Talk:Counter-jihad

wikiproject fascism

Bellatores keeps reverting the insertion of the WikiProject tagging without discussion in the talk page, and has been reverted by three different users. Clearly there is no consensus for the removal. One user, when restoring, included [1] as a reason. Other than that no one, including Bellatores, has done anyhting other than speak via edit summary. While I love its twitter-like qualities, which mean succinct messages, this clearly needs to stop and be discussed under BRD.

So, discuss. In the meantime, consensus clearly shows "keep" so do not change it again or we will think you are edit warring. We could change it after a process of discussion, but we should discuss it first instead of warring.--Cerejota (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no basis whatsoever to include the anti-Islamic "counterjihad" in a WikiProject about Fascism, a very unrelated and deeply conflicting political ideology on so many levels. It is thus you who support this inclusion who have to come up with relevant sources etc. to make this inclusion, not me. Given that reliable sources for this ignorant notion of course don't exist, the entire claim is so blatantly POV that it needs to be removed asap. – Bellatores (t.) 10:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, about the Guardian source, it actually says "usually if inaccurately dubbed neo-fascist or extreme right", and it even talks about what it calls "the New Populists", which it makes clear are political parties and politicians, not counterjihad. Although perhaps in a sense related to counterjihad, there is no direct basis for attaching this label (which even the Guardian notes is rather inaccurate) to the counterjihad at all. – Bellatores (t.) 10:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's all fine and dandy, but if you replace this again, your will be reported for edit warring. So many editors have reverted you, it clear your position is not consensus. Consenus can change and you make a compelling case, but lets at least hear from those who reverted you. OK?--Cerejota (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The view that the counterjihadists are a brand of fascists gets strong support in this analysis of Fjordman's writings, and Fjordman, no doubt is a mainstream counterjihadist. This report also makes an argument to that point. --benjamil (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

these sources should be included in the text.-- mustihussain (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, benjamil had already linked So, what’s the deal with Fjordman?. And thank you very much for Toby Archer's report, I'll read it as soon as I can. Unfortunatly, the first page say "Draft version, please do not cite without authors permission". But Toby Archer has a blog, including Toby Archer, What's up with the "Counter-Jihad"?, 2010-10-16, which link Charles Johnson, Pamela Geller and the bloggers of hate, 2010-10-14. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

See for example Øyvind Strømmen, Hello, Fjordman!, 2007-12-09, and Øyvind Strømmen, So, what’s the deal with Fjordman?, 2011-08-05, quoted in Fjordman oppfordrer indirekte til vold, 2011-08-05, for Fjordman called a fascist, or Geller rettferdiggjør terrorangrep, 2011-08-03, for Pamela Geller called a far-rightist. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a self-published, openly "anti-fascist", freelance journalist is a very authorative source. One should also note that the counterjihad is broader than just Fjordman, even though he of course was a very central writer. Being an (alleged) "far-rightist" does also not automatically imply that one adheres to the fascist ideology. – Bellatores (t.) 22:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

+1 Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

+2 --Nozzer71 (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to make the point that almost any non-idolizing source on fascism will be openly "anti-fascist", since fascist ideology is widely regarded as an abomination, and people taking an interest in it will have to distance themselves from it in some way or another in order to gain social acceptance. The judgement of an analysis' merit should be made on terms of its logic, coherence and scope, not solely on its author's political views. Strømmen's analysis does quite clearly show how Fjordman's writings conform to a scholarly definition of fascism, regardless of his stated position. Furthermore, this definition, which for the ease of discussion I will quote here, probably does apply to a greater part of the counterjihadist movement than Fjordman himself (and I guess Toby Archer's writings point that out).

"[F]ascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence." - Roger Griffin

Although the article should, of course, adhere to WP:NOR and WP:POV, and I will not argue that all counterjihadists are fascists (such a claim would be logically invalid and impossible to document), it is clear that the movement has significant ties to parties and organizations on the European anti-immigration far right, some of which are arguably fascist. Under WP:BDR I'll try to expand the article to incorporate these facts. Any help will be appreciated.--benjamil (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I've now expanded the article, added some subheadings and listed a scholarly source, as well as one of the movement's most prominent members view on why the movement exists. The negative allegations have been grouped into one paragraph and to some extent rephrased in more neutral language. The paragraph on organization is rather stubbish, but offers a starting point for further editing. I've done a bit of research and expect to be able to write a couple of paragraphs on various affiliate organizations. For the convenience of other editors, take a look at this report and this internet resource. The question of whether counterjihad should be grouped with the project fascism as such remains unresolved, for my part. --benjamil (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If we are to use Øyvind Strømmen as a source for the claim that Fjordman is a fascist, then we should also make note that Strømmen has advocated the de facto banishment of all counterjihad thinkers from being given space in newspapers and media (fascism is relative, eh?).[2] I think it is unacceptable to include counterjihad in WikiProject Fascism, when all it comes down to is the claim from an obviously non-neutral activist that one counterjihadist may be considered to have certain ideological similarities with fascism. The ground is just way too weak. – Bellatores (t.) 23:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to use people's political views as an argument against their analyses, you can't call Hannah Arendt an authority on Holocaust, nor Nelson Mandela an expert on apartheid. Currently, Strømmen is only used as a reference for a claim that Fjordman is a fascist. --benjamil (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

2011-09 epic win

For the record, according to Baron Bodissey, The Breivik Portfolio, Part Four: The Dot-Connection, Gates of Vienna, 2011-08-29, the 2011 Norway attacks were an epic win for the Counterjihad movement, because of "the increased Gates of Vienna traffic, which was unprecedented. The number of new readers at Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs [...] must have been astronomical. [...] Mr. Breivik [...] showed himself to be brilliant, dedicated, focused, and single-minded at Utøya." Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

2011-12 self description

For the record: A Brief History of the Transatlantic Counterjihad, Gates of Vienna, 2011. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Confusion about this movement

I haven't heard of "Counterjihad" before, and I find this article confusing. To begin with, keeping in mind the WP:BLP implications of the labeling going on here, can people here provide three reliable sources each for the claim that it is "Islamophobic" and "far-right"? We would need the source, and the quote that explicitly uses the term "Islamophobic" or "Far-right". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Islamophobic

Source 1 (source and quote using the phrase "Islamophobic"):

Source 2 (source and quote using the phrase "Islamophobic"):

Source 3 (source and quote using the phrase "Islamophobic"):

"Far-right"

Source 1 (source and quote using the phrase "Far-right"):

Source 2 (source and quote using the phrase "Far-right"):

Source 3 (source and quote using the phrase "Far-right"):

If you haven't heard about it earlier it might be a good idea to start by reading the article and the sources given there.

Islamophobic

http://www.goteborgsfria.se/artikel/89385 "Counterjihadrörelsen har uppstått ur den spridda islamofobi som växt efter 11 september 2001." trans: "The counterjihad movement has it's origin in the scattered islamophobia that has grown up since September 11 2001."

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/07/201172611337853373.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/aug/23/thinktanks-islamism-muslims-islamophobia

http://maxblumenthal.com/2011/07/anders-behring-breivik-a-perfect-product-of-the-axis-of-islamophobia/

http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/b50eb324856c44359cd8669a99809381/EU--Europes-New-Far-Right/ "Europe's new right-wing radicals focuse on Islamophobia instead of white supremacy /../ The anti-Islamic movement's ideological roots can be found in the so-called "counterjihadist" community of American and European bloggers"

http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/risk-att-breivik-ses-som-profet_7065745.svd "Having said this one must remember that the islamophobic ”counterjihad-rörelsen” that inspired Breivik is something completley different than the nazi white power movement of the 90s."

Far right

http://www.svd.se/kultur/understrecket/diffus-rorelse-med-muslimer-som-hatobjekt_6364272.svd "Det är en ny form av höger­extremism som redan fått inflytande på populistiska partier." trans. "It's a new form of far right that already have influence in populistic parties."

http://uit.no/getfile.php?PageId=1410&FileId=1337 "Learning to love the Jews: the impact of the War on Terror and the counter-jihad blogosphere on European far right parties."

http://www.goteborgsfria.se/artikel/89385 "Den nya högerextremismens terroristiska uttryck" trans. "The terroristic expression of the new far right"

http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/b50eb324856c44359cd8669a99809381/EU--Europes-New-Far-Right/ "far-right group that claims it's not opposed to foreigners in general, just Muslims."

//Liftarn (talk)

Sorry, I don't see any of the quotes. Given that many of these are non-English sources, it would be particularly helpful if you provided them. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

O.K., I looked at the first three English sources given under "Islamophobic". The first is an opinion piece in Al Jazeera by Jim Lobe that does explicitly describe "counter-jihad" as Islamophobic - not sure why exactly Wikipedia would cite this particular source on this. The second, an opinion piece in the Comment is Free section of the online Guardian, uses both terms, but doesn't make a clear statement that I can see. The third is a blog. As far as I can tell, this is the usual mishmash of opinions, unreliable sources, and WP:OR. Could someone please list the information as requested? Reliable source, and quote explicitly stating the claim? I'll wait another day or two, but then I'll move the material to the article Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

So even when removing some sources that may be questionable we still have two solid sources for the islamophobia claim and still four for the far right claim. As you earlier dismissed Der Spiegel, the largest weekly news magazine in Europe, as "a blog" perhaps you should revisit the sources provided. // Liftarn (talk)

Jayjg said here "I haven't heard of "Counterjihad" before". This is an untrue statement. Opbeith (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't get this, criticizing a religion that teaches rape victims should be stoned to death while the rapist walks scot free is akin to being a Nazi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.252.209.89 (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"criticizing a religion [...] is akin to being a Nazi?" No, it is not. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Breivik manifesto

Reading through this article, I came across this sentence:

Anders Behring Breivik, responsible for the 2011 Norway attacks, published a manifesto explaining his views which drew heavily on the work of counterjihad bloggers such as Fjordman.

I read the source supporting this particular sentence, and its use appears to be WP:NOR, since it nowhere mentions "Counterjihad". Can anyone here explain why it is being used here? Have I missed a reference to Counterjihad in the source? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes you have. By example "Hundreds of pages were written by other right-wing bloggers, Breivik simply copied and pasted them into his treatise. Dozens of chapters were published in recent years on blogs like Gates of Vienna (GoV) and The Brussels Journal, two of his most-cited sources. Breivik himself claimed to follow the "Viennese school of thought," a direct reference to GoV." (The current version of the article say that "Counterjihad as a movement is mainly Internet-based, and centers around blogs such as Jihad Watch, Atlas Shrugs and Gates of Vienna and The Brussels Journal.")

