not a direct inference, and this personal opinion seem to be not shared by other. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"Not entirely sure at all that the main template of Eurabia should be Islamophobia" (Pudeo) Me too. But I am sure that Template:Islamism sidebar should not be the main template. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts on the matter are that Template:Islamophobia should not be there. Template:Islamism might be appropriate, but I detect objections on account of OR. Visite seems to imply that it's not our place to be the first to decide what sidebar should be there. I agree. Perhaps the best action is to remove the sidebar entirely for the time being. Frotz (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

nope. take it to dispute resolution if you want.-- altetendekrabbe  09:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Eurabia is an Islamophobic fantasy - a bit like Hitler's Jewish conspiracy nonsense. The only reason for having an article on the Eurabia fantasy is within the context of anti-Islamic prejudice and hate campaigns. The template helps the user put the article in context. it should stay, if the article stays.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

i fully agree with toddy1.-- altetendekrabbe  10:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense. Why Islamophobists would fantasize about an Islamic Europe, they'd rather have nightmares about it don't you think? Anyway, Misplaced Pages doesn't have to add templates to put things in context, for example al-Qaeda terrorists aren't actually called terrorists in Misplaced Pages, it's up to the reader. Ultra neutral point of view means that you don't label articles based on your own morals. But perhaps the template should exist in this template, though, if it stays in WP. The template Islamophobia has been nominated for deletion before, and is the only anti-religious sentiment template besides Template:Antisemitism. This further discussion, belongs to Template_talk:Islamophobia. --Pudeo' 13:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

the inclusion is fully supported by reliable sources.-- altetendekrabbe  13:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"Why Islamophobists would fantasize about an Islamic Europe, they'd rather have nightmares about it don't you think?" (Pudeo) Because those people are Europeanophobist. Many prefer a Muslim Europe rather than a socialist, social democrat or christian democrat Europe. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Islam-related articles
• Low-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class European Union articles
• Low-importance European Union articles
• WikiProject European Union articles
• C-Class Europe articles
• Low-importance Europe articles
• WikiProject Europe articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• Automatically assessed Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of people