Talk:Eurabia conspiracy theory

This article is utter shit.

This article defines Eurabia as a very specific theory of the political motivations behind mass muslim migration. Then it uses the overly narrow definition as a straw man to attack people who use the word colloquially to describe islamization of Europe without any conspiracy theory of the political motivations for it.

None 95% of the colloquial usage of the term DOES NOT involve any conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:0:1530:b48f:7ddd:69ea:34d7 (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2017‎

Agreed. The article breathes kind of appeasement and seeks for denial of obvious. It doesn't make clear the word and it's meaning in context of the real existing and future Europe. I think it lacks neutral pov and is just for negating facts so it fits an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:EA:9706:D800:2450:BB72:B701:B9EE (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I personally find that this whole article is completely out-of-date as nearly all of the references are 10, 15, or more years old now and there is no reference at all to the changes in the last couple of years, especially the mass immigration allowed by Angela Merkel and what the new percentage of the Euro population is (or will be) Muslim as a result. Back in 2010, before Angela Merkel, I would have completely agreed that the idea of an Islamic takeover of Europe would be preposterous.

The article is about the term Eurarabia, nothing else. And this isn't a venue for discussion of immigration. Doug Weller talk 11:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I was surprised to read that "Eurabia is ... used to describe a conspiracy theory". How a term can decribe a theory? I first encountered this term many years ago in a translation of a book by Walter Laquere and thought its meaning is to describe increasing cultural and institutional interdependence of Europe and the Middle East. (Hence the questions of demografics are crucial). So, I argee with above that the article defines Eurabia too narrowly and than uses this definition as a straw man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.91.49.164 (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The article rightfully explains that "Eurabia" is a malicious idea, coined by populists who strive to frighten the world for "those terrible muslims". Typically for demagogic writing, the main message is hidden as an implied presumption. Apparently the article is about an alleged increasing Arab influence, but the main message is hate against Arabs. Rbakels (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rbakels: can you suggest some reliable sources and changes you'd like to make? What you say sounds correct, but what do we do about it? Doug Weller talk

Lawyers learned me the Latin phrase negativa non sunt probanda: one can not prove that something does not happen. That applies to this conspiracy theory as well. Is there some collective intent behind the alleged mass migration from muslim countries? Who knows. That is the reason why the "Eurabia" idea is attractive for populist political use. Still the actual number of immigrants from the Middle East is much lower than most people think, which is an explicit indication. Fundamentally, the burden of proof is on the side of people who pretend Eurabia is coming. I think they will fail. Rbakels (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Anon here. Agree the article is shit. Example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurabia#Demography

> Demography > The Pew Research Center said in 2011 that "the data that we have isn't pointing in the direction of 'Eurabia' at all"

LOL. The 2015 migration crisis seems relevant to Demography. The article is shit, which is not surprising on wiki political topics. Math coverage is great though --136.49.80.62 (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Original research is prohibited in Wikipedia articles, so a proposed change would need to substantiate the claim with a reliable source that connects the 2015 European migrant crisis to the Eurabia conspiracy theory. — Newslinger talk 08:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Extremely poor article

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be neutral & unbiased? This article paints anyone who rejects Islamic migration into Europe as a far right wing lunatic. I find that absolutely outrageous, radical, and far left wing. Does this mean everyone about to vote in the upcoming French election for anti-immigration candidates is delusional? Any westerner who wants to preserve western values is equal to a 9/11 conspiracy theorist? Absolutely unacceptable for Wikipedia. Manchester18 (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

As stated in the article, the term Eurabia refers to a "far-right Islamophobic conspiracy theory, involving globalist entities allegedly led by French and Arab powers, to Islamise and Arabise Europe, thereby weakening its existing culture and undermining a previous alignment with the United States and Israel". Opposition to immigration to Europe is covered more broadly at Opposition to immigration § Europe. Most people who oppose immigration to Europe do not invoke the Eurabia conspiracy theory. — Newslinger talk 08:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

political neologism, a portmanteau

The terms political neologism, a portmanteau appear in the first sentence of the article.

I am not a native speaker of English but I believe that even native English speakers aren't familiar with these two terms and that anyway even most native English readers will feel a psychological twitch or would be biased when coming across these two works juxtaposed and hence I think that the first sentence of the article should not include these words. 2A10:8012:19:AD67:81FC:8744:739A:CC41 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately these are the words in English that have exactly the meaning required. It could be said in a more long-winded way but to do so would give undue space to the etymology (which is important enough to be in the lead). Both terms have links to articles that explain them if needed. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I have seen the Blue links but it doesn't matter; I personally find a problem of reading flow, when these two words are juxtaposed in this context, to the level which I find the article failing to pass on the message at its core. 2A10:8012:19:AD67:4820:3F5B:E02B:F013 (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I think is is OK. The only way to make it simpler would be to recast the introduction to be more directly about the conspiracy theory and less about the term itself. E.g.

Eurabia is a far-right, anti-Muslim political conspiracy theory, which alleges that globalist entities, led by French and Arab powers, seek to Islamize and Arabize Europe, thereby weakening its existing culture and undermining its previous alliances with the United States and Israel. The name Eurabia is a neologism, composed as a portmanteau of Europe and Arabia.

That only helps a little bit so I'm not sure if it is worth doing. Maybe it would be good to break up the longer sentences but I can't see a nice way to do that. DanielRigal (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how best to phrase the opener, but based on your quote, I suggest this:

Eurabia is an anti-Muslim concept, which alleges that globalist entities, led by French and Arab powers, seek to Islamize and Arabize Europe, thereby weakening its existing culture and undermining its previous alliances with the United States and Israel. The name Eurabia is a neologism, composed as a portmanteau of Europe and Arabia.

Arabia or the Arab world

Eurabia is comprised of Europe and Arabia, no doubt, but the context is "The Arab World" (which is a predominantly Muslim), hence wouldn't it be better to write "portmanteau of Europe and the Arab world"? Thanks. 2A10:8012:19:AD67:4820:3F5B:E02B:F013 (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

No, because where would the "ia" bit come from? The whole point of a portmanteau is that it is fitting two words together. We need to say which two words. The portmanteau of "Europe" and "the Arab world" would probably be "the Eurarab world", which is not the same word as "Eurabia", even if it is only very slightly sillier. Anyway, it is not what the sources say and we are not allowed to just make stuff up. DanielRigal (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

We should quote the sources right, I agree. What's wrong with a link such as [[The Arab world|Arabia]]? 2A10:8012:19:AD67:4820:3F5B:E02B:F013 (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Because it is an easter egg link, what belongs there is the word Arabia. Because what the sentence is talking about is the word itself. nableezy - 19:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you technically, but as long as "Arabia" links to an article about the Arabian Peninsula there is a context problem. 2A10:8012:19:AD67:2CFD:3FC6:E921:7E72 (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)