So apparently I haven't? The source doesn't actually mention "Counterjihad", the topic of this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You have missed reference to Counterjihad in the source, which explicitly mention "Gates of Vienna", "The Brussels Journal", "Fjordman", "anti-Jihad". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the source mentions those blogs, but says nothing whatsoever about "Counterjihad". Blogs invariably say all sorts of things, and the source doesn't actually connect all this to "Counterjihad", which is apparently a specific thing. WP:NOR explicitly forbids Wikipedia editors from making these kinds of connections that sources do not make. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The article correctly mentions Breivik's copious usages of Counterjihad literature. However, it is somewhat ambiguous when it says "his views ... drew heavily on." What views? His goals and ambitious for Norway? Or his view on violent conflict? The reason I bring this up is that there is and was a condemnation of his tactics (see ref 5, New York Times). Just as we used to distinguish between socialism and communism by the latter's dedication to violent overthrow, we should be careful not to imply that Breivik's revolutionary philosophy is shared by what may be a movement that is dedicated to democratic change. During the Cold War, calling all socialist "communists" was considered "red-baiting" and unfair. As far as I know, Breivik's terrorist attack and all violent revolutionary action is rejected by the leaders of the counterjihad. One can find most of them condemning violence as a path to social change. They seem to be the "socialist" evolutionary types while Breivik is the "communist" revolutionary counterpart.

I suggest we add a quote from ref 5 that balances this statement:

"'Baron Bodissey,' wrote on the site Sunday that 'at no time has any part of the Counterjihad advocated violence.'" [5]

Jason from nyc (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

My assumption from the term counterjihad is a movement attempting to counter the violent or extremist components of those believing they are fighting in "holy war". Both Breviks manifesto and the aforementioned blogs present an counter-jihadist approach. whereas Breviks adopted an approach more similar to a jihadist attack. Theres irony there but aslong as there is a separation between Brevik and the counter jihadist blogs (as suggested above)it should remain neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanb2637 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing or Incorrect Links

There is no wiki page for "Edward S. May" nor do I see any reference that May is Barron Bodissey. Was the page or link removed? This needs to be fixed. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you already read Wikipedia:Red link? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That helps since I expected to find a page on May that explained the connection to Baron Bodissey. I did note on the Wikipedia:Red link page the following: "Red links to personal names should be avoided—particularly when the name is reported in a context which might cause readers to hold a low or critical opinion of the named individual. Frequently a red-linked name has been placed in an article, and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name." I was just concerned with possible misidentification. Hopefully care will be taken to avoid any problems. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

A page for Edward S. May has now been created 1 May 2012. -- LutherBlissetts (talk) 18:46, 03 May 2012 (BST)

Counter-jihad movement in general

Visite fortuitement prolongée, I removed your edits because the references weren't talking about the Counter-jihad movement in general. There is no mention of "counter-jihad." There are specific articles on the individuals in question. I believe the material is worthy of inclusion ... elsewhere. To include it in this article would be WP:OR and WP:Synthesis. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So you have read those quotations, and maybe the whole online articles. That's good. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

But deliberately inserting WP:OR into an article is against policy, so that's not good. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Mumbo-jumbophobe wrote: The following sentence was deleted because it has no discernible meaning, thus it cannot be either true or false: "Firstly, the establishment of an allegedly continuous and coherent connection between the present-day conflict between the Christian West and Muslims, whereas analyses based on established historical science will dismiss any such claim as unfounded." Something seems to be missing. Moreover not a single one of the alleged "analyses based on established historical science" is cited. That sounds like ideologically inspired baloney. If she can't cite any sources, the passage should be deleted.Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It was translated/paraphrased from the source at the end of the paragraph, i.e. "Mjaaland, Marius Timman (28 September 2011). "Korstog mot hellig krig (Crusade against Holy War)". Aftenposten. Retrieved 28 September 2011.", which may be accessed here. --benjamil (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hope not hate

The anti racism organization 'Hope not hate' has opened a section on the 'counter jihad' movement mapping out the prime movers and shakers. I expect this valuable information to be incorporated into this wikipedia article. located here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.88.234 (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

what's that supposed to mean? if you have reliable sources and you want to make additions, make them yourselves.-- altetendekrabbe  15:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly "Hope not Hate" is a partisan group with an opinion. I question the source. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the seems to be biased against hate... // Liftarn (talk)

That's a POV statement. Everyone claims to have a bias against hate. Everyone claims to hate "hate". The question is the nature of the source. HnH says "HOPE not hate mobilises everyone opposed to the British National Party’s (BNP) and English Defence League’s (EDL) politics of hate." [3] It an activist group that conducts campaigns against other partisan groups. There's nothing wrong with that but it's not a neutral source. I don't see how it qualifies as a quotable source. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt they are a bunch of left wing whack jobs, but if it is attributed then I see no problem with using this as a source. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's an internet "campaign". It's not reliable, and it's a WP:SPS. It can't go into an article about third parties. And that's ignoring the fact that the source was cited in a polemical way that did not fairly represent what it was saying. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the old "since doctors are against diseases they are not a reliable source for info about diseases" argument. // Liftarn (talk)

Much like the old "the ADL is a Jewish organization, so they're not a reliable source for info about antisemitism" argument? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

About "Counterjihad have largely replaced earlier neo-nazism and the traditional far right thus making their ideas more respectable.", I would rather write "Counterjihad take place in a broard change in European far right, which is less antisemitic and more anti-Islam."

Two other sources:

• "Before 9/11, [...] in Europe [...] the discourses of the extreme right were, like their American counterparts, marked by conspiracy theories of Jewish control of government. Since 9/11 the narratives have shifted and narrowed." in Moustafa Bayoumi, Breivik's Monstrous Dream—and Why It Failed, The Nation, 2012-05-02;
• "What they did is basically reform the image of the party, but didn’t change much else.", Charles Johnson in Meet the Former Right-Wing Blogger Who Realized Conservatives Are Crazy, alternet.org, 2012-05-07;

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

great! please add those sources.-- altetendekrabbe  20:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? The second source isn't reliable, and doesn't even mention counterjihad as far as I can tell. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hope not hate is a great source, but it doesn't cover every single node in the international "counterjihad" network . Anyhow, it is quite interesting to see the listed organizations' links to Israel and how many individuals involved in those organizations are jewish. Makes it very obvious for what purpose this anti Muslim hatred is being promoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.165.201.86 (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source from real British nationalists explaining what "counterjihad" is all about http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/propaganda-web-guide-all-nationalists

I always knew that Communists and Nazis were allied. Thanks for confirming this for me, 188.165.201.86.

Spelling out the Eurabia conspiracy

Hi. I've reverted an edit by Jason from nyc, which, as I read it, aimed to specify which parts of the Eurabia theory is important for American counter-jihadists. I've done this mainly because I think the new text was imprecise. That is, while the reference does not make any specification at all, I've got a clear impression that the possible shift in European nations' views on Israel is not the only reason why they have found interest in the Eurabia conspiracy theories. --benjamil (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with using jargon like “Eurabia” is that the reader doesn’t know what this means. Worse of all there are “different variations on the theme of Eurabia” as Matthias Gardell (sp?) says in the Morgenbladet article you quote. The original and main sense of Eurabia is a European-Arab opposition to Israel as discussed in the Eurabia article. This seems to be the sense that Ye’or talks about because she brings up Hamas and Hezbollah in the Morgenbladet article. If we are going to use Eurabia in that sense then we should say that the Counterjihad opposes what it sees as the European capitulation to Arab nations with regard to Israel.

Next we see a different usage of the word (see Spencer in the Morgenbladet article) where the cultural effects of Islam are seen as the problem and this increases with the growing Islamic population. The article ends by noting two facts: it isn’t growing as fast as the counterjihad writers think and many if not most Muslims assimilate. Thus, if we are going to address this aspect of the article we should be talking about Eurabia as a multicultural juxtaposition of European and Islamic cultures. And the fears by the counterjihad writers that illiberal Salafi elements will dominate.

Until we reach a consensus we should leave out the edit. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

What the reference says, is, quite plainly, that the Eurabia conspiracy theory is rather important to some, mainly American counterjihadis. The context of the article makes it clear that the subject is the conspiracy theory. For your convenience, I'll translate the relevant section:

When professor Cas Mudde moved to the U.S., he was surprised by the prevalence/penetration/reach (no. "gjennomslagskraft" means something like "ability to reach through") of the Eurabia conspiracy and people like Bruce Bawer. -I met conservatives who were obviously not nuts, who were asking about Eurabia. What I'd failed to grasp when I was living in Europe, was how 'mainstream' people like Bruce Bawer are in the U.S. Those using Eurabia-arguments are influential people in the conservative movement. Bawer is regarded as an expert on the European situation, because he lives there, says Mudde. -Why hasn't the idea got the same foothold in Europe? -Most Europeans are not convinced by the arguments. The idea that there will be a muslim majority by 2050 just doesn't strike home. Mudde points out that the Eurabia theory bolsters the argument that Europe has let the U.S. and Israel down in the war against terror, because it is infiltrated by muslims. -In the U.S. Eurabia is a matter of foreign policy, in Europe it's a domestic matter. The concept of Eurabia isn't as relevant to European political parties as to a small group of counterjihadis, most of them American, says Mudde, and stresses that the milieu is non-violent.

This diff shows my original edit, which I believe that the reference supports. I have no problem with providing more info on the differences between U.S. and European counterjihad ideology, it is already partly covered in Toby Archer's quotes, but Jason from nyc's last edit was too specific, too narrow and not supported by the reference (it would have required a reference to an analysis of Bat Ye'Or's works, for instance).

Now, for the specific arguments raised:

@Jayjg: No, there is, as far as I know, in the academic mainstream one single meaning of Eurabia - and that is that it is a discourse placed well outside the realms of serious research. - I have as yet to see any academic acknowledgement of Eurabia as a "development" scenario based on sound demographic and sociological premises. Are you able to provide such a source? This specific discussion, however, should probably be continued on the Talk:Eurabia page, where there to date is not a single reference that qualifies as WP:SCHOLARSHIP that defends the existence of any academically legitimate Eurabia concepts. That doesn't mean that it isn't interesting in a political and folkloristic perspective (discussion regarding this article's topic, but relevant also to Eurabia below), but let's take the discussion there.

@Jason from nyc: It is not quite irrelevant what those different meanings entail. I'll translate the section on Gardell's views, as well:

Different variations. The intellectual ambitions of the Eurabia milieu/movement (milieu seems a bit high-brow i English?) have to a small extent been met by Academia. In Scandinavia, for instance, there are no academic milieus/groups that have studied the phenomenon. However, one researcher that has knowledge about the literature and theories is Mattias Gardell, professor at Uppsala University. He recently wrote an epilogue to his latest book, Islamophobia, where he analyses the so-called manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik. He explains that there are different variations over the Eurabia theme, in addition to Bat Ye'Or's "mother conspiracy". -One variety revolves around something called the "Protocol", which allegedly was found in a Swiss villa. According to the theory, this is supposedly a protocol for the Muslim Brotherhood, which reveals how they plan to take over Europe, how they are going to control the media, and how they will spread multiculturalism, anti-racism and other politically correct ideas to weaken the European will to resistance. A third variety argues that al-Qaida has a seven-step program for overtaking Europe, says Gardell. He sees clear similarities between these theories and the theory that flourished before World War II, about a Jewish world conspiracy. -They are constructed in the same way as this theory, and have the same credibility as it. They are obvious conspiracy theories, says gardell.

This section is followed by the entrance to Spencer's views:

Spreading the theory. One of those who believe in the Eurabia conspiracy in its purest form, and is working actively to spread its ideas, is the American Robert Spencer, who runs the blog Jihadwatch and leads the organisation Stop Islamization of America. Spencer believes Europe is turning into Eurabia.

I can understand that things perhaps look different through the lens of (some) U.S. media. To Europeans living in what is supposedly on the brink of becoming Eurabia, as Cas Mudde explains, "The idea that there will be a muslim majority by 2050 just doesn't strike home" (outside the far-right populist movements, that is). I can also understand that there are people who seem sensible enough that make claims that relate to the Eurabia discourse. However, in all serious European sources (Governmental agencies, Research institutions) that I know of, these ideas are seen as so ridiculous as not to deserve a thorough debunking. I can see signs that this is changing, at least in my country, particularly because of the Breivik case.

And, lastly - I'm sorry that this has become so long, but I believe it is necessary, because we have a long history of edit warring on several articles that are closely related - how do we integrate these different perspectives in a meaningful way in Wikipedia's articles? To me it seems that when it comes to these issues we have at least four discourses that need integration and representation (I'm not going to reference this, the framework is my WP:OR/prejudice, and I'm putting it out as a point of reference for further discussion only):

1. The academic discourse, which appears to be mainly based in Europe, has a rather small volume, but totally, or almost totally dismisses the claims of the counterjihad movement (and any interpretation of Eurabia), and regards it as a political fringe movement
2. The (neo)conservative discourse, which is intellectual, centered around think tanks and institutions, many of which are run by one or a few persons, with some actors labeled as extremist in the mainstream (e.g. Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer - per the ADL reference), but with others having a more or less respectable standing, (e.g. Daniel Pipes). This discourse is to some extent transatlantic, with its main European nodes in the Low countries, the UK and Scandinavia.
3. This discourse has a populist mirror/overlap/continuum, which to some extent reaches into political parties in the European parties, and to parts of the American conservative movement's grass roots. These are labeled as extremist by the mainstream. While the American SIOA appears to be a top-down initative, the European SIOE appears to be a bottom-up initative. The driving force in the European Counterjihad conferences appears to be the same. The Defence Leagues in Europe also appear to be bottom-up organizations, but the English Defence League seems to give some kind of direction.
4. The anti-racist/anti-discrimination discourse. As far as I can see, this plays into both the American, but at least as far as I know, especially into the European populist/conservative discourse.

The challenge, as I see it, lies in giving the "serious" part of 2 a neutral treatment in view of 1 and framing the rest of 2 together with 3 and 4 in context of the political debate where they exist. My opinion, which should be evident through my edits, is that the part of 2 that supposedly stands on par with 1 is currently ill-defined with respect to the rest of 2 and the overlap with 3. The sources for the serious parts of 2 are mainly self-published or news reports, and I don't see much of an effort to distinguish it from the rest of the field (2&3). If this doesn't happen, I'm very reluctant to put 2 on equal footing with 1 (i.e., I think that it's ok to state that the Eurabia conspiracy theory is important to parts of the movement, without further specification.

I'm also not sure that support for such an equal footing exists in literature. I realise that this might be politically controversial, but I don't really see such political issues as very relevant, given the hierarchy of the sources. In my opinion, the article as a whole gives an OK representation, it has improved considerably over the time that it has existed, but I think that as literature has grown, it would be best if we tried to agree on a framework for detailing the ideology. Eurabia as a conspiracy theory is obviously the relevant point of entry for parts of the movement, but if there are interpretations that are not conspiratorical in nature that are relevant for the other parts - how do we determine what is mainstream and where the limits between different parts of the movement should be drawn, when there are as yet (as far as I know) no comprehensive academic reviews of the movement?

What do the other editors think?

Best regards

--benjamil (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

i agree with user benjamil. the so-called "socio-demographic prediction" that administrator jayjg keeps bringing up 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.-- altetendekrabbe  09:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Until we reach a consensus a revert is appropriate via application of WP:BRD. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Benjamil, as you acknowledge, via Gardell, there are different theories. The article describes two different theories (I thank jayjg for bring to my attention that this is discussed in Eurabia). One is a planned organized political effort that most in America call Islamism. The other is a cultural change by means of population increase that we call multi-culturalism. The first can be called a conspiracy as political efforts are organized. The furtherance of multi-culturalism is generally a cultural matter. You present a four-fold division but if we keep with the article in question, I see two primary usages of Eurabia.

The article ends with evidence that population increases and limits to assimilation are exaggerated in the counter-jihadi movement. This seems to be the emphasis and you also emphasize the implausibility of such a growth. Thus, my change seems a reasonable summary. Either [4] or [5] might be better summaries of the Morgenbladet article. Let’s see if we can find common ground to establish a consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Jason, "acknowledge" is stretching it. Gardell lists two varieties, which are both hopeless conspiracies. Also I might not have explained my position very well. The fourfold division doesn't really relate to the content of the Eurabia theories specifically. I tried to argue that the Eurabia-specific issues should be discussed in the pertinent article. What I am trying to get at, is that the Counterjihad phenomenon exists within several discourses. What I'm trying to do is to assert the primacy of one of those, or - if it can be done - to provide an opportunity to of reconciliation. In plain writing that means that I believe that scholars commenting on the movement as scholars should have a greater say than those that that act within it, when it comes to defining the movement. --benjamil (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with giving priority to disinterested sources. My problem is with jargon (i.e. Eurabia) that has several and often ambiguous meanings. I believe the article you reference ‘‘emphasizes’’ the fear of demographic dominance in the not so distant future. Isn't that the primary concern? Why include problematic terminology when I suspect we can find consensus on the articles main points?

The thing is, the movement's main blogs obsess about Eurabia, and Eurabia is the term they use to describe their obsession. Also, since the Eurabia conspiracies are notable in their own right, and have their own article, I don't see the point in making this clearly important connection less conspicuous. People who don't know what the term means can click the link and read more, as in any other Wikipedia article. Take a look at the "site%3Ajihadwatch.org+OR+site%3Abrusselsjournal.com+OR+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fgatesofvienna.blogspot.com%2F" Google search result for Eurabia on three of the movements main blogs. The number is astronomical for such a small number of sites. I've reviewed reference 17 (Toby Archer: Breivik's Swamp), and it's much clearer than Mudde on the point in question. --benjamil (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I’ve read many articles, over the last 7 years, by those that worry about the growing Islamic population in Europe. Some where written by counterjihad writers and others by traditional conservatives. Let’s remember Swiss, French, and Dutch governments have taken steps to limit Islamic practices that are unimaginable here in America. Things are different in Europe and I welcome the input from the European editors. Archer seems to give us nuance that tells me something more than the usual knee-jerk journalist. I wish I had a copy of his main article (without paying for it).

I find it interesting that the Norwegian Wikipedia entry on Eurabia focuses on the challenge of demographics while most of the articles that reference Bat Ye’or focus on anti-Israeli alliances. These are two distinct fears. Yes, I see some occasional references on a tenuous connection. Fjordman tries. But in general the political alliance against Israel and the multicultural acceptance of Islam are generally separate phenomena. I usually find them in different articles written by different kind of writers.

I find that the growth of the Muslim population and belief that they won’t assimilate is the most common fear driving the narrative that Europe will become Eurabia. I think we should make that clear since that’s the main point of the Morgenbladet article. Why not help the reader instead of using obscure jargon that even the English Wikipedia article on Eurabia doesn’t help resolve? I’m only adding to your original comment useful explanation. Why not?Jason from nyc (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on several points. My main issue is not to downplay the conspiratorical current which infuses this movement so deeply. I would also like to point out that the various symbolical measures that have been taken by various governments / through referendums were just that. I don't remember the exact figures, but French census authorities had numbered the niqab users to an exact figure somwhere near 350 before the niqab ban came in place, and Switzerland had a total of four minarets before their referendum banned the construction of any new. I wasn't trying to argue that the politics are indisputed in Europe (far from it), but that the fears that the politics draw their nourishment from are quite unfounded in the eyes of academics and statistics agencies.

Whether the proponents of Eurabia theories have allegations of faltering support for Israel or a demographic takeover of Europe by Muslims as their main concern is besides the point (or am I missing your?). What I think the text should make quite clear is the academic judgment of their positions. Yes, the text should make some room for the possible existence of reasonable expressions of concern. But the main parts of this movement are certainly not traditional concervatives - although - as is the case with Sarkozy in France, they can have impact on them.

With my original wording I was keeping in mind the long debates we have had on several occasions, and I was very careful not to go beyond the exact wording in the reference. If there is consensus, I have no problem with something quite explanatory, like

Professor [[Cas Mudde]], among others, argues that various [[conspiracy theories]] with roots in [[Bat Ye'Or]]'s [[Eurabia]] are important to the movement. The main theme of these theories is an allegation that European leaders allow a Muslim dominance of Europe, whether by intention or not, through multicultural policies and lax [[immigration laws]].

Any further elaborations should, in my opinion, come in the next paragraph, where the difference in focus between the American and European wings are discussed. The current last sentence "Counterjihad have largely replaced..." will hamper this bridge, and should be moved (and rewritten!). That reference is probably relevant both to ideology and organization, but I haven't read it yet, and as it is a report from an action group, it offers a greater challenge when it comes to NPOV.--benjamil (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think your paragraph is excellent and I vote to put it in. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

New lead

Unfortunately this article doesn't reflect the real essence of what counterjihad is. There is a long list of problems to be fixed, but for now the lead needs to be revised to the following.

Counterjihad is the exploitation of widespread concerns in Europe about immigration and the spread of Islam, in order to serve Israeli interests. The co-option of European nationalist movements began in the 1990s and had large successes during the 2000s and 2010s with many of those aforementioned movements realigning themselves with Israel and many more being created along the same lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nygaardes (talk • contribs) 23:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We write what reliable sources say. Got any? // Liftarn (talk)

SothernPoverty Law Centre claims "people are convinced that 0.6 percent of the U.S. population is on the verge of trampling the Constitution and imposing an Islamic, Shariah-guided caliphate in its place". This is a red herring that is constantly inserted by certain parties bent on confuding the issue. In the US, most Moslems are harmless. But the leadership of the Moslems are mostly terrorist sympathisers. See http://shariahthethreat.org/2010/09/thinkprogress-strikes-out-on-team-b-ii-report/ on the Fiqh Council of N America, which despite its pompous name, appears to be nothing but a gang of terrorists! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

2012-07 two other sources

What are the worth and reliability of

• Arun Kundnani, The Anti-Islamist: Anders Behring Breivik's Manifesto, International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague, 23 April 2012
• Arun Kundnani, Blind Spot? Security Narratives and Far-Right Violence in Europe, International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague, 25 June 2012

? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"Blind Spot" is well researched. The details seem in order. Much of the material is from or similar to Paul Jackson's study that focused on the EDL. However, Kundnani touches base with activities on the continent. Kundnani's prescriptions are naive but that's my POV. The report is respectable and useful. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Benjamil for inserting and using this source in the article. About funding of Geert Wilders, see also (or rather find) two articles published by Vrij Nederland (?) and De Volkskrant, mentionned in brusselsjournal.com, 2009-06-25 ("Last week, both the weekly magazine Vrij Nederland and the newspaper De Volkskrant wrote long articles about Wilders’ travels [...] Wilders is said to be on fundraising tours, especially among the “American far-right.”"). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

anti-Islam or Islamophobic

I see some disagreement about the best way to describe this movement. There were some edits (not by me) over a POV issue. Let me raise the issue for discussion although I suspect it might have been discussed before.

The current versions describes the movement as Islamophobic. On the Islamophobia page it says: Islamophobia describes prejudice against, hatred or irrational fear of Islam or Muslims. Thus, a judgment is being made as to whether the movement is irrational in its fear. Should this be in a definition? I clearly should be expressed below with experts cited. But a definition should state the genus and differentia. Yes, I know the first statement isn't a formal definition. However, calling the movement irrational by definition puts forth a point of view, WP:POV. I suggest that Islamophobic be replaced by anti-Islam or better yet anti-Islamism. Further down, experts can be cited on the question of irrational or prejudice (i.e. a pre-jugment), etc. This should satisfy all and reach a consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No it says "hatred or irrational fear". The counterjihad movement is more into hatred even if there also is a major component of irrational fear. Being against islamism and being against those who you perceive to be Muslims is two very different things. And may I add that we use reliable sources for the texts, not our own semantic analysis. // Liftarn (talk)

How about keeping your radical leftist "analysis" away from the article and discussion page then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.20.149 (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times article (ref 2) seems clear and there is no mention of hate in this regard. It uses such phrases as anti-Islamic, civilizational war between Islam, and fight on behalf of transnational .... Thus, the correct phrase would be anti-Islam. It is clear from article that this is a political movement. This or in Islamophobic means that the word is wide enough to apply to any criticism of Islam (see the use in the phrase Islam or Muslims.). If you are being more specific than you should ... be more specific. All references agree with anti-Islam while only some references would say anti-Muslim. The lead should say anti-Islam while the discussion should cite authors who would go further and those who wouldn't. If Wikipedia is going to be a general reference is shouldn't overstate the case in the lead sentence but allow the reader see the views of reputable authors in the body of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"Anti-Islam" would be somewhat correct. "Anti-Islamism" would be false. Also note that it sourced to a reliable source so there is no problem with that. // Liftarn (talk)

I have no problem with the sources that I'm able to read. I think anti-Islamic would be a reasonable change. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement and I've made the changes to use anti-Islamic (and note the hyperlink). If I'm mistaken let's continue to talk. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not what the source says so I've made a compromise edit that includes both descriptions. // Liftarn (talk)

If you don't mind continuing the discussion I'd like to understand how you get that from the 1st reference, i.e. Toby Archer's Swedish article. My translator doesn't show the word Islamophobia. I see certain sections that may suggest that. For example:

This fear of Islam and Muslims is central and distinguishing feature of the counter jihad.

He goes on to clarify those fears:

European Muslims have come to be portrayed as a threat from a security perspective, as if all would-be terrorists, or at least in danger of being radicalized. There also arose a perception that Muslims pose a threat from a cultural perspective, with expositions that Islam is incompatible with Europe's traditions. ... In short, the American fear of Islam was linked to counter-terrorism, while Europeans established the links with immigration.

However, he notes that such fears are not uncommon among the wider population:

The idea of multiculturalism has failed, is now being promoted by many politicians, even among the moderate left and right parties ...

Finally he notes that the counter-jihadi, with a few exception such as the liberal gay Bruce Bawer, tend to be cultural conservatives. Thus, I don't see the more harsh term, Islamophobia, distinguishing the broad concerns of immigration and assimilation with the unique focus of the counter-jihadi. I'm not saying there isn't a heightened sense of alarm in the counter-jihadi movement. Obviously there is. I'm just questioning wether the first reference is clearly suggesting Islamophobia. I think that's an inference--a respectable inference--but an inference nevertheless. It should be stating this outright and it shouldn't be the only reference to do so. I'd like you to reconsider anti-Islam which, as you point out, is one way to be Islamophobic and which, as I pointed out, is redirected to the Islamophobia page through the hyperlinks. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

One could argue that "fear of Islam and Muslims" and "islamophobia" is just two ways to say the same thing. // Liftarn (talk)

One could but we are making an inference from the author's work which I believe is discouraged in WP:Original or WP:Syn. And he mentions that some fears are shared across the political spectrum. I think we should be conservative until more is written by other authors. Even the Islamophobia page shows much controversy about the term. Archer never uses it. I don't think we're entitled to use it ... yet. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Update

Ok, from today's newspaper I have added a source for the islamophobic element of the counterjihad movement. The relevant quote is "Med detta sagt måste man ändå komma ihåg att den islamofobiska ”counterjihad-rörelsen”, som Brevik inspirerats av, är något helt annat än den nazistiska vit makt-rörelsen som härjade på 90-talet." (rough translation: "Having said this one must remember that the islamophobic ”counterjihad-rörelsen” that inspired Breivik is something completley different than the nazi white power movement of the 90s.") // Liftarn (talk)

One opinion piece in a newspaper that states it in passing? Please review WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please not that the author is Anna-Lena Lodenius who is a well-known expert on the subject of the far right. // Liftarn (talk)

Perhaps, but that's not relevant to my comment. Please respond more meaningfully if you can. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a statement by a researcher who has worked for many years on the subject. It is published in a reliable source. All requirements for using it as a source are fulfilled. Please explain why sources you personally don't like can't be used. // Liftarn (talk)

It require attribution and certainly not the current undue prominence.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 17:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

We actually have several sources saying the same thing an no oppositon (apart from those who are it themselves). Why should it not be included? // Liftarn (talk)

Which "several sources" say it, and are they reliable and WP:SECONDARY? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

We have been over this before. See above. We were just waiting for a third source saying the same thing. So far no reliable source have said that they are not islamophobic. // Liftarn (talk)

I don't know what "see above" means in this context. "Above" you presented sourced, and I responded: I looked at the first three English sources given under "Islamophobic". The first is an opinion piece in Al Jazeera by Jim Lobe that does explicitly describe "counter-jihad" as Islamophobic - not sure why exactly Wikipedia would cite this particular source on this. The second, an opinion piece in the Comment is Free section of the online Guardian, uses both terms, but doesn't make a clear statement that I can see. The third is a blog. As far as I can tell, this is the usual mishmash of opinions, unreliable sources, and WP:OR. Is it that same list? Please list the sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That would mean the section called "Confusion about this movement" where I also noted that you seem to think that one of the largest weekly magazines in Europe is "a blog". // Liftarn (talk)

I still have a problem with this term being in the lead paragraph. The lead should really summarize the article. I think we first need a paragraph in the article that discusses the assertion that the Counter-jihad movement goes too far in their criticism of jihadi and thereby becomes Islamophobic. I think we need this discussion as the reader will expect it given the usage of the word. Don't you think this topic should be breached within the body of the article first? Jason from nyc (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, your only English article in the [6] Guardian uses anti-Islamic six times and Islamophobic only once. This suggests that in the English language anti-Islam is the preferred term. However, I still stand by my previous paragraph that the text should discuss the Islamophobic classification. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Drawing such conclusions would be original research. // Liftarn (talk)

Perhaps. I think the problem I'm having is that there is too little substantial research and commentary for an article on the Counterjiahd. The article as it is relies heavily on Toby Archer. A few more like him would be welcomed. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I notice that it now also includes the views of a literary critic. // Liftarn (talk)

And he's a social critic. In that respect he's like Edward Said. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Update2

It seems that editors (even with the exclusion of the few Nordic-phobic anonymous ones) have reservations on positioning the Islamophobic label in the lead sentence. As I was never satisfied on a number of grounds (see above), I question that use of this controversial label given that it is used in only a few of the sources. I believe it should be in the body of the article but has undue weight in the lead. I see others have similar reservations (leaving out the POV rants that are distracting). Jason from nyc (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please explain your usage of the made up word "Nordic-phobic". // Liftarn (talk)

Maybe Jason means editors from Norway or Sweden who really, really don't like car bomb and gun massacre. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Update3

Once again we see continual objections to the Islamopobia label in the first sentence. There is a question that it satisfies WP:LEAD. It is used mainly by two Swedish journalists in the aftermath of the Utoya atrocity. The scholars we use are more cautious and careful picking terms and descriptors. This gives WP:UNDUE weight to specific journalists at a specific point in time that is unrepresented by the bulk of the article and broader community of commentators. I think it is time to move the term from the lead and mention it only in the body of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Continuous in this case only because you keep bringing it up again and again. I think we all understand that you don't like it, but please try to find reliable sources supporting your claims rather than nagging and edit warring about it. // Liftarn (talk)

islamaphobic and far right

Sorry for edit warring btw, but it is far to much of a generalization and inaccuracy to label all counter jihad groups under these labels. Not all these groups promote Eurabia or call for an end Islamic migration. Many scholars may claim counter jihad groups are these terms but these are still claims and not fact so should be treated as such on wikepedia. The way I wrote the info as claims which they are is far more accurate. You cannot write down these claims as factual. How was my wording not more accurate. Also regarding accusations against these groups of being islamaphobic. Why is 1 or 2 sources written by random authors enough to factually claim these blogs or groups to be islamaphobic on wikepedia.

In my own opinion, regarding counter jihad, considering the only thing all counter jihad groups or blogs have in common, is there opposition to Islamic extremism, how is counter jihad inherently far right or islamaphobic. Some counter jihad groups are islamaphobic though but some aren't. Some counter jihad groups are actually quite liberal, so how are all counter jihad groups Far right.

Anyway I just think claims and opinions should not be represented as fact. 88.104.212.172 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The title of the movement is "Counterjihad", a term which make no sense other than as implicitly assuming that jihad is to be understood in its extremist sense and so suggesting an a priori hostility to Islam. The most prominent names associated with the Counterjihad movement are known not just for their denunciation of Islamic extremism but also for their opposition to Muslim immigration and manifestations of Muslim culture, accompanied by sweepingly hostile and often contemptuous generalisations about Muslim communities and individuals. they also tend to be supportive of one another's extreme positions. There is quite a lot of supporting evidence available and cited. If you want to convince anyone that counterjihad is not Islamophobic you need to come up with some evidence that a significant group of members of the Counterjihad movement are not far right Islamophobes. Opbeith (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Not all counter Jihad groups are Islamaphobes. I am pretty sure Robert Spencer for instance is not islamaphobic. He has stated that he is not against all muslims and that he supports religious freedom, equality of rights and welcomes any muslim to join his cause. He is liberal sand hates the far right. There are others obviously. On the other hand can you prove all counter jihad people are far right islamaphobes? Do you you seriously think all members of the Counterjihad movement are far right Islamophobes? Anyway claims and opinions should not be represented as fact on wikepedia. Also why was my version of the lead not more accurate since the sources are claims and opinions not fact. I am not interested in long debate over this. 88.104.212.172 (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As John Safran showed not all members of KKK are antisemites (he was actually allowed to join), but KKK is still listed as an antisemitic group. // Liftarn (talk)

Not all counter jihad groups are Islamaphobic far right so it should not be generalised as such. The KKK's ideology probably invloves antisemitism though. Not all counter Jihad groups ideology is islamaphobia or far right. Are all couter jihad groups islamaphobic. Of course not. Claims and Opinions should not be stated as fact. How is the wording Counterjihad is a political current that has been described as anti-Islamic, islamophobic, far-right and intellectual. not more accurate or better. Isn't wiki supposed to be about accuracy. These sources are claims and opinions not fact. It should be articulated that way. 88.104.212.172 (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't like it, but the scholars in the field group them all together in this manner (and I have yet to find anyone not characterising the Counterjihad as islamophobic, making it WP:UNDUE to write "many scholars say" or something like that (many scholars say the earth is round, right?). Btw, if any single blog is mentioned as central by those scholars, it's JihadWatch. Your points, whatever their factual merit, are WP:OR, and thus inadmissible. Those are the policy based arguments that apply to this text, as far as I can tell. Munksgaard's thesis is not pay-walled and discusses the use of liberal arguments in the islamophobic blogosphere. It's interesting reading, why don't you take a look at it? Cheers, benjamil ^talk/_edits 11:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Chris Allen, Paul Jackson, and others all point to the liberal basis of what they consider Islamophobia. Several authors describe how the word Islamophobia, in its current use, arose in the fundamentalist Muslims' opposition to the feminism and pro-LGBT elements within liberal Islamic community. However, I’m stunned by Nick Denes' lack of sensitivity to the LGBT community’s concerns over the explicit homophobia (Nick describes it) emanating from sectors within the Muslim community. He too sees Islamophobia in the LGBT response! Nevertheless, Denes is a legitimate reference. We can’t point out the limits to his analysis without doing original research. It must stand and be incorporated as is. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a complex issue. It is discussed here, among other places. I believe the word "pinkwashing" has been used by some parts of the LGBT community who criticise the use of their rights/identity issues as a platform for islamophobic attacks. If you have any suggestions for further reading on the topic, I would be delighted to have a look. benjamil ^talk/_edits 21:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How is this original research. I want to wright that counter jihad has been described as these terms which is exactly what the sources say. They are describing counter jihad as these terms in the sources. Not original research. You are the ones doing original research by writing down opinions and accusations as fact. Regardless of wether many scholars claim counter jihad is islamaphobic. The wording Counterjihad is a political current that has been described as anti-Islamic, islamophobic, far-right and intellectual. is more accurate and gives of the same impression as the current version. Surely there is a wiki rule saying you not supposed represent claims and accusations as fact. 88.104.212.172 (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The academics define the counterjihad movement by its Islamophobia. The phrase "has been described as" implies that it is not the universal (or near-universal) research opinion, which it is. Your personal opinion about the various counterjihad groups and Robert spencer was the target of my OR label. Cheers, benjamil ^talk/_edits 13:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way I have no problem with you describing Counter jihad as anti Islam because they themselves would hardly disagree. Also I would say a dislike for Muslim culture and a general oppostition would not inherently count as Islamaphobic. Obviously a general hatred of all Muslims would count as islamaphobic but not a general opposition to Islamic culture (including immigration). Although I do agree that the vast majority of these groups are extreme or go to far and some are without a doubt Islamaphobic I just think you are being very unfair to some of these by generalising. Frankly the Far-right is a more incorrect term than islamaphobic. Some of these would probably laugh at being described as far right (although some would welcome it). I will try an find sources to back up my claims. 88.104.212.172 (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I' sure you don't. The problem is that that label doesn't capture central information about the movement's bias. And yes, opposition against anything Islamic without any kind of principled reasoning, which would by necessity have to lead to the inclusion of non-Islamic religious or cultural practices counts as Islamophobia, see for instance Diane Frost, (2008) "Islamophobia: examining causal links between the media and “race hate” from “below”", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 28 Iss: 11/12, pp.564 - 578. benjamil ^talk/_edits 13:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Islamaphobia only applies to prejudice against, hatred or irrational fear of Muslims. Criticizing the Koran or Islamic culture unfairly does not count as islamaphobia. Islamaphobia is supposed to prejudice against someone for being Muslim. Islamaphobia is anti-Muslim like racism is anti-black or anti-white. Opposition to Islamic emigration is not inherently islamaphobic. This is an opposition to Islamic culture which is what they see Muslim communities bringing with them. Not that you mentioned this, but opposing Islamic culture is not Islamaphobic. Unfairly criticizing Islamic culture is like unfairly criticizing American culture. It is culture not racism(islamaphobia). Many will oppose Islamic emigration for islamaphobic reasons but many don't. Opposition to emigration is too extreme mostly but is not inherently islamaphobic. I don't know many of these counter jihad people but Robert Spencer for instance does not oppose Islam or argue without principled reason. Counter Jihad groups are not all the same so it they should not be labeled as all being these labels. Accusations and opinions should not be presented as facts.

How is it not prejudice, hatred or irrational fear of Muslims to oppose people's migratory behaviour on the basis of their religion? You can't subtract a Muslim's Islamic culture from her and still be left with a Muslim! I won't go into the details of the analyses presented by the researchers characterising Jihad Watch as islamophobic, not the least because of WP:NOTAFORUM.benjamil ^talk/_edits 21:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How about the lead be changed from "Counterjihad is an anti-Islamic,[1][2][3] islamophobic,[4] far-right,[1] and intellectual[5][6] political current." to "Counterjihad is an anti-Islamic[1][2][3] and intellectual[5][6] political current usually associated with the far-right[1]. The movement has also regularily been described as islamophobic[4]." What are your thoughts? I don't really mind too much but I definitely think it is much fairer and more accurate as per sources as well. 88.104.212.172 (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The "far-right" label is silly. Communists have routinely massacred Muslims, from killing one-third of the population of Kazakhstan to exterminating all but 4 of the 20,000 Chams in Koong Neas, Cambodia. The Soviet war in Afghanistan was "counter-jihad", was it not? Christopher Hitchens was a Marxist and openly admired the Viet Cong--but he was counter-jihad. Most Islamic fundamentalists are also dubbed "far-right"! Seriously, you have one contemporary foreign-language source that uses the term "far-right", and you think that's enough to label all "counter-jihadists" right-wingers? During the Cold War, the American Right loved jihad!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Counterjihad is not a term applied sweepingly to anyone of a generally anti-Muslim disposition, it refers to a specific movement whose principal figures are a number of prominent anti-Islamic campaigners in Europe and the US who identify themselves as the Counterjihad movement and are identified by mainstream sources as right-wing and Islamophobic on the basis of their ideas and alliances and the issues they espouse. Unfortunately the article seems to have moved away from a focus on the group although the Organization section contains much of the key information. Opbeith (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What "group"? Where does Robert Spencer, for example, say "I am an advocate for the counter-jihad movement; I'm also far-right"? Is there really a specific "counter-jihad" organization? As far as I know, "counter-jihad" is just a label.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

er, right. could you explain this please? [7]-- altetendekrabbe  21:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so Spencer spoke at a "counter jihad summit". Was the summit run by "counter-jihad", the organization? Spencer may identify as "counter-jihad", but he's not "far-right" on the political spectrum.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Jihad Watch is financed by the David Horowitz foundation. How is that not far-right? benjamil ^talk/_edits 21:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Horowitz and the DHFC are conservative. Our article on far right says: “Far right politics commonly includes authoritarianism, nativism and racialism. Typically, the term far right is applied to fascists and neo-Nazis ...” It is basically from the European wing of the counter-jihad that the ‘‘far right’’ label is afixed to the movement. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Robert Spencer and David Horowitz are far-right in Europe, and conservative in USA. Could we move on now? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You may or may not find Ned May's Rough Guide at Gates of Vienna informative: "A Brief History of the Transatlantic Counterjihad by the Counterjihad Collective" - http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/brief-history-of-transatlantic.html Opbeith (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Opposition to Islamic ideology has nothing to do with far-right politics. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Sam Harris are famous American liberals and yet they hate Islam. By the way Google has been fighting the counter-jihad movement for many years and it recently blocked the Gates of Vienna (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/) Quinacrine (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is far from impartial. Richard Dawkins has been described as Islamophobic and he is a supporter of the Liberal Democrats I believe - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/atheists-richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-and-sam-harris-face-islamophobia-backlash-8570580.html --137.43.71.14 (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Munksgaard

I will shortly revert jason from nyc's removal of Munksgaard's thesis, because Little Green Footballs is a former centre of the counterjihad movement, from whence came, for instance Pamela Geller. This point is made in the thesis. Also, its separation from the counterjihad sphere is documented by a piece in Jihad Watch. The process of distancing is described as having taken place when the blog rejected outright Islamophobia, to the preference of a more subtle one. Why would you consider that not relevant? benjamil ^talk/_edits 21:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Little Green Football split from the rest of the anti-jihadi because of the contact others were making with far right groups in Europe. Seeing our article is about the Counterjihad which is defined as far right, LGF can hardly be said to be in the fold. Charles Johnson was left-of-center (a Munksgaard points out) moved right-of-center after 9/11 but recoiled after fellow anti-jihadi joined with European far right groups. Since we are writing about a movement that is a right-wing opposition to a perceived jihadi threat, Johnson's involvement was before the movement established its identity as a far right-wing Islam-critical movement. Munksgaard is interesting but perhaps best used in the Islamophobia article. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, how can I get a copy of the Liz Fekete article without paying for it? Jason from nyc (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ask at WP:RX or click this [8] --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Fekete amusingly creates a conspiracy theory about counter-jihadi who advocate “absolute freedom” so that they can “end democracy” (p38). She “essentializes” across individuals, organizations, and countries to derive a homogeneous “other” that conspires to demonize Muslims and establish fascism. Clearly her article is a radical analysis and quite out of the mainstream. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

that's utterly bs jason. if you doubt the reliability of fekete than take it to rs/n if you dare.-- altetendekrabbe  17:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"if you dare"? This is not a schoolyard. Stop trolling, Altetendekrabbe. Ankimai (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Altetendekrabbe, first of all I think the radical narrative should be in the article--not in the lead. The lead should summarize the preponderance of mainstream opinion. Is my analysis wrong? Jason from nyc (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

jason, what are you talking about? you removed a bunch of sources with your latest edit, [9]. if you sincerely believe that they do not belong in the lead then take them to rs/n please. as far as i can see they're impeccable.-- altetendekrabbe  20:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's examine the 3 academic documents.First consider Denes’ work [10] His paper is organized in 5 sections: 1. Narrative plurality 2. Local events, globalising scripts: Homophobic and Islamophobic activism in London, 2011 3. Welcome to the Counterjihad: Confronting Europe’s Islamist overthrow 4. The Islamophobic international: Counterjihad as “all-European process” 5. Conclusion.

Section 3 actually isn’t about “confronting” but about cultural aspects of the anti-jihad writers such as Fallaci, Bawer, Thornton, Steyn, etc. He notes that they sound like Oswald Spengler in their resignation the West's decline. It’s section 4 that he notes activism and shows he has done his homework by talking about the main actors: Stop the Islamisation of Denmark, Gravers, Geller, Spencer, Filip Dewinter, EDL, etc. This section is actually about the counter-jihad movement and makes the paper worth citing in our article.

Liz Fekete shows she has read Breivik or about Breivik. She shows little evidence of having read the counter-jihadi websites but instead defers to Breivik and comentators of Breivik. At one point she defers to Toby Archer, who we use directly. Thus, she adds nothing of her own. Her analysis is to understand the counter-jihad as filtered through Breivik. This is fine in the Breivik article. Fekete does review cultural conservatives but there is no original research into the documents and websites of the counter-jihadi. Denes has read the primary material. Fekete gives us a boilerplate narrative that fits her ideology but she doesn’t give us facts from the sources. She adds nothing of substance for our article.

Well, that would make Fekete's analysis a synthesis, wouldn't it? And a secondary source? Published in a peer-reviewed journal, meaning that it has stood up to the scrutiny of fellow scholars? There are, however, also fairly large chunks of her article that is original material in this respect, and the counterjihad movement is quite extensively discussed. Given that she has also written this work, a report published by the Institute of Race Relations, discussing in intimate detail the connections between various far-right movements and their violent potential, I believe that your assertions about her "understand[ing] the counter-jihad as filtered through Breivik" is quite flawed. I suggest we get some input from RS/N, if you disagree. Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 12:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps she's a tertiary source since she shows little evidence of dealing with the primary texts and websites of the counter-jihadi movement. She relies heavily on Breivik; thus her argument becomes "guilt by association" or simply appeal to Breivik (ad Breivik). She's a radical activist who is writing a polemic--which is fine but the lead should be rigorous in NPOV. Given that this article is basically about living individuals (as heads of organizations) care should be taken to avoid violating WP:BLP guidelines. A more neutral secondary source is appropriate. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest Andrew Sullivan, who is obviously not a radical leftist. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Tertiary source? Assuming that the primary sources are the blogs themselves? Tertiary sources are usually "summaries of summaries", normally encyclopedic or textbook-like in form. The counterjihad discourse is not by itself the subject of Fekete's article, it's the interweaving of discourses, where the counterjihad is one of of a few, and it's in the analysis of that that the paper's contribution lies. Using other people's research on the counterjihad discourse by itself is perfectly acceptable in such a synthesis. I agree that there are parts of the article that spring out as polemic, but that isn't a reason to avoid using the analyses. I sincerely believe that there are no BLP issues in the article, nor borderline ones, given the quality of most of the sources, but if you believe it to be appropriate, I'm quite happy to initiate an RFC or have some BLP experts have a look. benjamil ^talk/_edits 22:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Munksgaard’s dissertation [11] considers 3 cases: Little Green Football, One Good Move, Fark. On page 34 he says LGF was “until recently one of the most influential blogs in the ‘anti-jihadist movement.’" (p34) He notes that Charles Johnson (the owner of LGF) is a Bush supporter (p39). The counter-jihadi oppose Bush’s policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oddly enough, Munksgaard spends pages on the anonymous people who leave comments on LGF’s blog when he could have analyzed Johnson’s writings. On page 65 Munksgaard starts to talk about Johnson’s refusal to join the counter-jihad shortly after its inception. It was “Gates of Vienna’s” and Geller’s association with Vlaams Belang that caused Johnson to avoid joining the counter-jihad. Geller and Spencer were “roundly denounced” by Johnson “for attending the counterjihad summit” in 2007. (page 66). Thus, Johnson never was a member of the counter-jihadi. This dissertation isn't about the counter-jihad.

Your claim that opposing Bush is a defining characteristic of the counterjihad movement is OR. Though, from what I know, it might be true of the more rabid American counterjihadis (thinking of him as dovish), it is certainly not true about the European counterjihadis, in whose worldview he is probably quite heroic. Still, these are all our SYNTH and OR, and doesn't carry any weight when it comes to sourcing the article. It is quite clear that Munksgaard uses the term anti-jihad(ist) in a manner that is interchangeable with counter-jihad(ist). True, it is only tangentially treated, but given the scarcity of academic sources discussing the movement's ideology, I would say it's quite valuable. I'm also concerned that your representation isn't entirely accurate, which the following quote shows rather well:

Johnson regularly denounced other blogs for overt displays of racism, displays that Johnson saw as both morally and pragmatically detrimental to the anti-­‐Jihadist cause. His uneasy feelings about his fellow anti-­‐Jihadists became most apparent during a public struggle between himself and Pamela Geller, a former LGF member who runs the prominent conservative blog Atlas Shrugs and who claims that Johnson was “the reason I started blogging” (Weigel 2009).

(My emphasis). Cheers, benjamil ^talk/_edits 12:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the opposition to Bush in the counter-jihadi movement is OR and we can't include it in the article. Perhaps someone will do the research but it will show early support for withdrawal and an end to the occupation (/end of OR). Munksgaard is clear that Johnson refused to join the Counter-jihadi movement and rejoined liberal anti-jihadi as a result. Perhaps Johnson's article in the New York Times magazine tells us more (I can't remember what he wrote). Our wikipedia article is very specific--it is about a specific anti-jihadi response which Archer says (and we quote him) "the counter-jihad movement is a particular conservative manifestation ..." Indeed, we claim it is far right which Johnson never was. Thus Munksgaard only talks about Johnson's perceptions of the direction of the counterjihad movement at its inception because of their questionable (perhaps naive) associations with certain European groups. Munksgaard studies 3 anti-jihadi cases, none of which can be classified as part of the counter-jihad movement as we have defined it. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you please point me to the liberal anti-jihadi? Are those the likes of Bruce Bawer? Denes places him within the counterjihad framework. If its not, I'm very interested in where I can read more about them. Going on, as documented in the article's sources further down, the American counterjihad's association with questionable European movements was hardly an initial, "naïve" interaction which was later regretted, rather it seems to be a quite integral connection which lately has been strengthened. The fact that Geert Wilders is fundraising in the U.S. speaks volumes on this point. From Atlas shrugs:

After the final standing ovation organizer Geller called on those present to donate money for Wilders' lawsuit. "Alle bedragen zijn welkom want het is 'bloody expensive. "All amounts are welcome because it is bloody expensive." "How much money they had obtained it did not say, but it was probably not much. "But it was not for me. I have the rent for the room and all facilities paid. And all we get beautiful." On its Web site, which attracts thousands of visitors daily, is now a link to Wilders' fund.

Also corroborated by The New Statesman. This, however, highlights two important points: First, the difference in terminology, and indeed on a rather fundamental level, political culture between the U.S. and Europe, as in European terms there are hardly any U.S. politicians who are not conservative. Archer obviously knows this, but which public is he writing for? Although an interesting question, and posed in this manner, a question one might be left holding one's breath over, there are reliable sources putting Johnson in the "at the conservative end of the political spectrum" (oh, the missed opportunity for controversy *sigh*).[12] It contains, among other things, the following piece of information:

Geller was there (at the Counterjihad conference in 2007, my note), as well as Robert Spencer of jihadwatch.org (a Web site Johnson himself designed)(my emphasis)

I do, however, recognise that this may be an issue with some of the sources. Second, as any political current, the counterjihad is not fixed and immutable. It changes over time. That someone who once had a formative influence on the movement has since broken away, does not remove their formative influence. And Munksgaard discusses LGF in precisely this context. benjamil ^talk/_edits 22:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I almost missed your insertion ... must have been editing while you were. I agree that Denes supports the Islamophobia label. So we should keep that as one of the labels experts deploy. But do you also agree (as you have before) that some only use the anti-Islam label? Both seem to be used and we need both. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Good. I have no problem with keeping the term "anti-Islamic", although it would be interesting to see if we could find a better quality source. That might give us the opportunity to focus on improving the body text. I suggest that we look into the differences and links between North American and European counterjihadists more closely. I believe some of the sources discuss this to a greater extent than what is currently reflected. If we can get a stable lead (most of the rest seems quite stable by now) and sort out some source issues, we could possibly start a process to elevate the article's status to WP:Good article. That would be nice. Also, consider refactoring these two comments, so they are put as replies to the next thread - I think it will significantly improve readability. Feel free to move this response while you're at it. benjamil ^talk/_edits 23:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thus, it is only Denes is relevant to our article. The others can be valuable to other articles but not as authorities that are suitable for the leading paragraph of this article. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thus, I disagree. benjamil ^talk/_edits 12:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please reconsider. Denes is good enough. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Now this is an interesting point. I see that others have granted you this point before. I'm actually inclined to do so, as well, based on the reasoning that has been put forward. However, I've come to experience that it's easier to keep sourced information which some IP editors seem to dislike (oddly, they obsess about the leads) if there are lots of sources. If I agree on the removal of the other sources, will you agree to support listing islamophobia as a key characteristic of the counterjihad movement at future junctures? benjamil ^talk/_edits 22:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

PS. Since I reverted the bold edit, according to WP:BRD it shouldn't be inserted until we discuss and reach a consensus. Please leave out Fekete and Munksgaard until a consensus is reached. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

jason, benjamil's assessment of the sources is 100% correct. they are impeccable and would have passed rs/n with flying colors (if you don't believe me, take them there). however, i now also see that you have a valid point when you state that "denes is good enough". there is a unfortunate tradition amongst wikipedia editors to bombard the leads with massive amounts of sources, while they completely fail to actually use them in the main text. thus, i don't mind that you only use denes in the lead, but before you revert i suggest you read all the sources, including denes, and fairly add their views to the main text. that would improve the article *and* we'll avoid the surplus sources in the lead.-- altetendekrabbe  15:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Fekete is in the article. Munksgaard may be useful in the Gates of Vienna article as it talks about the break between Little Green Footballs and Gates of Vienna. I had discussed that break in the Ed "Ned" May article that was deleted--I didn't have MMunksgaard and used the blog which is not as good. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

ok, we'll have to wait for a comment by benjamil. i want his views about this. in addition, he has added an excellent source in one of the comments above that should be used.-- altetendekrabbe  16:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to continuing the discussion. I see what you mean (above a few paragraphs) about some of the other articles. Some pile-up references in the leading sentence. On the other hand, given that the lead should be a summary of the body of the article one would think this wouldn't be needed and indeed in some articles there are few if any references. Denes is clearly original and accepted research on the subject of the article and straight from an examination of the primary material. This seems that best source in reputable-opinion secondary-research category. Let's see what else we find as we go through the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

In summary, we’ve arrived at a new consensus (read 22:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC) insert above and after). We’ll rely on Denes in the lead to support the descriptor Islamophobia but without prejudice towards the other two academic authors for the insertion of statements in the body of the article or other articles as their work supports. We’ll continue to maintain anti-Islamic descriptor in addition to Islamophobia. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sources

Several times[13][14][15] on no or spurious grounds. Please discuss it here. // Liftarn (talk)

I would appreciate it if you would stop WP:edit warring. The insertion of the 3 references was the bold edit, the removal was the revert, and we are discussing it above. You're welcome to join us in the vigorous examination of the references. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I now see how you are thinking, but the removal of the sources was the bold (and incorrect) move. Your debate is of moderate interest. Let me know when you get to something more interesting than "I don't like it." May I also recommend WP:RSN as a more effective way to discuss if a source is reliable or not. // Liftarn (talk)

2012-08 Andrew Sullivan

Sorry to bother you, but I have found an other source claiming suggesting that, if the Eurabia theory is right (as claimed by most of the Counterjihad movement), then violence is the only option to save Europe from her doomy fate:

If you buy those very arguments, as expressed by [Andrew] Berwick (and Geller and Spencer), what option do you really have but the fascist solutions [Anders Behring Breivik] recommends and the neo-fascist violence he unleashed? When an entire population in your midst is the enemy within and your government is acquiescing to it and your entire civilization is thereby doomed, what does Bruce [Bawer] think a blue-eyed patriot like Berwick should do? Is the leap to violence so obviously insane? Or is it actually the only logical conclusion to the tyranny Berwick believed he faced?

in Andrew Sullivan, Bawer vs Bawer, 2011-07-25. Thought? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an op-ed to me. // Liftarn (talk)

Fascism is openly contemptuous of democracy. I don't think any counter jihad group matches this description. Your logic is faulty if you conclude that countejihad MUST be Fascist because its strategic outlook leaves them no choice but to opt for Fascist methods. This reasoning makes assumptions about facts and about peoples' desires and thoughts that are not explicitly set forth and appear to me very dubious. In any case the reasoning depends on a lot of assumptions that must be clarified,. Thus a diagnosis of Fascism is premature, to say the least. Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC) MumbojumbophobeMumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

2012-09-20 Le Nouvel Observateur

The leading french newsmagazine Le Nouvel Observateur published today several pages about right or far-right people and organisation, including the French proponents of the Counterjihad movement . Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"intellectual"

Perhaps the description of "intellectual" should be replaced with "ideological". There is an important distinction to be made here.

Especially regarding connotations -- the intolerance implied with far-right and islamophobic doesn't sit well with the notion that academics tend to see the topic approvingly implied by intellectual.

Never mind the fact that the sources linked to do little to show counter-jihad as something "intellectual" or "deep".

The sources are all anti-Semitic far-left extremist sites, mostly Swedish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.180.123.34 (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

And they eat children. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a little worrried by "intellectual". Not enought to remove it, but it sound strange to me. It can be usefull to distingish between a sport organisation and a political organisation, but the "political" adjective is used in the same sentence. The Counterjihad movement is obviously not a literature club. But two source use the term. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

first sentence

Guys - the counterjihad movement is VERY multi-colored and many parts of society is involved. Please keep the NPOV. Hamnavoe (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What you need to remember is that we operate on reliable sources. The Islamophobic quote you removed is adequately sourced by three different citations. — Richard BB 11:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, the RT citation does not support your claim that this is a feminist movement. All FEMEN campaign for is Muslim women's rights; the citation does not say that they campaign against immigration, the spread of Islam, or terrorism. — Richard BB 11:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

counterjihad movement doesnt have to protest against the immigration. btw: not sure if using of SWEDISH references on the english wiki is appropriate.Hamnavoe (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Foreign references are just fine; they still are citations. And once more, there is no evidence provided that FEMEN meet the definition of Counterjihad. — Richard BB 11:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it's an anti-sharia movement. [16] The goals are the same. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In topics of ongoing political polemics, you may by all means use your sources to attribute opinions. Obviously you cannot take random opinions you happen to agree with and present them as "facts". This should be easy to understand and respect. Think about it. Because humans are deceitful, both of the following are absolutely real:

1. "promoting a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam."
2. "promoting a conspiratorial Jihadist agenda under the guise of fighting Islamophobia."

If you call bs on one, you'll also have to call bs on the other. It will be best for you and for everybody else if you just stay make it a general rule to denounce disingenious propaganda while paying attention to intelligent criticism. --dab (𒁳) 12:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The lead should give a purported or nominal use of the term in the first sentence. This is more the style of an encyclopedia. For example, socialism is nominally the social ownership of production and capitalism is the private ownership. One wouldn't want to define capitalism saying it creates great inequality or is a social system by and for capitalists. This is part of the further analysis and controversy. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In our case, it appears that everyone (including counter-jihadi) sees the movement as an opposition to the spread in the West. Critics point out that it doesn't stop there but is generally anti-Muslim. That's in the second sentence as it should be. How the movement opposes "Islam" is a detailed question explored by the rest of the article. Also, notice that it is a local movement. It is not "let's go there and fight them" but merely "go home, we don't want you here." This is a parochialism (if you think of it as benign) or a nativism (if you think it malignant) that gives rise to the far-right contention. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The first two sentences give both nominal meaning and substantive criticism to complete the picture and reflect the sources in the manner that an encyclopedia should. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Saying that counterjihad is "opposing the spread of Islam in the West" is very misleading as that a) they oppose Islam everywhere, b) the spread is dubious, c) they are also against Muslims and not just the religion. To cover everything the best wording would be "opposing Islam and/or Muslims". // Liftarn (talk)

Let’s see what the article says. Archer: “Counter-jihad discourse mixes valid concerns about jihad-inspired terrorism with far more complex political issues about immigration ...” Notice he starts with the concern “jihad” (i.e. spread of Islam by the sword) and “immigration” which is an increase (i.e. spread) by peaceful movement. We have a quote by Ned May “publicly stated goal of Islamic theology and political ideology is to impose the rule of Islam over the entire world ...” Clearly he is worried about a real or imagine spread. Cas Muddle “... theories is an allegation that European leaders allow a Muslim dominance of Europe” Once again Archer: “... a cultural threat to European traditions ...” And finally Wilders who clearly see it as an imperialist movement. Thus my opening, Counterjihad is a political current opposing the spread of Islam in the West, summarizes the article’s common theme by both adherents and critics alike. Both assume an increase of Islam via a Muslim presence in the West. The adherent sees this a threatening and the critic sees the counterjihadi as paranoid, going too far, failing to make distinctions, hiding another agenda, etc. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Secondly, the concern is clearly with the growth of Islam in the West. There is nothing or very little about Islam in Muslim nations or the plight of people in Islamic lands (except as it worries counterjihadi about what the increase of Islam might bring to their countries). There is no support for the Bush-Blair liberal interventionism and making the Islamic world safe for democracy. Of course, we can't add a foreign policy section since that would be original research. My point is that the focus is on the West. Immigration is a concern for the West. Violent jihadi attacks in the West are exploited for their movement. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Finally, my lead is a good first sentence (when followed by the second) as all sources point to the fear of Muslims is because of their religion. That's a recurring them through the article. Those experts who believe that other dimensions are more primary are critics whose views are in the second sentence. An encyclopedia starts with the nominal definition before preceding with the results of an analysis. We should have both in the correct order. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, then it perhaps it should say that they are "opposing what they see as the spread of Islam in the West". But it would still need to be sourced. // Liftarn (talk)

The whole article talks about Muslims in Europe who clearly weren’t there 60 years ago. Immigration is a fact that every author takes for granted even if the magnitude and appreciation of this change may be in dispute. WP:LEAD states the the first paragraph “serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects ... summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.” You can pick your choice for sources since everyone is talking about immigration but we also can accept generally accepted fact as context as the “necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus.”

The way that you have it with the sentence ending in “opposing Islam and/or Muslims” merely repeats the next sentence since “opposing Islam” is the same as “anti-Islam” and opposing Muslims is the same as “Islamophobia.” We should drop that ending and return to the previous consensus until a new consensus is reached. Now if you fear that my ending--”opposing the spread of Islam in the West”--implies there is a dangerous change of sizable proportions, we can change that, since that was not my intent. It was merely giving the context that we now have practicing Muslims, mosques, and other Islamic institutions that did not exist a few generations ago. The second sentence gives the details about the counterjihadi reaction to those changes. Why not include context? Jason from nyc (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Counterjihad movement's influence on European political groups

This section is opened for discussion of the Counterjihad movement's influence on European political groups.
Luther Blissetts 10:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LutherBlissetts (talk • contribs)

Resources

After reading through this talk page, I thought it might be useful to gather some reliable resources together.

• Taylor, Max; Holbrook, Donald; Currie, P.M. (2013). Extreme right wing political violence and terrorism (1. publ. ed.). London: Bloomsbury. pp. 3, 6, 12, 67–8, 171–4, 178–83, 239–49. ISBN 978-1-4411-5-162-9. Retrieved 21 May 2016.Taylor, Max; Holbrook, Donald; Currie, P.M., eds. (2013). Extreme right wing political violence and terrorism (1. publ. ed.). London: Bloomsbury. pp. 3, 6, 12, 67–8, 171–4, 178–83, 239–49. ISBN 978-1-4411-5-162-9. Retrieved 21 May 2016.
  

Luther Blissetts 11:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC) LutherBlissetts (talk • contribs)

• Deland, Mats; Minkenberg, Michael; Mays, Christin. (2014) In the Tracks of Breivik Far Right Networks in Northern and Eastern Europe: Münster: LIT Verlag. pp. 54, 57, 62, 63, 65. 66. 69. ISBN 978-3-643-90542-0. Retrieved 21 May 2016. Deland, Mats; Minkenberg, Michael; Mays, Christin, eds. (2014). Two fascisms in contemporary Europe? Understanding the ideological split of the radical right. Münster: LIT Verlag. pp. 54, 57, 62, 63, 65. 66. 69. ISBN 978-3-643-90542-0. Retrieved 21 May 2016.
  

Luther Blissetts 12:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC) LutherBlissetts (talk • contribs)
Counterjihad delegate Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff "was found guilty and fined 480 euros" "by an Austrian court of 'disparagement of a religious doctrine: namely Islam" after remarks she made at "an FPO sponsored seminar" (Rosenthal 2011:64)

• Rosenthal, John. 2011, CONTINENTAL DIVIDE: Immigration and the New European Right, World Affairs Vol. 174, No. 2 (July & August 2011), pp. 56-64, Published by: World Affairs Institute.Rosenthal, John (August 2011). "CONTINENTAL DIVIDE: Immigration and the New European Right". World Affairs. 174 (No. 2). World Affairs Institute: 56–64. Retrieved 23 May 2016. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help)
  

Luther Blissetts 13:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC) LutherBlissetts (talk • contribs)

Requested move 6 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Counter-jihad. No such user (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Counterjihad → Counter-Jihad – More common usage in the academic literature. See:

1. Lee, Benjamin (4 September 2015). "A Day in the "Swamp": Understanding Discourse in the Online Counter-Jihad Nebula". Democracy and Security. 11 (3): 248–274. doi:10.1080/17419166.2015.1067612.
2. Goodwin, Matthew J.; Cutts, David; Janta-Lipinski, Laurence (September 2014). "Economic Losers, Protestors, Islamophobes or Xenophobes? Predicting Public Support for a Counter-Jihad Movement". Political Studies: n/a–n/a. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12159.
3. Matthew Goodwin, The Roots of Extremism: The English Defence League and the Counter-jihad Challenge (London: Chatham House, 2013), 3.
4. Project Group 5, “My Enemy’s Enemy’s My Friend: Mapping and Comparing Counter-Jihad and Pro-Israel Support on Social Networks,” https://www.digitalmethods.net/CounterJihadism/ProjectGroup5
5. Project Group 10, “Reading the Counter-jihad Discourse,” https://www.digitalmethods.net/CounterJihadism/ProjectGroup10 Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I would have no objection to adopting a hyphenated version (both hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions appear to me to be used by reliable sources). But shouldn't it be Counter-jihad? I oppose moving it to Counter-Jihad. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Good Olfactory. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Good Olfactory: Maybe I'm missing something, but what is the difference between Counter-Jihad and Counter-jihad? Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The difference is the capitalization on "jihad"—"J" vs. "j". There is no difference in meaning, just one of orthography. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed, per MOS:ISMCAPS. Support as Counter-jihad. Even the quoted sources are frequently using lower-case, so we do to per MOS:CAPS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Comment Category:Counter-Jihad should be moved as well, but I'd ask for someone else to do it (or nominate it at CFD). No such user (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @No such user: I've nominated the categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment We may want to consider a move to Counter-jihad movement as it is often mentioned in the recent literature and abbreviated as CJM. Also I see "Counter-jiahd" is now being used in a completely unrelated sense as a substitute for the "War on terror"--see the book by Brian Williams [17] Jason from nyc (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Icewhiz removed sourced material here. Can the user explain why? Did the user actually read the paper and it failed verification? I recall the paper saying that counter-jihad is an anti-Muslim network.VR _talk 15:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Happy to explain (and I thought I provided an information edit summary - this is mainly due to what the lead is supposed to be:

1.The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article. In this case - a long quote, basically an opinion of one researcher from a rather random article, was inserted into the lead This informal, transnational and web-based network incites hate against Muslims as well as political opponents on the left, often by drawing arguments from a well-known and time-worn repertoire of sources. - without the source used in the body. The article from which this was pulled, wasn't focused on counter-jihad in particular but on far-right movements in Europe in general (or neo-fascist).

2. Lacking balance and NPOV. The lead is supposed to cover the subject neutrally - showing the movement aims, and then critcism.

3. Stating opinion or claims as fact (which I fixed elsewhere too, but here in the previous diff - [18]).

I don't have a problem with stating the opinion of this researcher in the body. Even in greater length - the lead should be a summary of the body, not introduce new material.

In general this article is a mess. I agree there should be a large criticism section - but criticism of the movement should be separated from the movement purports itself to be.Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism tags

@Icewhiz:, counter-jihad is not counter-terrorism. Far from that. Please educate yourself on the topic before whitewashing this hate movement. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: - see discussion on the template page - Template_talk:Terrorism. Most Counter-Jihad movements (as evidenced by the name itself!) purport to counter the "Jihadi threat" - which is variously described as terrorist or "all out war". The movement mainly rose as a response to major Islamic terror incidents (e.g. 9/11). Is it a misguided movement? Perhaps. It is still a response. Note I wasn't claiming this was counter-terrorism but rather a response (or attempt to fight) Islamic terrorism. It doesn't have to be a good response or an effective response - it just has to be a movement of some importance that is a response.Icewhiz (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

They can claim whatever they want, and we'd have to include their views in the article. I don't disagree with that. However, academic sources studying the movement have not taken their claims of fighting terrorism seriously. At least from the ones that I've come across. You don't see an engagement with this claim like you see with the movement's other views, like anti-immigration, and anti-Islam. So we can include the anti-immigration tags but not the anti-terrorism ones. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree on placing the anti-immigration tag. On counter-terrorism is I disagree - but I think I'll take this up in the future once we see what Trump's counter-jihadists (will Bannon hold sway? others?) do in practice. The question is which academics you're looking at. Obviously - anyone who is studying this in a "prejudice journal" or similar social science disciple would be looking at it via those lenses (and wouldn't be versed in counter-terror or intel work at all). I have seen some use of counter-jihad materials (and counter-jihadists as intructors) in counter-terrorism - I provided a list of sources for that in Template_talk:Terrorism - [19] [20] (seems like this is even tracked by pro-muslim groups - [21] ). [22] [23] (an Obama era purge seems to have cut some of this out of the FBI) [24] ... In any event I'm not sure I'm going to do a major editing push on this article at the moment (it needs one - the movement's views need to be clearly described (and separated into the various sub-organizations / people - of which there are several - they aren't all the same.... And the critical views of the movement need to be better organized).Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

If their counter-terrorism efforts are valued, then it wouldn't be hard to find reliable counter-terrorism sources with praise for the movement. And I see you are suspicious of social journals, because of their opposition to prejudice. But there are a bunch of journals on counter-terrorism, such as Critical Studies on Terrorism, Terrorism and Political Violence, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression...just to name a few. I doubt you'd find any that says "those white right-wing counter-jihadists are some fine people. We don't know what we're going to do without them". Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not suspicious of social journals per-se, just that I wouldn't expect Patterns of Prejudice (one of the journals cited) to publish a paper that doesn't deal with prejudice. Some of the "CJM-crowd" do provide counter-terror training (holding judgement on effectiveness in practice). The problem in sourcing here is that the CJM crowd, for the most part, don't refer to themselves as such most of the time (besides cross-group conferences, or in very narrow instances or specific groups (e.g. maybe Jihad Watch?)) - usually using specific organizational or personal affilation. As such - most writing on CJM (or for that matter Islamophobia) is by people who use the term as a derogatory label for the umbrella group - so almost by definition the use of the label implies negative coverage.... In any event - I plan to revisit this with better sources in the future.Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The movement used "counter-jihad" in the past as a badge of honor in their blogs and conferences...that is until Breivik's actions and investigation into his sources of inspiration opened a massive can of worms. It sounds like the use of CJ members for the purposes of counter-terrorism is fringe within the industry. And what sort of counter-terrorism is this, that preaches that every Muslim one encounters is a potential terrorist? Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Brekvik is more of a Euro area thing. Regarding effectivenes of treating practicing, non secular, Muslims as terror threats in the west, well, that is a question of effectiveness. How effective would that be? That would be speculative question, not for us to determine.Icewhiz (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there shouldn't be Terrorism or Counter-terrorism tags in this article.VR _talk 06:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"Critics have..."

The article says,

Critics have variously dubbed it as pro-Israel,[2] anti-Islamic[3][4][5], Islamophobic,[6][7][8][9], hate inciting against Muslims,[10] or far-right.[3][9][11]

Given the large number of high quality sources, it should be fair to remove the "critics have" attribution. Or at the very least, change it to "Academic scholars regard the counter-jihad movement to be...".VR _talk 22:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

This can not be in WP's voice. Do all academic scholars criticize the movement? That is a strong claim that is hard to verify. You could roll with "Most academic scholars who have studied counter-jihad have..." which is a stmt which easy to stand behind (it is easy to see that there is a mass of critical academics whomhave published).Icewhiz (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

An easy solution would be to simply say "It has been...". // Liftarn (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Which was the previous wording btw. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead made the change. Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Counter-jihad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710104124/http://www.tv2nord.dk/artikel/121586%3AKrimi--Anders-Gravers-Pedersen-vaeltet-omkuld-under-demonstration to http://www.tv2nord.dk/artikel/121586%3AKrimi--Anders-Gravers-Pedersen-vaeltet-omkuld-under-demonstration

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Needs work or deletion -- February 2018

The lead section is overly heavy with citations, and it would help to give a more neutral overview of information cited later in the article. see: WP:LEADCITE

Four different sources from Ben Lee are in the lead alone, representing the corpus of his published work. Mr. Lee does not appear to have expertise related to Islam, only on the internet populism and the right wing. Over-reliance on a single author may give undue weight to a single point of view on the topic, only reflecting aspects of counter-jihad that fit within his area of study, not the movement as a whole.

Lee is heavily used in the article, beginning with the first sentence, to give the impression that the counter-jihad movement deals primarily in far-right conspiracy theories.

The article should begin by laying out the claims (scholarly or otherwise) of the counter-jihad movement before going into criticism or analysis of the claims. I notice this issue is the same with Robert Spencer's WP page, in that the topic is sourced solely on criticism without the main body content of the subject being established first.

Counter-jihadists, aside from 'conspiracy theories', advance critical examination of Islamic sources of theology and current teaching, comparing them to various Islamist organizations, including mainstream Islamic teaching, purporting to raise awareness about Islamic doctrines that are used to justify violence. They also frequently focus on the Muslim Brotherhood and other fundamentalist Islamic organizations who have ties to advocacy groups in the West. Starting the article, fleshing out the article, and concluding the article with sources that categorize the entirety of this activity as far-right conspiracy theorizing is POV, since the work of self-described counter-jihad activists encompasses a much larger range of topics. Again, the WP:Undue Weight given to Lee skews the perception that counter-jihad is entirely a far-right or bigoted movement. Many activists who might fall under the counter-jihad label are in fact left-leaning ex-Muslims.

The article needs serious work or to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beepborpwhoorpp (talk • contribs) 02:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

unnecessary derogatory quote marks

The scare-quotes around the terms "keynote speakers", "country reports", and "delegates" are unnecessary, and possibly in violation of Wikipedia policy. AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)